Nikon 18-200mm AF-S f/3.5-5.6 and Weddings

[JIP]

+1



back on subject however I would??? recommend these lenses for wedding (I prefer the canon's on a professional level however nikons glass is good too)

.

I hope you meant to say not rcommend right??

 

[AdamZx3]

no, I would recommend those for a nikon body, both are good lenses but I prefer canons because their autofocus in general is faster, and I like their 70-200 L IS better than nikons, from what i've read the canon trumps it in image quality, and is an inch shorter. I however have not used the nikon 70-200.

 

[JIP]

What lens are you talking about.

 

[Don Simon]

Presumably Adam was referring to the ones he listed, namely...

70-200 VR 2.8 for those candid photojournalistic style shots
28-70 2.8 great all around lens
85mm 1.4 good for low light situations

...

as opposed to the 18-200mm.

 

[JIP]

Well I'll wait for his confirmation if so I guess it was a mis-communcation with him.

 

[PushingTin]

I have the 18-200 and although a great "general use" and "travel" lens, I would not even consider it for a wedding shoot.

I also have the 70-200 VR and the image quality from this lens is absolutely amazing and also has constant 2.8 aperture.

Would I sell my 18-200, no because of its versatility, but if it got lost/stolen would i replace it? Proberbly not...

 

[jstuedle]

no, I would recommend those for a nikon body, both are good lenses but I prefer canons because their autofocus in general is faster, and I like their 70-200 L IS better than nikons, from what i've read the canon trumps it in image quality, and is an inch shorter. I however have not used the nikon 70-200.

The current pro Nikkor AF-S line of autofocus glass is every bit as fast to focus as the white lens guys. And yes, Nikkor pro glass is sharp, tack sharp. But this slooooow lens (Slow as in aperture, not focus acquisition. Even though it is much slower than the pro AF versions) is NOT suited for weddings. There is a reason wedding photography is expensive. Pro equipment is expensive. But pro's expect to get super sharp, high contrast and true color in poor lighting conditions. I had a guy tell me he was going to start shooting weddings with a D40 and the kit lens. Good Luck, the most skilled wedding photographer is severely handicapped with this class of equipment. A few years ago good wedding photographer would show up with a kit including 3 Hassy bodies, three fast lenses, a wide, normal, and portrait tele. Each rig typicaly had a Lunidyne flash, 2 external Lumidyne battery packs and a few film backs. He/she might also bring studio strobes, tripod and a makeup artist. Equipment wise, about 35K easily could be spent to start. The typical couple spending the same 2-3.5K expect the same quality from that D40 shooter as from the Blad shooter.

 

[JIP]

The current pro Nikkor AF-S line of autofocus glass is every bit as fast to focus as the white lens guys. And yes, Nikkor pro glass is sharp, tack sharp. But this slooooow lens (Slow as in aperture, not focus acquisition. Even though it is much slower than the pro AF versions) is NOT suited for weddings. There is a reason wedding photography is expensive. Pro equipment is expensive. But pro's expect to get super sharp, high contrast and true color in poor lighting conditions. I had a guy tell me he was going to start shooting weddings with a D40 and the kit lens. Good Luck, the most skilled wedding photographer is severely handicapped with this class of equipment. A few years ago good wedding photographer would show up with a kit including 3 Hassy bodies, three fast lenses, a wide, normal, and portrait tele. Each rig typicaly had a Lunidyne flash, 2 external Lumidyne battery packs and a few film backs. He/she might also bring studio strobes, tripod and a makeup artist. Equipment wise, about 35K easily could be spent to start. The typical couple spending the same 2-3.5K expect the same quality from that D40 shooter as from the Blad shooter.

Bravo!!! there are alot of "I got a D40 I can shoot weddings" types here but I wont get into that right now. I agree to get into shooting medium format weddings when I started (in the stone age before digital) I invested $5200 and still felt I was short of the gear that I needed that was 2 ETRSI bodies a normal lens a short tele and 2 flashes. When I got into digital another $3500 and I am nowhere near where I reallt should be to shoot weddings although I have. So having said all that the 18-300 is a very inapropriate wedding lens.

 

[D40]

Hey, I am not trying to say I got the D40 so I could go pro. I bought it as an upgrade from a point and shoot camera (Fujifilm S5100) for everyday shooting. Onece I started learning about photography and I joined this forum I started getting more and more interested in maybe doing photography work on the side. I was shooting at a concert last Friday for practice and yesterday while I was in the store a guy came up to me who had recognized me from the concert and we started talking. Turns out he is a wedding photographer and once we got on that subject the conversation just ran away on a photography path. He asked if I would like to come and help/learn how Weddings are done and that is were I am at. If I do decide to do it on the side I will most deffinently be getting a D200 and a much better lens. When I got the D40 I thought it was just for my love of taking pictures, I wasnt thing of going pro or els I would have saved for the D200. If the photographer lets me I will use my D40 just to help and get into it while saveing for the D200 then I will, but I will not be using the D40 as my main camera if things work out

It just sounds like some of you are not happy with me for owning a D40 and talking about weddings so I wanted to clear some things up I love the info by the way, Thanks!

