# Wedding + Must Have Lens (NIKON)



## anuarD (Jun 6, 2010)

sorry i new in photography, and sorry for my broken english.
i just wondering what is the best lens or must have lens for wedding.
thanks in advanced.


----------



## Live_free (Jun 6, 2010)

If you are asking that you are not ready to shoot a wedding or even remotely where you should be. 


But the best lenses would be a 24-70 and 70-200 on an FX camera.


----------



## anuarD (Jun 7, 2010)

thanks bro..  just planning for the future.. and how about DX format... which lens is appropriate? and do we need wide angle lens for wedding? or just 70-200 and 24-70 is enough? or any third party lens also can comply to shot wedding?


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 7, 2010)

anuarD said:


> thanks bro..  just planning for the future.. and how about DX format... which lens is appropriate? and do we need wide angle lens for wedding? or just 70-200 and 24-70 is enough? or any third party lens also can comply to shot wedding?



24-70, 70-200, and yes a wide angle is beneficial. A macro lens is also a good idea for close-ups of shoes, rings, etc. 

I'd also throw in a 50mm 1.4 for those tricky low(er)-light situations.

You can shoot DX, however the ISO performance on FX cameras like the D700 are out of this world and can really save your life in the low lighting that wedding photographers have to shoot in.


----------



## anuarD (Jun 7, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> anuarD said:
> 
> 
> > thanks bro..  just planning for the future.. and how about DX format... which lens is appropriate? and do we need wide angle lens for wedding? or just 70-200 and 24-70 is enough? or any third party lens also can comply to shot wedding?
> ...



so for conclusion i must have this lens:
normal zoom : 24-70 
telephoto zoom : 70-200 
macro : 105
prime : 50 
wide angle zoom : ???? any suggestion?
maybe new body ?? 

for now i already had D90+18-200+50 1.8...
and which one i should get first~
because i intend to do wedding after this~ please help me ~i don't want make wrong decision~ got $4000 in my saving... and hope my mom don't know this~ hehhehe


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 7, 2010)

I would get the 14-24 for the wide angle. 

As for when you upgrade your body, I would look into the D700 or its upgrade which should be in the next few months. 

Other than that, your list looks good to me. Now you just need the practice/experience of shooting a wedding. I would try to get a gig as a second shooter for someone.


----------



## anuarD (Jun 7, 2010)

thanks bro.. u help me a lot.. 

so what i need to do now.. buy 14-24 & D700 + experimental the wedding techniques

or 

buy 14-24 & 70-200 for my D90, is it good option?? for D90~


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 7, 2010)

anuarD said:


> thanks bro.. u help me a lot..
> 
> so what i need to do now.. buy 14-24 & D700 + experimental the wedding techniques
> 
> ...



I'd buy the better glass first for two reasons:

1) You don't absolutely NEED the better body until your pictures actually count for something. When you are just learning, or as an "apprentice" and no one is paying you for your images, then the lenses will be more beneficial to your shots. Fast, sharp glass is a necessity. 

2) By the time you are ready to upgrade, the D700 might have its upgrade out, which will allow you to either get the new model, or pick up the old model for cheaper.

If you want to upgrade your body now and can only get one lens for the time being, I would get the D700+70-200 rather than the D700+14-24. 

I would say you need to have at least a year of experience as a second or third shooter until it becomes so imprinted into your brain that you feel you can do it on your own and not ruin one of the most special days in someones life. Shooting weddings is widely accepted as being the most difficult form of photography you can get into. You need to be a master at it before you ever do one on your own.


----------



## anuarD (Jun 7, 2010)

so.. just buy a lens.. 70-200 & 12-24 (same as you)~ and practice~ i will not do the wedding in this year~ intend to do after i confident with my skill and knowledge~ just want the best lens for better result~ anyway thanks bro~ :mrgreen:


----------



## Josh220 (Jun 7, 2010)

anuarD said:


> so.. just buy a lens.. 70-200 & 12-24 (same as you)~ and practice~ i will not do the wedding in this year~ intend to do after i confident with my skill and knowledge~ just want the best lens for better result~ anyway thanks bro~ :mrgreen:



14-24, not the 12-24. Don't purchase any DX lenses. 

When I go to full-frame I'll be getting either the 14-24 or 16-35 to replace my 12-24. 

The new 70-200 VR2 is the next lens on my list to get. 

