Can anyone suggest me a DSLR with lens, My budget is $1100.

[fjrabon]

Primes bad for weddings wut!?

OP buy a good prime or two, it's an investment that will prove itself for years to come.

You guys had me second guessing myself on this point, so I asked one of the local wedding photographers I know from my photography meetup group who gets bookings like its going out of style here in Atlanta. He's been really helpful to me, even though I'm not really interested in shooting weddings. He kind of chuckled at using a prime lens for weddings at all.

Here is his lengthy, but helpful, response: "The whole thing with a prime lens is being able to move around to frame your shot correctly. As a wedding photographer, you often times are stuck where you are at moments. You can't just willy nilly force 7 people to move because you want to be in tighter if you notice the bride is doing something spontaneous across the room, a picture that she would probably buy. You use a zoom. You preferably use two bodies, with two zooms. But shooting a wedding with a prime lens is pretty funny actually. It might work for a handful of shots, but practically you cannot afford, either time wise or money wise, to either change back and forth between a prime and the more useful zoom, and it would be a waste of space and money to have a body dedicated to a prime lens. Perhaps if you are one of those guys with an assistant, who takes the body you aren't using at that time and changes the lenses for you, MAYBE you use a prime, but really, I don't know any wedding photographers that would even bother with a prime lens on a wedding shoot even if they had an assistant. Today's good quality zooms, and if you're doing wedding photography you're going to use a good quality zoom, are not appreciably less sharp than a prime. Sure, your images need to be sharp, and all that, but at the end of the day what sells your images are the moments you capture, and zoom is better at capturing moments in a wedding atmosphere. The first time you shoot a wedding, heck every time you shoot a wedding, you will get this overwhelming sense of wishing you could be at 30 places at once, and zoom helps with that, prime exacerbates that. Like you said, if you can't afford a good enough lens for wedding photography at this time, you rent them for your first few weddings until you can afford the real glass you need. "

 

[Rosshole]

I have read many interesting responses in this thread already and I am surprised that noone has recommended this option:

Nikon D90
35mm 1.8
50mm 1.8

$1100. This would have you set pretty well to start.

 

[fjrabon]

I have read many interesting responses in this thread already and I am surprised that noone has recommended this option:

Nikon D90
35mm 1.8
50mm 1.8

$1100. This would have you set pretty well to start.

I think those lenses are too similar to start with, if he were going that route, he might as well just pick one. They're both fantastic lenses, and in the long run, both great lenses to have, but I don't know about them being the only lenses you have to start with, he'd be way too limited with what he could do.

 

[Rosshole]

You guys had me second guessing myself on this point, so I asked one of the local wedding photographers I know from my photography meetup group who gets bookings like its going out of style here in Atlanta. He's been really helpful to me, even though I'm not really interested in shooting weddings. He kind of chuckled at using a prime lens for weddings at all.

Here is his lengthy, but helpful, response: "The whole thing with a prime lens is being able to move around to frame your shot correctly. As a wedding photographer, you often times are stuck where you are at moments. You can't just willy nilly force 7 people to move because you want to be in tighter if you notice the bride is doing something spontaneous across the room, a picture that she would probably buy. You use a zoom. You preferably use two bodies, with two zooms. But shooting a wedding with a prime lens is pretty funny actually. It might work for a handful of shots, but practically you cannot afford, either time wise or money wise, to either change back and forth between a prime and the more useful zoom, and it would be a waste of space and money to have a body dedicated to a prime lens. Perhaps if you are one of those guys with an assistant, who takes the body you aren't using at that time and changes the lenses for you, MAYBE you use a prime, but really, I don't know any wedding photographers that would even bother with a prime lens on a wedding shoot even if they had an assistant. Today's good quality zooms, and if you're doing wedding photography you're going to use a good quality zoom, are not appreciably less sharp than a prime. Sure, your images need to be sharp, and all that, but at the end of the day what sells your images are the moments you capture, and zoom is better at capturing moments in a wedding atmosphere. The first time you shoot a wedding, heck every time you shoot a wedding, you will get this overwhelming sense of wishing you could be at 30 places at once, and zoom helps with that, prime exacerbates that. Like you said, if you can't afford a good enough lens for wedding photography at this time, you rent them for your first few weddings until you can afford the real glass you need. "

