Wedding Photographers - lens suggestions

[lynweber]

So I'm editing my post. I really want the 70-200 2.8 now where to get one!!!!! I think that is my next lens what your opinions?

[OsmosisStudios]

Your first issue is why you have overlapping focal lengths (70-200 range) already. Either keep the 55-200 or the 70-300, OR replace both with the 70-200/2.8.

What do you shoot? Weddings? Then, depending on the situation, you may be better served with a 24-70 f/2.8. 70-200 can be quite long, especially on a crop body.

I think you've got other places you could improve your equipment before jumping into the $2000+ lenses. The other thing I would suggest is learning some better flash techniques: some of your images could sincerely benefit from it. Looking at your images, I can't see why you'd need much telephoto, tbh.

[lynweber]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Your first issue is why you have overlapping focal lengths (70-200 range) already. Either keep the 55-200 or the 70-300, OR replace both with the 70-200/2.8.

What do you shoot? Weddings? Then, depending on the situation, you may be better served with a 24-70 f/2.8. 70-200 can be quite long, especially on a crop body.

I think you've got other places you could improve your equipment before jumping into the $2000+ lenses. The other thing I would suggest is learning some better flash techniques: some of your images could sincerely benefit from it. Looking at your images, I can't see why you'd need much telephoto, tbh.

To reply I would get rid of the 55-200 but I want to keep the other for macro. The 70-200 is a 2.8 way better then the two. I would NOT spend 2000 but would be happy with the sigma or tamron version sold here for 700. You think I should upgrade my camera don't you?
I am delighted that you must have checked out my facebook page. You spoke of "better flash techniques" like what? I have considered the lens you mentioned and i will be trying both out first. But that would still be overlapping but I feel eiher would improve.

[scootermcq]

I have both the 28-70 and 70-200 in 2.8. I have only gotten into wedding photography, but I have shot 6 wedding so far this season.

I have only used the 70-200 in one of the 6 weddings. It is too long for most uses. Remember it is like shooting a 105mm lens on a full frame camera. The 28-70 gets 99.99% of the use, and in all honesty I would prefer an 18-50 f2.8. I have had quite a few large family shots at weddings where it has been a b!tch to frame them with a 28mm lens (read 42mm on crop body) Obviously if there is enough space to back up, then it is not a problem, but in close quarters it can be a bit on the long size.

I think the perfect lens for a wedding shooter would be an 18-200 f2.8 if such a beast existed, but I am starting to think about keeping my lenses for when light is lower and just getting an 18-200 f3.5-5.6 for outdoor and flash work.

Bottom line is I think you will not get too much use out of a 70-200

[lynweber]

Good points. I was really wanting the 28-70 but then was swayed by another photography i seen at a wedding using the 70-200. I think I'll still rent them both and see what happens I have two wedding coming up next weekend and this a great time to use them both.

Are there are lens options that you feel would be beneficial for weddings?

[scootermcq]

I think you will be happy with the 28-70 and it is a good wedding lens. One other thing to think about is a long telephoto lens gives a "voyeuristic" feel where the 28-70 is more intimate, which is kinda what most of us are after at a wedding. It covers a good range (42-105mm) and if you need wider for a family portrait, then you can always use your kit lens for the 18-50mm range.

[Shokinen]

Also, keep in mind people tend to react differently when they see a big lens and you want them to be natural.

I always found it funny that when I shoot in public, I don't get any attention while using my 35mm, and suddenly, people start looking at me when I pull out the 70-300... Most people associate big lens with long focal lenght (in my case it's true haha). So, they might think you are using "a big zoom" (like most people are calling it hehehe) because of the size of the 24-70 and you may not get the reactions you are looking for.

A 50mm f/1.4 (because the f/1.8 will not autofocus on your D5000) might be a good idea as well. The 24-70 is still top of it's class though.

Just something to think about

[pmarkstone]

I have shot several weddings, and I have used the 70-200 f2.8 on every one of them. I use it to get great shots of the ceremony itself without having to use flash (which many venues do not allow) and without being obtrusive during the ceremony. I also get some great portrait shots with the longer lens. I do agree, however, that the 24-70 is probably the better all around lens for most wedding shots.

Flash techniques (as mentioned) are just as important (if not more so) as lens choice. Unfortunately the D5000 doesn't support Nikon CLS, which I have found to be a great tool when shooting weddings. Also, I wouldn't shoot a wedding (or other event) without a good off camera flash support like Flip Flash. But that's just MHO.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by lynweber

To reply I would get rid of the 55-200 but I want to keep the other for macro. The 70-200 is a 2.8 way better then the two. I would NOT spend 2000 but would be happy with the sigma or tamron version sold here for 700. You think I should upgrade my camera don't you?
I am delighted that you must have checked out my facebook page. You spoke of "better flash techniques" like what? I have considered the lens you mentioned and i will be trying both out first. But that would still be overlapping but I feel eiher would improve.

Well, for starters, the 70-300 isnt a macro lens. It's designated "Macro" by the manufacturer, but really it just has close focusing abilities, letting it get 1:3 reproduction. If you want Macro, get a macro.

I'd just ditch both telephotos.

I never said anything about your body: The D5000 is a fine body. The problem is that all your lenses are bottom-of-the-scale in terms of where they fit in the Nikon lens lineup. THAT'S what needs to be updated first.

"Better flash techniques" refers to A) not using the flash on camera, B) learning how to properly do fill flash, C) diffusing your fill flash to get a softer tone, D) colouring your fill flash to match the ambient colour light and, possibly more importantly, E) shooting so that you dont have to use fill.

Frankly, unless you're willing to spend a good chunk of change and change most of your lenses wholesale, you're in for a rough ride.

[lynweber]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Well, for starters, the 70-300 isnt a macro lens. It's designated "Macro" by the manufacturer, but really it just has close focusing abilities, letting it get 1:3 reproduction. If you want Macro, get a macro.

I'd just ditch both telephotos.

I never said anything about your body: The D5000 is a fine body. The problem is that all your lenses are bottom-of-the-scale in terms of where they fit in the Nikon lens lineup. THAT'S what needs to be updated first.

"Better flash techniques" refers to A) not using the flash on camera, B) learning how to properly do fill flash, C) diffusing your fill flash to get a softer tone, D) colouring your fill flash to match the ambient colour light and, possibly more importantly, E) shooting so that you dont have to use fill.

Frankly, unless you're willing to spend a good chunk of change and change most of your lenses wholesale, you're in for a rough ride.

Thanks for the advice. I will be upgrading many of my lenses soon.