# I'm buying a 50mm lens for weddings...which one should I get?



## roxysmom (Feb 6, 2008)

I have been preparing to do weddings and have several booked in 2008.  I have done 5 so far as "practice" weddings now I'm ready to make it a business. 

Right now I have a Nikon D80 with a 18-135mm lens.  I am planning getting an additional Nikon D80 as a backup body and a 50mm lens for indoor use.  

Would you get a Nikon 50mm 1.8 or should I go lower?  I know it's more of an investment but I'm sure it will payout over time and result in much stronger photos. 

Your opinions are appreciated!


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 6, 2008)

I'm not so sure about Nikon...but in the Canon line up, the 50mm F1.8 is a cheap lens.  It's optically quite good but the build quality is cheap.  For wedding work, it's well worth the investment to get the 50mm F1.4, which is still a good lens for the price...(around $400).


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 6, 2008)

just go for the 1.8, and save the money for the other investments down the road: a few speedlights and an 80(or 70)-200 f/2.8, 17-55 f/2.8, a super wide like a 12-24, memory, tripods, lightstands, umbrellas, other misc lighting gear.

And backup stuff too.


----------



## skieur (Feb 6, 2008)

The 50mm 1.8 in both Nikon and Canon apparently test out better than the faster 1.4 lenses.

skieur


----------



## emogirl (Feb 6, 2008)

jeez..no comparison, get the 1.4, its wayyyyy sharper!


----------



## notelliot (Feb 6, 2008)

emogirl said:


> jeez..no comparison, get the 1.4, its wayyyyy sharper!


no it's not. the bokeh is marginally smoother. build and overall IQ are pretty much alike.


----------



## JIP (Feb 7, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> just go for the 1.8, and save the money for the other investments down the road: a few speedlights and an 80(or 70)-200 f/2.8, 17-55 f/2.8, a super wide like a 12-24, memory, tripods, lightstands, umbrellas, other misc lighting gear.
> 
> And backup stuff too.


 
I agree, you need the 70-200VR 2.8.


----------



## MichaelT (Feb 7, 2008)

May I ask why you want a 50mm lens?  If it was me, I'd get a better zoom lens.  Then you can use the one you have now for a backup.


----------



## roxysmom (Feb 12, 2008)

Everyone tells me that a 50mm lens is great for weddings when working with digital.  It allows me to not have to use a flash yet when I do the finishing work on the computer I'll have clear shots.  If I get a larger zoom camera it won't help me in a low light situation.  How would you handle the no flash or low light situation with a larger zoom?


----------



## JIP (Feb 12, 2008)

Honestly you are really better off buying someting like a 35mm focal-length lens to use as your only fast lens for weddings.  But still I would go with the 70-200Vr 2.8.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Feb 12, 2008)

I use the 50mm 1.4 for weddings all the time, it is a great lens and worth the extra money over the 1.8 for build quality alone.

Invest in good Glass, now while the 50mm 1.4 is not as expensive as a 70-200 2.8 it is still GOOD Glass


----------



## chrisgillett (Feb 15, 2008)

I just picked up the 50mm 1.8 and it's a GREAT lens. I've tried a few portrait shots with it and it's amazing. It's so crisp and you'll get away without a flash most of the time. I'm on a D40 and have the ability to rock ISO 1600 no problem with pretty low noise. The only thing I hate with the D40 is I can't auto-focus this lens. I have to manually focus due to the lack of AF-S.

Either way if you're looking for a slightly cheaper lens with excellent quality the 1.8 is a terrific lens!


----------



## D-50 (Feb 15, 2008)

I like the 1.8. for half the price of the 1.4 I say go for it furthermore for $100 you cannot go wrong with this lens. As for build quality I held both side by side and honestly there was not a huge difference. Yeah the 1.4 felt a bit more solid but for twice the price I would not say its worth it. I find the 1.8 to be pretty sharp as well. Worst case if you hate it you're only out $100 which in the camera world is really nothing.


----------



## federerphotography (Feb 22, 2008)

For wedding photography (receptions, actually) get the fastest glass you can afford, period.  The 150 dollar difference means nothing compared to what you should be getting paid for a wedding - one good shot should make the lens pay for itself.

On a d80, a 50mm makes for a great unobtrusive package.  It'd be great sitting on a second body at the ready for those 'photojournistic' shots.

Now when you start looking at the 200f/2VR (@4200 dollars) vs the 70-200f/2.8(@1700) that little extra speed might not be worth the money... but for an extra 150 dollars you can get and extra 2/3 stop.  Totally worth it for great wedding photographs.

If I had your gear, I'd first buy the 50mm, then a second body.  You simply CANNOT shoot a wedding with just one body... you must have a backup in case it breaks.  Then I'd be looking for a flash so that you slow zoom lens would be useful in wedding receptions.


----------



## Anelle (Feb 24, 2008)

I don't know anything about using the 50mm for weddings, but the 50mm 1.4 is WAY better than the 1.8.  I had the 1.8 and the body quality is plasticky compared to the 1.4.   

Also with the 1.8 the focus was sometimes hit and miss whereas I don't have the same problem with the 1.4.

The 1.4 is faster (and quieter) than the 1.8.
'
My opinion:  Spend the extra on the 1.4.  YOU WILL LOVE IT!

Anelle


----------



## Socrates (Feb 24, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> I'm not so sure about Nikon...but in the Canon line up, the 50mm F1.8 is a cheap lens.  It's optically quite good but the build quality is cheap.  For wedding work, it's well worth the investment to get the 50mm F1.4, which is still a good lens for the price...(around $400).



It's pretty much the same story with Nikon.


----------

