Nikon 18-140mm vs 18-200mm Opinions???

[Shades of Blue]

I recently shot my sister's wedding with a 50mm f/1.8 and a 55-200. This was my first "real" wedding and it went very very well, and I was pleased with the results. For the shots of the decorations and venue outside, I did throw on the 18-55mm for a few wide shots and was also pleased.

Now, I'm looking into a 18-XXX lens to replace the 18-55 and 55-200. I would like sort of a do it all lens or events where you don't really have time to change lenses or cameras. I just don't know if the 18-200 is really the better choice over say the 18-140.

The 50mm is my favorite lens and I love it, but I needed zoom during the ceremony itself. Yes I could have gotten up close and personal, but I chose to hang back and remain sort of out of the way. I am not shooting weddings on a regular basis, and mainly just did it because my little sis asked me to be her photographer.

So, what do you guys prefer?

 

[robbins.photo]

I guess my first question would be, how many "fake" weddings have you shot?

Ok, well setting that aside for now...

Any lens that covers such a wide variance in focal lengths is going to involve more than a few compromises in design. They are not going to be as sharp or for the most part or provide as good of image quality as most other lenses that cover a shorter variance in focal lengths. That's why you don't see a lot of professional photographers using something like an 18-200 very often.

So if your shooting for fun, these lenses might be worth a look. If your planning at some point to actually charge for your services, I don't think either is really something worth investing in.

 

[Shades of Blue]

I guess my first question would be, how many "fake" weddings have you shot?

Ok, well setting that aside for now...

Any lens that covers such a wide variance in focal lengths is going to involve more than a few compromises in design. They are not going to be as sharp or for the most part or provide as good of image quality as most other lenses that cover a shorter variance in focal lengths. That's why you don't see a lot of professional photographers using something like an 18-200 very often.

So if your shooting for fun, these lenses might be worth a look. If your planning at some point to actually charge for your services, I don't think either is really something worth investing in.

Thanks for the reply...

To clarify, I should have said traditional wedding (yes, poor choice of words on my part). I've only shot one other very small wedding for a friend. It was deemed a "redneck" wedding and consisted of camouflage attire and jeans. VERY informal and I did not receive any compensation.

So allow me to ask what lens you would recommend for shooting the ceremony in and of itself? The only weddings I'm planning to shoot are the ones for friends in which I am asked. Generally speaking, these involve friends who are on tight budgets and choose not to pay very much at all for a photographer.

And I get it...I come across as the guy that has a camera and thinks he's a photographer. I do this for fun, rarely is money involved.

 

[robbins.photo]

I guess my first question would be, how many "fake" weddings have you shot?

Ok, well setting that aside for now...

Any lens that covers such a wide variance in focal lengths is going to involve more than a few compromises in design. They are not going to be as sharp or for the most part or provide as good of image quality as most other lenses that cover a shorter variance in focal lengths. That's why you don't see a lot of professional photographers using something like an 18-200 very often.

So if your shooting for fun, these lenses might be worth a look. If your planning at some point to actually charge for your services, I don't think either is really something worth investing in.

Thanks for the reply...

To clarify, I should have said traditional wedding (yes, poor choice of words on my part). I've only shot one other very small wedding for a friend. It was deemed a "redneck" wedding and consisted of camouflage attire and jeans. VERY informal and I did not receive any compensation.

So allow me to ask what lens you would recommend for shooting the ceremony in itself?

Well a lot depends on budget of course. For the ceremony my first choice would probably be a 70-200mm 2.8 of some sort combined with hopefully a full frame camera body.

 

[Shades of Blue]

I guess my first question would be, how many "fake" weddings have you shot?

Ok, well setting that aside for now...

Any lens that covers such a wide variance in focal lengths is going to involve more than a few compromises in design. They are not going to be as sharp or for the most part or provide as good of image quality as most other lenses that cover a shorter variance in focal lengths. That's why you don't see a lot of professional photographers using something like an 18-200 very often.

So if your shooting for fun, these lenses might be worth a look. If your planning at some point to actually charge for your services, I don't think either is really something worth investing in.

