# Wedding Photography - Nikon D7000



## mrsharon2005

Hello!

I&#8217;m hoping you can all help me out. I have gotten into wedding photography and currently shoot with a Nikon D90. I&#8217;m going to invest in the D7000 (use my D90 as a back-up) and would like to know which lens to purchase.

I have:
50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED Nikkor Lens

Any advice??  I'm looking to spend <$1,000 for a solid lens.  I love the 105mm, however, want to ensure that the next lens I purchase will be the last for quite some time.  

Thank you in advance!


----------



## Restomage

If you are looking to seriously get into wedding photography you will need to invest close to $10,000 - $15,000 as a main shooter to start out. Please keep that in mind and please don't think you can shoot weddings without professional equipment; yes it can be done however your clients will not be pleased.

However on your current budget I would recommend finding a used 80-200mm AF-S (70-200mm if you can find one) or a 85mm 1.4. Good luck!


----------



## MarkF48

Besides what you've indicated, what other equipment do you presently have for weddings? Are you looking at the D7000 as a purchase to be later after the lens purchase? 
I wouldn't even consider taking on a wedding without having an absolute bare minimum of.....

- (2) Camera bodies
- Either a lens in a range of about 17-50 or 24-70 with an aperture of f/2.8
- Lens 70-200 f/2.8
- Lens 50 or 85 f/1.4 or f/1.8
- (2) Shoe mount flashes (flash bracket optional)

I shoot Canon, so I can't suggest anything specific to Nikon.

Also take into account the cost of good software and monitor calibration hardware for post processing. You will need to have good workflow consistency and efficiency.

I usually would have on hand more gear than listed above so as to be prepared for any situation that might arise. If you can't deliver the goods, be prepared for the consequences.


----------



## flea77

I am shooting with a D7000 primary and D90 backup as well. Here is what I have found:

12-24 f4: Having 2.8 on this lens really is not needed, this is the one I use to get in shots of the bride getting dressed. You need the 12mm because the distance from the back of the bathtub to the mirror is usually quite small  Seriously though, if you want shots in close quarters, this is it. Couple it with a SB-600 to bounce and it does a good job.

24-70 2.8: This is the main lens I use for groups, the dance, setups (food, tables, rings, etc), I could not do without it.

80-200 2.8D AF-D Two Ring: This is my primary lens during the ceremony. It allows you to get the shots at the altar without being in someone's face, with the 2.8 you can get outstanding bokeh to really make the couple stand out and have enough speed to shoot without flash. I also could not do without this lens.

50 1.8, 85 1.8, 24 2.8, 105 2.8 Micro: These are handy to have as well for specific shots but the action is such that they should be aquired after the first three.

Good luck!

Allan


----------



## Light Artisan

You can pick up a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX Macro HSM II for about $799 at Adorama, mine suited my quite well until I could find a means to get the Nikon 70-200 with VR.

The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro HSM is a very nice lens as well if you can't afford the Nikon stuff at this time.


----------



## Phil Holland

mrsharon2005 said:


> Hello!
> 
> Im hoping you can all help me out. I have gotten into wedding photography and currently shoot with a Nikon D90. Im going to invest in the D7000 (use my D90 as a back-up) and would like to know which lens to purchase.
> 
> I have:
> 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
> 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED Nikkor Lens
> 
> Any advice??  I'm looking to spend <$1,000 for a solid lens.  I love the 105mm, however, want to ensure that the next lens I purchase will be the last for quite some time.
> 
> Thank you in advance!



Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?


----------



## Light Artisan

Phil Holland said:


> Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?


 
Please explain how you shoot illegally, and why it matters for your additional info.


----------



## Phil Holland

Light Artisan said:


> Phil Holland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how you shoot illegally, and why it matters for your additional info.
Click to expand...


If you don't have a business license and are not collecting tax for your state you are not in compliance with the law. 

If that's the case I personally won't offer any suggestions. 