Our wedding photogs used mostly primes for the whole event. The results were fantastic. If you are an experienced wedding shooter, you should probably know where to be and when. I am not saying that zooms aren't great for weddings, but to chuckle at using a prime at all for a wedding is ridiculous...

 

[Rosshole]

I think those lenses are too similar to start with, if he were going that route, he might as well just pick one. They're both fantastic lenses, and in the long run, both great lenses to have, but I don't know about them being the only lenses you have to start with, he'd be way too limited with what he could do.

Ok, then please recommend a body and lens combo that fits in the OP's price range that will handle low light as well as my recommendation. Better yet, show me any lens that costs less than the two of those combined at equal or better quality.

 

[fjrabon]

Our wedding photogs used mostly primes for the whole event. The results were fantastic. If you are an experienced wedding shooter, you should probably know where to be and when. I am not saying that zooms aren't great for weddings, but to chuckle at using a prime at all for a wedding is ridiculous...

hmm, maybe it's a new thing, but this guy has been doing weddings for 20 years here in Atlanta and does regular workshops that aspiring wedding photographers pay big money for. Perhaps it's different if you have several people and assistants, as he said, but I was specifically asking about one person, starting out. He also doesn't think that anybody would really be able to tell the difference between a good quality 18-200 zoom that was zoomed to 50mm and a 50mm prime. Not saying that your photographers was wrong, but that guy is an expert, so I tend to trust his opinion on the matter, though in the interest of full disclosure, he's very opinionated on things and has strong opinions about things that probably aren't as clear cut as he makes them out to be. But still, what he said seems to make sense. What would be the utility of using a prime over a top quality zoom with a low, constant f/stop?

edit: and in the interests of full disclosure, he also laughed at the comparitively cheap zoom lens I recommended, calling it a recipe for disaster.

 

[fjrabon]

I think those lenses are too similar to start with, if he were going that route, he might as well just pick one. They're both fantastic lenses, and in the long run, both great lenses to have, but I don't know about them being the only lenses you have to start with, he'd be way too limited with what he could do.

Ok, then please recommend a body and lens combo that fits in the OP's price range that will handle low light as well as my recommendation. Better yet, show me any lens that costs less than the two of those combined at equal or better quality.

He could spend the money on other things besides the second lens. My point is that starting out do you really want to buy two primes, with the same low light, fast speed capabilities and a focal length difference that, while significant, isn't huge? While the two aren't totally redundant by any means, is that where you start? He's going to have a lot of other things he needs to buy besides lenses, so maybe he puts his money into a better CPL, or difusers, or refelectors, etc. My point wasn't that the lenses you picked weren't outstanding values, they are. But jsut that a beginner probably doesn't need both of them. To start with.

 

[Rosshole]

hmm, maybe it's a new thing, but this guy has been doing weddings for 20 years here in Atlanta and does regular workshops that aspiring wedding photographers pay big money for. Perhaps it's different if you have several people and assistants, as he said, but I was specifically asking about one person, starting out. He also doesn't think that anybody would really be able to tell the difference between a good quality 18-200 zoom that was zoomed to 50mm and a 50mm prime. Not saying that your photographers was wrong, but that guy is an expert, so I tend to trust his opinion on the matter, though in the interest of full disclosure, he's very opinionated on things and has strong opinions about things that probably aren't as clear cut as he makes them out to be. But still, what he said seems to make sense. What would be the utility of using a prime over a top quality zoom with a low, constant f/stop?

First, our wedding shooters were pros with over a dacade of experience with fantastic results. As for the bolded... really? You honestly don't know the difference? Let me ask you this, why does anyone own and use a prime lens then?