Thanks for the reply...

To clarify, I should have said traditional wedding (yes, poor choice of words on my part). I've only shot one other very small wedding for a friend. It was deemed a "redneck" wedding and consisted of camouflage attire and jeans. VERY informal and I did not receive any compensation.

So allow me to ask what lens you would recommend for shooting the ceremony in itself?

Well a lot depends on budget of course. For the ceremony my first choice would probably be a 70-200mm 2.8 of some sort combined with hopefully a full frame camera body.

Ok thanks. I think the lens you mention and a full frame Nikon would be the ultimate goal, but I simply don't have the cash right now. Maybe after my 10th "real" wedding (see what I did there?) and a wild night at the local bar I will have enough courage to sell some gear and spring for something more professional. Of course, who am I kidding, I'll never truly be a wedding photographer lol.

I'll also fully admit that about a year ago I launched out and tried to take photos for people other than family and friends. What I found is that when someone really likes your work, they start a pinterest board and steal your ideas. Next thing you know, you see pics of their family up on facebook looking extremely familiar...

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok thanks. I think the lens you mention and a full frame Nikon would be the ultimate goal, but I simply don't have the cash right now. Maybe after my 10th "real" wedding (see what I did there?) and a wild night at the local bar I will have enough courage to sell some gear and spring for something more professional. Of course, who am I kidding, I'll never truly be a wedding photographer lol.

I'll also fully admit that about a year ago I launched out and tried to take photos for people other than family and friends. What I found is that when someone really likes your work, they start a pinterest board and steal your ideas. Next thing you know, you see pics of their family up on facebook looking extremely familiar...

Well if your on a budget you can get a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 without the optical stabilization for around $400 or so, which is pretty reasonable. A Nikkor VR-1 is about $1000 used, but worth every single penny. The VRII's are still new enough that even used your not getting much of a price break from new, usually $1600 or so.

For full frame I highly recommend the D600 - you can get a used one for about what a D7200 would run you. Again, worth every penny.

This was shot with a Sigma 70-200mm HSM I F/2.8 :

20160905_0533 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

 

[KmH]

Superzoom (10x or more zoom range) have to be designed around an amazing number of compromises, such that no one makes a superzoom lens that does not have a plethora of image quality issues.

If you want convenient - get a supper zoom.
If you want high quality photographs, use more than 1 lens. Change lenses or use a second body with a second lens already mounted and ready to go.
Lots of wedding photographers go the 2 body/lens route and favor a fast (f/2.8) 24-70 mm lens and an f/2.8 70-200 mm lens.
New, Nikon's AF-S f/2.8 24-70mm is about $1800 and their f/2.8 70-200 mm is about $2800.
Used or refurbished copies of those 2 are usually available.

When I shot action sports I used 3 camera bodies and lenses.

 

[greybeard]

I shoot weddings for friends and relatives too. The last one I shot I did entirely with my 16-85 3.5-5.6. and had no problems what so ever. Either lens you are looking at should do just fine.

 

[PaulWog]

I think most people think they need more zoom when they really need to compose differently. Sometimes filling the frame with just the people you are targeting the camera at isn't the way to go.

On a DX system, I strongly advise a lens such as a 17-50 f2.8. The shallower depth of field, and better light gathering, cannot be overstated as benefits. The 55-200 wouldn't disappear as an option, you'd just have to switch lenses.

The best situation for a wedding is to have two+ shooters, or at least having two cameras on you. This means less compromises. One telephoto, one normal zoom, both at the same time, would make a lot of sense. For someone not being paid, this certainly might not be feasible. Regardless though, I would personally think the 17-50 f2.8 is the better choice. Alternatively, Sigma's 17-70 f2.8-f4 OS Macro looks like an appealing option. The added macro capabilities are invaluable for weddings.

 

[astroNikon]

Most newer wedding photographers start out with basic equipment and move up the ladder sooner or later if they really are developing some type of business or secondary income.

