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!!!
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!!!