If you are taking the steps to be legal and above board I'd love to offer advice. 

That's why.


----------



## flea77

Light Artisan said:


> You can pick up a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX Macro HSM II for about $799 at Adorama, mine suited my quite well until I could find a means to get the Nikon 70-200 with VR.
> 
> The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro HSM is a very nice lens as well if you can't afford the Nikon stuff at this time.


 
I would actually recommend the Nikon 80-200 2.8D instead of the Sigma, better glass and better build quality for about the same money, IMHO.

Allan


----------



## Light Artisan

flea77 said:


> Light Artisan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can pick up a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX Macro HSM II for about $799 at Adorama, mine suited my quite well until I could find a means to get the Nikon 70-200 with VR.
> 
> The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro HSM is a very nice lens as well if you can't afford the Nikon stuff at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would actually recommend the Nikon 80-200 2.8D instead of the Sigma, better glass and better build quality for about the same money, IMHO.
> 
> Allan
Click to expand...

 
Have you used both? Because I have... the focussing on the Sigma is much faster in my opinion, and I don't think you'd be able to tell a difference in IQ, I couldn't. The Nikon was a little more contrasty perhaps, but the Sigma definitely holds its own.

Just a quick grab out of my Flickr:




Mallard by Light Artisan Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Formatted

If your serious about wedding photography.

Your not just going to need all the camera gear but thats going to set you back 10,000 or so. Your going to need a business license, website, portfolio, accountant and so much more.

Its a massive commitment and if you aren't doing it properly your damaging the industry for everyone else. You'll be under cutting legitimate photographers who have properly invested.

So if your going to do it go for it. Other wise don't both your doing more harm than good.


----------



## ghache

Phil Holland said:


> Light Artisan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Holland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how you shoot illegally, and why it matters for your additional info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't have a business license and are not collecting tax for your state you are not in compliance with the law.
> 
> If that's the case I personally won't offer any suggestions.
> 
> If you are taking the steps to be legal and above board I'd love to offer advice.
> 
> That's why.
Click to expand...

 
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL:lmao:


----------



## flea77

Light Artisan said:


> Have you used both? Because I have... the focussing on the Sigma is much faster in my opinion, and I don't think you'd be able to tell a difference in IQ, I couldn't. The Nikon was a little more contrasty perhaps, but the Sigma definitely holds its own.


 
I have to admit I have not used the Sigma II, but have used his older brother and own the 24-70 2.8 siggy. When I used the older version it focused about the same speed and felt like a fisher price toy compared to the Nikon which is pretty much one big hunk of steel and glass. 

So since I have not used the newer one, I went looking for reviews. DPreview.com was happy with the lens although they did mention some issues with image quality such as:



> Image quality when shooting at short focus distances with wider apertures is distinctly weak, with a combination of general softness, focus shifts due to spherical aberration, and red/cyan fringing around slightly out-of-focus regions (due to axial chromatic aberration) giving very unconvincing imaging indeed.


 
and...(emphasis is mine)



> The optics are perfectly competent, if not outstanding; indeed the lens is really very good towards the short end, *but weaker at 200mm, where it's slightly soft and suffers from relatively high levels of chromatic aberration*.


 
From what I can tell reading reviews, and from remembering the older version, it also does not have weather sealing which the Nikon does.

DPreview does not review the Nikon so I went to other places. Fred Miranda lists the lens and it seems to have comments for both the original and II siggys showing 64% of the people would recommend it with an overall rating of 7.8. The Nikon is also reviewed these showing 95% of the people would recommend it with a overall rating of 9.4.

Then if you like Ken Rockwell (I like some of his stuff, don't like some of it, meh) he talks about the Nikon as:



> This Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (new) is the world's best buy in professional telephoto zooms.


 
Instead of that, lets look at the #1 seller of photo equipment online, B&H Photo. The Sigma lens you mention has 126 reviews, 4.5 stars, 8 people say it focuses slow and 5 people say it has blurry focus. The Nikon lens has 196 reviews, 5 stars, 5 people say it focuses slow (you would expect more since it has more reviews) and 0 people say it has blurry focus.

