A set of primes or the 17-55 2.8????

madtonic

TPF Noob!
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
First off I will state the equipment I already own. D7000, 18-200 VR, 35 1.8G, 50 1.8D, and 60 2.8 Micro. I also have plans to purchase a 70-200 VR in the next year (my goal is by next hockey season). I have been using the lenses I have to do some portrait work for my family and friends, mainly of children. I have recently been asked by a friend to shoot a wedding. They are doing it on a budget and I am willing to do anything for a free dinner and open bar!!!

Just because I am not getting paid for the wedding doesn't mean I don't want to do the best possible job and use the best equipment that is realistic to my budget. I thought to my current equipment I would like to add an additional lens. This wedding may be a good excuse. I have seriously been going back and forth between the 17-55 2.8 and the 85mm 1.8. Are the primes that I already have good enough for covering the range of the 17-55 or is that just a stellar lens that needs to be in my bag. Also if I went the 85mm route, I would still have enough budget to buy a 50mm 1.4 and sell of the 1.8.

Just curious what peoples opinion is on the 35/50/85 trio vs having a 17-55 in terms of shooting weddings and outdoor portraits. That is all I really will be using it for so thats all I care about. If it makes any difference, I have an old D80 that if I fix it I could use as a second body for holding one of the other primes so I am not having to remove lenses as often.

I know this debate has been brought up before, just looking at it from the specific aspect of wedding/outdoor portraits and taking into account what is already in my stable.

Thanks guys. I posted once before when deciding between lenses. Liked the responses so much I bought both!!! :lol:
 
There are some people who swear by primes for wedding work (Robin Usigani is one), and others who prefer zooms. For the small amount of wedding work I do, I prefer fast zooms which give me that extra degree of flexibility. The 85mm focal length is definitely one that should be in every portrait shooter's bag, but it's less beneficial on a DX body IMO. Of the two, given your circumstance, I would go for the 17-55.
 
How much are you looking to spend? You might want to consider investing in a full frame camera such as the D610 rather than getting deeper into DX with the 17-55. If you don't resell your D7000, you could use it as a backup body / shoot with two camera bodies. With that said, you'd be left with the 50mm 1.8D and 60mm 2.8 Micro, and the 35mm 1.8G sort-of as your usable lenses. Anyway, just a thought.

If it's not a shift to FX, I think tirediron pretty much has said it.
 
Think I am going to stick with DX for probably two more years. The urge is there to go big but no point in spending the money until I have mastered all the photography concepts, gear, and am ready for the better features. I could probably get a 17-55 around here for $750-850. Im comfortable with using it for a few years and if I upgrade to FX camera selling it for a small loss. So far that lens has maintained a pretty consistent value.

Thanks for the input. I was leaning towards the zoom. Changing lenses in less than optimum conditions makes me nervous.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk 2
 
Just make sure you have enough time to switch between these primes during the often quickly required shots. The wedding will not go on your pace, you have to keep in pace with the wedding, nothing worse than missed shots. For that reason, and especially being it your first wedding, I'd go with a fast mid range zoom.
 
My first post in this forum. I am just now re-entering the craft of photography after a 20+ year hiatus. Maybe I can give a contrasting, or "fresh", perspective from my own experience, which many would label "old school". By the way, much of what I learned matches what, at the time, had been preached to me by more experienced and pro photographers who were "old school" back then, some 30 years ago. I didn't always listen, only to learn from experience just how knowledgeable that advice really was. Photography hasn't changed, light and exposure certainly hasn't changed. Digital equipment today is not all that different from what 35mm film equipment was in the '70's, 80's, 90's relatively speaking. I'll put med and lg format aside. I won't "pull any punches" and I stress anything said is in no way meant to be offensive, but rather to set about the thinking process. After all, "thinking" is really what produces journeyman in any craft.

I'll get to the chase. Looking at the equipment you own, I have to ask, is the 18-200mm at 1.25lbs too heavy for you? Is the SB-800 to bulky for you? If yes, why do you own them? If no, why would you not use them for wedding photos? A word from experience about your apprehension, yes your right, you DON'T want to be changing lenses more then you have to at a wedding! You also shouldn't even be thinking about available light photography, which is the only reason I can think why you would burn money on a fast zoom for the purpose. The only possible scenario the 18-200mm would not "fit" is on the wide end and that isn't even a probable (or is it a factor you've even considered) unless you are stuck in a very confined space, which you would want to avoid anyway. You have to "think" about the photos you'll take. Personally, I would be thinking more about existing light exposure/color balance and iso range in conjunction with flash rather then "collecting" more lenses at this stage. You have an amazing wiz bang flash that is more then you'll need 97+% of the time along with a camera and lens, that together, once set up, will do all the "hard" work of focusing and balancing exposure. What you need to think about is framing, steadying the camera in low background light if you want to keep lower iso values, think about the possible need for monopod or tripod, dedicated flash cord for off camera flash and flash diffusion. That's it along with extra batteries and storage.