 

[Rosshole]

He could spend the money on other things besides the second lens. My point is that starting out do you really want to buy two primes, with the same low light, fast speed capabilities and a focal length difference that, while significant, isn't huge? While the two aren't totally redundant by any means, is that where you start? He's going to have a lot of other things he needs to buy besides lenses, so maybe he puts his money into a better CPL, or difusers, or refelectors, etc. My point wasn't that the lenses you picked weren't outstanding values, they are. But jsut that a beginner probably doesn't need both of them. To start with.

You still did not answer my question. I responded directly to the OP's question with a fitting and suitable answer.

 

[MTVision]

hmm, maybe it's a new thing, but this guy has been doing weddings for 20 years here in Atlanta and does regular workshops that aspiring wedding photographers pay big money for. Perhaps it's different if you have several people and assistants, as he said, but I was specifically asking about one person, starting out. He also doesn't think that anybody would really be able to tell the difference between a good quality 18-200 zoom that was zoomed to 50mm and a 50mm prime. Not saying that your photographers was wrong, but that guy is an expert, so I tend to trust his opinion on the matter, though in the interest of full disclosure, he's very opinionated on things and has strong opinions about things that probably aren't as clear cut as he makes them out to be. But still, what he said seems to make sense. What would be the utility of using a prime over a top quality zoom with a low, constant f/stop?

There is a member here, I think it's Schwettylens, who shoots wedding with 2 camera bodies and a prime on each one. I'm not 100% that he is the one who does that though.

 

[fjrabon]

What would be the utility of using a prime over a top quality zoom with a low, constant f/stop?

First, our wedding shooters were pros with over a dacade of experience with fantastic results. As for the bolded... really? You honestly don't know the difference? Let me ask you this, why does anyone own and use a prime lens then?

Because for a given focal length, speed and sharpness, they're smaller, lighter and cheaper? Is there something I'm missing there? The bolded part isn't comparing a 35mm prime or 50mm prime to a cheapo zoom, it's comparing it to an expensive one that would be probably rented. If speed and sharpness are indiscernably different, why opt for a prime when you need to take a lot of photographs, a lot of which are spontaneous, and thus, cant be planned out, during the reception? That was my question.

I don't want to get too sidetracked on this point from the OP though. So, I'll just drop it.

 

[fjrabon]

You still did not answer my question. I responded directly to the OP's question with a fitting and suitable answer.

your question had nothing to do with what I was disagreeing with. You asked "what lenses are a better value than those two?" I don't think there are better value lenses than those two for that price range for a Nikon. I freely admitted that. What I was taking issue with wasn't those being the two best values, but starting with the two in the first place. Your question was a non-sequitur to the point I was making, which is that a 35mm and a 50mm will be too similar for a person buying their first DSLR to get their money's worth.

There is a difference between each of the lenses individually being a great value, and the two combined being useful for a beginner.

 

[Rosshole]

Lol, don't forget your tripod!

 

[memento]

I'll just drop it.

please do.

 

[fjrabon]

Lol, don't forget your tripod!

You still haven't answered my question, which is why would someone buying their first two lenses want TWO primes, that are considered relatively close together, one being between wide angle and portrait and the other being a portrait/ very mild telephoto (on a crop sensor). Either one in isolation makes sense, sure. I love my nikon 35mm f/1.8 to death and highly recommend it to anybody just starting off in general photography. It's the lens that stays on my camera, so that if I just pull the camera out, that's on there.

But both, as your first two lenses? I guess maybe if the guy knew he was 100% sure he just wanted to do portraits and walk arounds, maybe even some landscapes too, but what if he decided he wanted to do macro from time to time, or what if he wanted to do a zoomed sunset? Or what if he wanted to photographs birds from a distance? What if he wanted to do a little architectural photography? Cityscapes? You'll really struggle to get useful pictures in those situations if your widest is 35mm and your tightest is 50mm