 

[JIP]

Well, I was wandering if this lense would make a good wedding/ portrait lens. If anyone has used it or heard anything about it, I would love to hear what you have to say. Also, I have the D40 and now that I am learning more I am wandering if I may want to upgrade to say a D80 or D200? I will first be getting a good lens like the one in question but for shooting weddings and portraits I was wandering if I would be better off getting a D80 body to go with the new lens and use the D40 as a backup? Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated

This was your question if you may want to upgrade and I think the answer is a resounding yes. I think you should have made your most recent post your first it would have been very helpful to get this kind of detail up front. In your case to start out you may just be assisting you may never shoot for a while. Another thing that is possible is your friend might let you use some of his gear to start with. All the detail is important in a post. So to answer your question "do you need to upgrade" I say absolutely if you laready have a D40 great save up for a D200 as a primary body and use the D40 as a backup. When you mention the 18-200 as a "good lens" this may be the case to some but if you are buying gear for wedding photography it is not. Save up for 2.8 lenses and learn as much as you can from your friend.

 

[hawee99]

so i have the AF-S DX 18-135 f/3.5-5.6. I asumme this means I can only set the aperature on my D80 of a range from 3.5-5.6. Correct? However the manual for the lens says "Aperature range f/3.5-f/22 (at 18MM) and f/5.6-f38 (at 135mm) I'm confused

 

[sabbath999]

When you mention the 18-200 as a "good lens" this may be the case to some but if you are buying gear for wedding photography it is not. Save up for 2.8 lenses and learn as much as you can from your friend.

Now that I TOTALLY agree with. Additionally, to do weddings right you will also need to have professional quality lighting, the little pop-up flash isn't going to do it. As you are talking with people already in the business, pay special attention to how they set up their equipment, what they use and how they meter it.

 

[selmerdave]

so i have the AF-S DX 18-135 f/3.5-5.6. I asumme this means I can only set the aperature on my D80 of a range from 3.5-5.6. Correct?

No, it means those are the maximum aperatures, plural because with that lens the maximum aperature changes with focal length (as you zoom). So...

However the manual for the lens says "Aperature range f/3.5-f/22 (at 18MM) and f/5.6-f38 (at 135mm) I'm confused

Those are your aperature ranges for each end of the zoom range, hence the maximum opening of "3.5 - 5.6". Aperatures can always go smaller, and smaller is of less importance than how much it opens, so usually the point of interest in a lens is the maximum aperature.

Dave

 

[hawee99]

whoa that actually made sense. i read it six times, but it clicked. hahaha

 

[jstuedle]

Hey, I am not trying to say I got the D40 so I could go pro. I bought it as an upgrade from a point and shoot camera (Fujifilm S5100) for everyday shooting. Onece I started learning about photography and I joined this forum I started getting more and more interested in maybe doing photography work on the side. I was shooting at a concert last Friday for practice and yesterday while I was in the store a guy came up to me who had recognized me from the concert and we started talking. Turns out he is a wedding photographer and once we got on that subject the conversation just ran away on a photography path. He asked if I would like to come and help/learn how Weddings are done and that is were I am at. If I do decide to do it on the side I will most deffinently be getting a D200 and a much better lens. When I got the D40 I thought it was just for my love of taking pictures, I wasnt thing of going pro or els I would have saved for the D200. If the photographer lets me I will use my D40 just to help and get into it while saveing for the D200 then I will, but I will not be using the D40 as my main camera if things work out

It just sounds like some of you are not happy with me for owning a D40 and talking about weddings so I wanted to clear some things up I love the info by the way, Thanks!

Please don't take my comments that way. I was reacting to the comment that the lens you asked about was appropriate for weddings. It is a capable lens, but not up to the quality level required to do weddings for hire. Wedding photography is a tough and competitive market. And truth be told, a lot were shot with D1X's and similar cameras. But the current digital market dictates more MP's and higher resolution lens that will do the job in difficult lighting conditions. That means fast f/2.8 or faster glass of great quality. The current crop of pro cameras are approaching medium format film quality. BUT, the high end pros are now going to medium format digital. Like the Hasselblad H1D with 22 MP back at about 22K or a capture 39MP back for the Hassy at about 32K (just the digital back, plus camera and lens) The quality of this type of equipment would be what a good photographer is up against in the wedding market. I don't say this to discourage you, just to let you be aware of what is expected of us when we tell someone we are a professional wedding photographer. No matter the price quoted, this is what our work is compared against. I wish you luck, and let us help where we can. A place you could start is shooting receptions. The D40 with say a 17-55 f/2.8 AF-S ED-IF G DX would make an acceptable choice considering the cameras narrow field of lenses. I am not a fan of DX format glass, but it's really the only choice you have in a fast zoom in a range appropriate for indoor receptions. Again, I didn't intend to sound harsh, and the comment was not directed at you concerning your choice of cameras. All of our equipment has limitations, we just need to recognize what those limitations are and learn to utilize our gear as best we can.