Now, add all that together and that is why I recommended the Nikon over the siggy. Not that the siggy is a bad lens, but if I was in that price range already, I would go ahead and spring for the Nikon. I bought my 24-70 siggy because the Nikon was $1700 and the siggy was $550 so I got 90% of the performance for less than 1/3 the price, that is not true with the 70/80-200 2.8 lenses.

Allan


----------



## Formatted

WARNING OFF TOPIC!



> This Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (new) is the world's best buy in professional telephoto zooms.



Nikons 200-400 f4 is probably the worlds best telephoto zoom. Since there is nothing else like it in the world, super sharp and great auto-focus.


----------



## karenli

my friends have done some other short film with D7000,
you can see what lens they use in the description.~

by Jocelyn Tam





by Maia Horniak
[video=vimeo;18083132]http://vimeo.com/18083132[/video]

by Shern Sharma


----------



## dchaney

Many amatuer and intermediate photographers are obessed with getting the best equipment and many so called professionals claim you need to spend thousands of dollars for acceptable client images. Buy the best to be the best.  This is so ridiculous and snobbish. The truth is... get the best within your budget.  It is the Indian and not the arrow.  Example, Chase Jarvis's a book, "The Best Camera is the One That is With You." Shot entirely with an iPhone.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

flea77 said:


> I am shooting with a D7000 primary and D90 backup as well. Here is what I have found:
> 
> 12-24 f4: Having 2.8 on this lens really is not needed, this is the one I use to get in shots of the bride getting dressed. You need the 12mm because the distance from the back of the bathtub to the mirror is usually quite small  Seriously though, if you want shots in close quarters, this is it. Couple it with a SB-600 to bounce and it does a good job.
> 
> 24-70 2.8: This is the main lens I use for groups, the dance, setups (food, tables, rings, etc), I could not do without it.
> 
> 80-200 2.8D AF-D Two Ring: This is my primary lens during the ceremony. It allows you to get the shots at the altar without being in someone's face, with the 2.8 you can get outstanding bokeh to really make the couple stand out and *have enough speed to shoot without flash*. I also could not do without this lens.
> 
> 50 1.8, 85 1.8, 24 2.8, 105 2.8 Micro: These are handy to have as well for specific shots but the action is such that they should be aquired after the first three.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> Allan



Could you please tell me what ISO you leave your D7000 set to when indoors shooting with that lens on f2.8 with available light?


----------



## flea77

I have the ISO set to auto with a minimum shutter speed of 1/400th or faster at f2.8. This allows the camera to adjust to the different lighting conditions and give me the lowest possible ISO at the given shutter speed.

Allan


----------



## jackies35

Restomage said:


> If you are looking to seriously get into wedding photography you will need to invest close to $10,000 - $15,000 as a main shooter to start out. Please keep that in mind and please don't think you can shoot weddings without professional equipment; yes it can be done however your clients will not be pleased.
> 
> However on your current budget I would recommend finding a used 80-200mm AF-S (70-200mm if you can find one) or a 85mm 1.4. Good luck!



Wow?  $10,000???  Why would someone need that much to start out.  I live her in the city and I've seen these amateur (very artsy kids) create and capture weddings with their eyes closed.  Yes, they are using the 5d Mark II, Nikon D700, or (2) Nikon D90...yea, I was shock to see this.  Anyway, they have some Primes but they are (well, was) artist.  Their composition, angles, creativity, and passion for photography really shows in their work.  Oh, and they don't have close to $10,000 to invest yet. 

I was in shock when this pretty little Korea chick had the 2 Nikon D90 shooting a wedding in Central Park.  Yes, I took a double take looking for her parents and she was doing her thing alone!  Very sweet and nice.  She pointed me to her bag because I whisper (gesture), business card and I see it on the ground sticking out of her bag.  Wait until I find it and put up you her website link.