It is very easy to get wrapped up in collecting equipment rather then thinking about what it takes to make a photograph. I went through that myself early on, it happens to easy. You have to stop to ask yourself, are you collecting equipment or practicing photography?
 
Your 50mm 1.8D comes out to around 75mm and will work great for portrait type work similar to the 85mm.

Anyhow, I don't do weddings but my thoughts would be to use 2 cameras if you want to shoot with Primes. My thought process is that weddings can move fast and switching glass during the event could cost you. Now this doesn't mean I don't think one could shoot with zooms using multiple bodies, I just think it's essential for primes. If all you have is a single body (I strongly suggest at least renting a 2nd camera), then yes, I would diffidently use a Zoom. As for the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8, I can't say enough about this lens. It's fast and sharp. I'm going to have a hard time letting it and my D7100 go.
 
It is very easy to get wrapped up in collecting equipment rather then thinking about what it takes to make a photograph. I went through that myself early on, it happens to easy. You have to stop to ask yourself, are you collecting equipment or practicing photography?

I think a big issue with the 18-200 is that you can't achieve a nice shallow depth of field with the lens like you could with a 17-55 f2.8 (mm for mm).
 
Your 50mm 1.8D comes out to around 75mm and will work great for portrait type work similar to the 85mm.

Anyhow, I don't do weddings but my thoughts would be to use 2 cameras if you want to shoot with Primes. My thought process is that weddings can move fast and switching glass during the event could cost you. Now this doesn't mean I don't think one could shoot with zooms using multiple bodies, I just think it's essential for primes. If all you have is a single body (I strongly suggest at least renting a 2nd camera), then yes, I would diffidently use a Zoom. As for the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8, I can't say enough about this lens. It's fast and sharp. I'm going to have a hard time letting it and my D7100 go.
All one needs to do is have more distance between the subject and background or use a slightly longer focal length in portraits or for that matter, a little post process background blur will work as well. However, the 50mmis should be an ideal portrait tool in the DX format. In film, I liked the 100mm but quite often found myself stressed for distance needed in social settings. I fell in love with an 85mm when I finally got one. I love using prime lenses for "my own" personal photography where I have full control. Doing weddings and social events the settings more often then not dictate what is needed unless your OK with a lot of cropping or simply use a zoom, it gets the job done Sharp focus and even lighting is essential and that is why I use flash for everything, I just make it as soft and even as I can with just a tad of sparkle for the most appreciated results. Other then events or items to display, I really don't use flash and prefer working with natural light. I don't like doing weddings. It's not the type of photography I enjoy. In the past I did it only because friends and relatives just assume that's what I do because I had cameras. I did 7 or 8 weddings all told in years past. Just enough to learn through mistakes. I did one where the couple had separated before the photos were even processed.
 
Last edited:
Your 50mm 1.8D comes out to around 75mm and will work great for portrait type work similar to the 85mm.

Anyhow, I don't do weddings but my thoughts would be to use 2 cameras if you want to shoot with Primes. My thought process is that weddings can move fast and switching glass during the event could cost you. Now this doesn't mean I don't think one could shoot with zooms using multiple bodies, I just think it's essential for primes. If all you have is a single body (I strongly suggest at least renting a 2nd camera), then yes, I would diffidently use a Zoom. As for the Nikon 17-55mm 2.8, I can't say enough about this lens. It's fast and sharp. I'm going to have a hard time letting it and my D7100 go.
All one needs to do is have more distance between the subject and background or use a slightly longer focal length in portraits or for that matter, a little post process background blur will work as well.

This is true but knowing my luck, I would run into a situation where I didn't have the room to move. So I would use twin camera bodies with deferent focal length glass.
 
I would want to have the 17-55 f/2.8 for the constant f/stop, and the wide-to short tele equivalent that it gives. The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 would probably be a second choice, but very close in FL range. Primes are what they are...one trick ponies. I grew up shooting primes. Honestly, I think Nikon and Canon both have lens lineups that greatly favor full-frame shooters, and disadvantage APS-C shooters. Despite what some would have you believe, a 24mm wide-angle prime is NOT the same thing on a crop-body as a 35mm prime is on a FF body.

Same goes for the 50mm primes on a crop-body versus an 85mm prime on a FF camera... not even close.

Get the tool that will allow you to select the RIGHT focal lengths needed on a crop-body camera; there's aREASON that Nikon and Canon and Sigma and Tamron all make f/2.8 lenses that start at 16 or 17mm and run up to 50 or 55mm at the long end.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top