With that in mind, you mostly have to look at what situations you trying to compensate/improve for or fill in the gaps of issues that you had. If you found yourself at 18 and 200 a lot then that would define a "1 fit lens" of 18-200.

Generally weddings are known as "low light" events, meaning (excluding supplementary lighting) the camera & lenses low light ability become paramount.

If you are satisfied with your results then your choices of 18-105, 18-140 would be the best options for IQ. As you get longer, the 18-200 starts losing IQ. But if it works ...

 

[goodguy]

I am an event photographer doing mostly weddings and it is very much a matter of what you see yourself doing.
Do you want to shoot friends weddings from time to time then an 18-140mm will be ok for that but if you are planning to get serious and shoot for money then I would recommend getting fast lenses, they cost more but will really be worth it.
Few advantages of good fast lens is its ability to soften background (bokeh), bring more light onto sensor, they build better and offer superior image quality.
You also need to know if you want to go prime root or zoom root.
You can shoot a whole wedding with primes, zooms or combination of both.

Another factor you need to consider is if you plan on sticking with DX or will move eventually to FX body.
Don't buy DX lenses if you see yourself going FX in the future.
There are lots of good and not expensive DX or FX lenses I would recommend for beginning like Nikon 24-85mm VR for FX or Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 for DX, also I think a 70-200mm 2.8 is an important tool in an event photographers kit
To that you might want to add flashes, flash triggers, some softboxes and more and more but I am getting to deep here.

 

[Derrel]

A lot of weddings are held in the summer, in bright lighting conditions, so the f/5.6 limit on maximum aperture is "workable" during sun-shine hours in the bright months of the year. There's a bit of disconnect here, suggesting 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for a DX-format shooter: that lens is for FX format cameras...you'd be better off with a 50mm f/1.8 G-series lens than a 70-200, which on DX Nikon is a "sniper scope" lens, almost un-usable in 75% of indoor situations on a DX camera.

Nikon makes the 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom expressly for DX shooters. Consider that the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for a DX format camera becomes a 37mm to 107mm lens with Nikon's 1.52x FOV factor. it takes a 16,17,or 18mm bottom end to create anything resembling real wide-angle on a DX Nikon. And that is why there are 16-85mm, and 17-55, and 18-105,18-135,18-140,and 18-200 mm lenses from Nikon, for DX cameras.

 

[robbins.photo]

A lot of weddings are held in the summer, in bright lighting conditions, so the f/5.6 limit on maximum aperture is "workable" during sun-shine hours in the bright months of the year. There's a bit of disconnect here, suggesting 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses for a DX-format shooter: that lens is for FX format cameras...you'd be better off with a 50mm f/1.8 G-series lens than a 70-200, which on DX Nikon is a "sniper scope" lens, almost un-usable in 75% of indoor situations on a DX camera.

Nikon makes the 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom expressly for DX shooters. Consider that the 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for a DX format camera becomes a 37mm to 107mm lens with Nikon's 1.52x FOV factor. it takes a 16,17,or 18mm bottom end to create anything resembling real wide-angle on a DX Nikon. And that is why there are 16-85mm, and 17-55, and 18-105,18-135,18-140,and 18-200 mm lenses from Nikon, for DX cameras.

Guess it sort of depends. Granted there was no "disconnect" in the original recommendation, which stated rather clearly "combined with an FX body of some sort".

However in a lot of weddings I've attended a 70-200mm would be a better option than a 50mm even on APS-C considering the distance from the altar. I dunno, maybe the churches out here are just bigger on average.

 

[PaulWog]

If we're talking best DX wedding photography gear, this would be my kit:

1) Sigma 18-35 f1.8
2) Sigma 50-100 f1.8
3) Tokina 11-20 f2.8 Pro DX
4) Possibly also a 17-50 f2.8 with optical stabilization for extra reach & the optical stabilization feature
5) A macro lens
6) Two camera bodies
7) Flashes and whatever extras needed

How expensive is the setup? Not as expensive as FX. But it's a practical setup. The 18-35 and 17-50 might seem redundant, but I think each serves a slightly different purpose... if absolutely stellar wedding photography results is the goal.