Practice, practice, then practice some more. I cannot stress this enough. There are too many sub-par (and downright horrible) wedding photographers out there. You want to spend your time booking weddings, not fighting people in court for delivering poor quality images and ruining their special day. 

This is something that takes years to get to the level where you can legitimately shoot weddings on your own.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jun 7, 2010)

If saving $$ is a concern: an 80-200mm f2.8 af is far cheaper with the same image quality--you won't have VR, and the focus is slightly slower; neither of which are much of a concern at a wedding.

I'm not a wedding photographer, but I have shot weddings for friends--I keep the 80-200mm on my camera 90% of the time; I also take along a 24mm, and 50mm prime which I prefer over a zoom for their speed and how small and lightweight they are.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jun 7, 2010)

17-55 f/2.8 for DX

24-70 f/2.8 for FX

70-200 f/2.8 on both



Or have a bag of fast primes.


----------



## anuarD (Jun 7, 2010)

17-55 f/2.8  don't plan to get this one.. because rarely use range between 30-50... rather have 70-200 and 14-24... so can 14-24 fit in my D90 body? any pros & cons?


----------



## eric-holmes (Jun 7, 2010)

This thread is awesome.


----------



## Okwy (Aug 31, 2011)

first,am new here and got attracted by the way you guys in this forum share knowledge and help each other,that's awesome.

About the topic,just like a lot of people have said earlier,17-55 and 70-200 all F2.8 may well be all you need to cover a wedding;but if your budget can't afford those,you can opt for the 18-55 which is very affordable then get a  lumiquest  flash bounce system (make sure you purchase the strap to help you hold up the bounce system to the flash very well) to help you deal with the low light situation you are likely to encounter during the twilight of the event. with the above and a good flash you will be pretty satisfied.


----------



## Josh220 (Aug 31, 2011)

IMO if someone can only afford an 18-55 then they should look into another field besides wedding photography. You can even rent the proper gear and then make the purchase when you can afford it. Shooting something like a wedding with a kit lens is just asking for problems.


----------



## joealcantar (Aug 31, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> 17-55 f/2.8 for DX
> 
> 24-70 f/2.8 for FX
> 
> 70-200 f/2.8 on both


I like this answer and combo, know you (OP) mentioned you rarely shoot the 30-50 range but the 50mm range on a DX body is the 80mm range (Portraiture) 17-55 is a great lens. 
-
Shoot well, Joe


----------



## Mike_E (Aug 31, 2011)

Get a second body and a 35mm f1.8 then get either an 85mm f1.8 or the 80-200mm f2.8.

Then you need to look into lighting.  Look hard into lighting  You can usually tell a $100 hack from a real pro by the lights he uses.

I wouldn't go in with less than 12 gb of memory cards either.  I'd stick with 4 gigs each in case one gets corrupted.  You also need to look into insurance both for your equipment and against personal lawsuits if something goes bad.


----------



## Josh220 (Aug 31, 2011)

Keep in mind this thread is over a year old. "Okwy" brought it back from the dead, and I have yet to figure out whether he is sincere or a troll.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 31, 2011)

Wedding shoot plans before lenses/knowledge, why not purchase a set of surgical tools and plan some operations too


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 31, 2011)

It seems to me from the quantity of posters that are going to shoot weddings that there is a very fertile market for wedding shooters. And that market includes those pros who do not have the primo gear or the primo knowledge, but that the segment seems to be half of the posters who say they shoot weddings without being geared to the hilt.

Cadillac and Chevy. A fit for everyone.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 31, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> It seems to me from the quantity of posters that are going to shoot weddings that there is a very fertile market for wedding shooters. And that market includes those pros who do not have the primo gear or the primo knowledge, but that the segment seems to be half of the posters who say they shoot weddings without being geared to the hilt.
> 
> Cadillac and Chevy. A fit for everyone.


I don't feel like that comparison works.  A Chevy will still get you from Point A to Point B.  Heck, so will a Kia.  

A lot of these 'pro' wedding photographers without the right gear are taking out of focus, underexposed, and motion blurred photos.  Even taking quality and composition aside, shouldn't they still be expected to have the gear and the knowledge to at least take shots that are properly focused, acceptably sharp, and properly exposed?  To me, that would be the Chevy equivalent.

