Cant make my mind on what to buy.

[ghache]

I am now in need to buy some fast glass,

I have a couple wedding booked for next summer and i am doing outdoor portrait pretty much every weekend (i am booked for the next 5 weeks).

I am kinda stock between the 17-55mm 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8.

since i am shooting mostly my 50mm 1.8. Im kinda comfortable shooting in that range.

i did read the reviews they are clearly really nice lens. the 24-70 is kinda a little bit over my budjet but i think it would be a great investement since i plan on going with full frame camera in the future.

now i was wondering if anyone had the chance to shoot weddings with both and wich one worked best?

i am also considering the sigma 70-200 2.8 since the nikon vrii us outof my price range...any one shooting with the 70-200?

 

[TJ K]

I say go 17-55 since it's the equivalent of a 24-70 on a full frame camera basically. Remember that Nikon lenses and most lenses hold their value very well so you should be able to get back pretty much the amount of money you spent on the lens. Good luck.

TJ

 

[tirediron]

I use both the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 (VR I version). Both are outstanding lenses. The 17-55 is good as well, and I suppose it depends on your shooting style, but I find that range a little wide for most wedding work, even on an APS-C sensor.

 

[Big Mike]

For portraits, you'd probably be better off with the longer lens. But for weddings, I always like to have the option of a wide view, and you can't always back up...so the wider lens might be best.

Although, since you do plan to go full frame, the 24-70mm might make the most sense.

 

[ghache]

Thanks, i think ill give the 24-70 a try....ill rent it next weekend one more time just to make sure.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

the 24-70 is a sharper lens, but the 17-55 is built alot better and goes significantly wider without losing a whole lot on the long end, 15mm isn't a HUGE difference.

 

[djacobox372]

80-200mm f2.8D af lens only costs $400-600 used.

Optically the 80-200mm is every bit as good as the 70-200mm vr lenses, just without the vr and internal focus motor. You don't really need VR when shooting portraits since you're likely going to be using a flash and or reflected outdoor lighting. VR is more useful for sports and nature where your subject matter is really far away and lighting conditions are less controllable.

An 85mm f1.8 would also be an excellent choice. Similar to your 50mm, but a bit longer so you will get a more flattering perspective and tighter dof.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

80-200mm f2.8D af lens only costs $400-600 used.

Optically the 80-200mm is every bit as good as the 70-200mm vr lenses, just without the vr and internal focus motor. You don't really need VR when shooting portraits since you're likely going to be using a flash and or reflected outdoor lighting. VR is more useful for sports and nature where your subject matter is really far away and lighting conditions are less controllable.

got that a little backwards, VR does nothing for sports and most sports photogs turn it off when they're shooting action because it compensates for what they're trying to do. With sports you're constantly moving the lens around tracking, VR would get in the way of that. VR also doesn't stop action. However, for portraits VR is GREAT because it will steady the viewfinder so you can focus and compose much more deliberately and easily.

Optically, the new 70-200 blows the 80-200's away when shot wide open. I almost never use my 80-200 anymore in favor of renting the 70-200VRII. The 80-200D blows wide open (especially at close distances), the 70-200II is almost perfect in the center already. at f/8, yes they're pretty equal.