These kids are doing their things!!!  I am jealous and scared of doing weddings because the expectation is too high.  But, I really didn't know you had to invest $10 to 15K to run a wedding photography business.  I have a lot to learn.


----------



## jackies35

Great tips Flea 77!!!  Looking into some nice lens and always wanted to know what lens were used to capture wedding shots.


----------



## jackies35

Phil Holland said:


> Light Artisan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Holland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how you shoot illegally, and why it matters for your additional info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't have a business license and are not collecting tax for your state you are not in compliance with the law.
> 
> If that's the case I personally won't offer any suggestions.
> 
> If you are taking the steps to be legal and above board I'd love to offer advice.
> 
> That's why.
Click to expand...


Oh, no... are you serious?  I took pictures at fairs, trade shows, baby showers, birthday parties, and at sweet sixteen.  I don't remember how much I've collected and i hope you don't tell on me.  

Should I be concerned?  I don't do weddings because it's challenging and hard.  However, I feel sorry for those amateurs who didn't know this and are under 18 years old.
I know...  I know... You probably think I am crazy but their was a chick who created a website "www.whateverlife.com" back in the days.  Her story was on the news and online.  She designed and made very beautiful templates for people on Myspace.  She dropped out of school and gave her friends jobs in her basement.  Yea, I think her parents made sure all the proper tax info was in place and organized.  So, some people may not know this.
Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## virustai

Phil Holland said:


> mrsharon2005 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Im hoping you can all help me out. I have gotten into wedding photography and currently shoot with a Nikon D90. Im going to invest in the D7000 (use my D90 as a back-up) and would like to know which lens to purchase.
> 
> I have:
> 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
> 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED Nikkor Lens
> 
> Any advice??  I'm looking to spend <$1,000 for a solid lens.  I love the 105mm, however, want to ensure that the next lens I purchase will be the last for quite some time.
> 
> Thank you in advance!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?
Click to expand...


LOL, people are talking about Licenses, Taxes, Equipments, and $10000+ to invest for wedding photography. but they just forget about photography is an ART! ART will never judged by how much an artist invest into the business and did he or her pay taxes?!?! LOL


----------



## cgipson1

virustai said:


> Phil Holland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mrsharon2005 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello!
> 
> I&#8217;m hoping you can all help me out. I have gotten into wedding photography and currently shoot with a Nikon D90. I&#8217;m going to invest in the D7000 (use my D90 as a back-up) and would like to know which lens to purchase.
> 
> I have:
> 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
> 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED Nikkor Lens
> 
> Any advice??  I'm looking to spend <$1,000 for a solid lens.  I love the 105mm, however, want to ensure that the next lens I purchase will be the last for quite some time.
> 
> Thank you in advance!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, people are talking about Licenses, Taxes, Equipments, and $10000+ to invest for wedding photography. but they just forget about photography is an ART! ART will never judged by how much an artist invest into the business and did he or her pay taxes?!?! LOL
Click to expand...


Trolling on old threads, are we?


----------



## Audible_Chocolate

Phil Holland said:


> Light Artisan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phil Holland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain how you shoot illegally, and why it matters for your additional info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don't have a business license and are not collecting tax for your state you are not in compliance with the law.
> 
> If that's the case I personally won't offer any suggestions.
> 
> If you are taking the steps to be legal and above board I'd love to offer advice.
> 
> That's why.
Click to expand...



WOW... hahahaha calm down


----------



## smithstudio

I would like to suggest 

17-55mm 2.8
Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 lens


----------



## Scoody

I am doing weddings with an investment of about $4000 in equipment. Most of it I had before I ever shot my first wedding and was little more than a hobbyist.  Since my motorcycle accident rendered me unable to return to my former job I have made the jump from hobbyist to professional out of necessity.


----------



## jaomul

This thread is years old


----------



## TWright33

Lol

4 years old and still going


----------