When you buy a Chevy, they don't have to ask how many tires they should use, if they actually need to use a doors, what settings to use on their ignition system, or what kind of effects the gas pedal, brakes, and engine performance have on the final product.  They already know the basics.

Knowing what equipment is needed, how to shoot in difficult situations, and what settings to use for those situations, is IMO, part of the basics.

We get 'photographers' here that just bought a camera, don't know how ISO/aperture/shutter speed effect photos, don't know how to use a flash, and don't even know what lesnes they need, but they are 'ready' to shoot a wedding.

If you want to stick with car comparisons, I think the more appropriate one would be a Ferrari and a Yugo.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 31, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> I don't feel like that comparison works.  A Chevy will still get you from point A to Point B.  Heck, so will a Kia.
> 
> A lot of these 'pro' wedding photographers without the right gear are taking out of focus, underexposed, and motion blurred photos.  Even taking quality and composition aside, shouldn't they still be expected to have the gear and the knowledge to at least take shots that are properly focused, acceptably sharp, and properly exposed?  To me, that would be the Chevy equivalent.
> 
> ...



No one cares. The wedding market segment still exists for anyone with a camera with interchangeable lenses.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 31, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> No one cares. The wedding market segment still exists for anyone with a camera with interchangeable lenses.



Until they get sued, have to explain the quality of their work in front of a court, have to explain their lack of tax status, have to explain how they aren't a registered business, and have to explain to their family how that 'easy money on the side' just bankrupted them.  Sounds like a great plan...


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 31, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> Until they get sued, have to explain the quality of their work in front of a court, have to explain their lack of tax status, have to explain how they aren't a registered business, and have to explain to their family how that 'easy money on the side' just bankrupted them.  Sounds like a great plan...



Stop. The exception rather than the norm. It's still buyer beware. Give a  bride pictures and shell be happy no matter what. 

As I said, in the  film days the friend tried to shake me down for money for the photos. I didn't ask him to take them. He created a book and wanted me to pay. I told him no thanks but paid for his. suite when he got married and his card was declined to secure the room at check in. 

Monied brides are of a different standard. Ergo Cadillac to Chevy. 

If someone is taking wedding pix out of good nature at no cost help them succeed for the bride. 

Karma is powerful.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 31, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Most of the people that ask this quesiton aren't people who are taking pix out of good nature at no cost.  They are people who booked a wedding, are charging people for their services, and don't have the knowledge or tools to deliver.

The others are people who just want to learn more and shoot a few shots at a friends wedding.

I have never shot a wedding on my own.  I've been a third shooter at fairly high end weddings for about a year now.  We actually have a completely different philosophy towards 'Uncle Bob's' or 'friends with cameras'.  At just about every wedding I have shot, there have been guests that have asked me what settings I'm using, why their pictures aren't coming out great, or how to shoot in certain circumstances.  You know what I do?  I tell them.  For those that don't know how to adjust their settings, I do it for them.  We want everybody to get great photos and to enjoy themselves.  We also usually step in when the Bride or Groom are unsure about what to do next, help with tying ties or bow ties that nobody knows how to tie, remind other vendors about flowers that haven't been passed out, and generally just try to help out anyway we can.

In my opinion, there is a huge difference between helping a guest at a wedding get good shots vs trying to explain to a photographer who is getting paid for his services what equipment and what settings he should use.  It's kind of a moral thing.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Aug 31, 2011)

anuarD said:
			
		

> sorry i new in photography, and sorry for my broken english.
> i just wondering what is the best lens or must have lens for wedding.
> thanks in advanced.



Here is the OP.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Aug 31, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> anuarD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The OP hasn't even visited this site since November of 2010.  I'm not sure the original post really matters at this point.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Aug 31, 2011)

Wonder how many weddings he's shot


----------



## niptate (Nov 4, 2013)

I realize this is an old topic, but I thought I'd throw in my suggestions on wedding lenses for Nikons if you're on a budget.  Here's my current lineup:  Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0; Nikon 35-70 2.8; Nikon 70-210 4.0; Nikon 50 1.8D; Tokina 100 2.8 Macro.  I think I spent about $1,200 for the whole bunch and they are all excellent, fast and sharp.  The current 24-70 and 70-200 may focus a split second quicker, but with the exception of the Tamron, I doubt you could tell the difference.  And you'll save enough money for a new D800.  An added bonus is combined they don't weigh as much as the 70-200 2.8.


----------

