Converting - Canon to Nikon (Lens/ Flash ?'s)

[ACrossley]

What is your second body if you are shooting weddings ?

Well since this is what my question IS about
I am looking at purchasing a preowned d90 when I buy the gear over the next day. I realize the importance and benefit but I have a second shooter with me at all times. I shoot all wedding with another photog who owns a d700, d300, and d90. SHE is my second body as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Derrel]

Well, if you plan on buy a pre-owned D90 soon,and you previously really liked an 85/1.8 Canon on a 1.6x Canon body, then the 85/1.8 Nikkor makes good sense. I think you will find that on a FF body, the 85mm lens is actually more-versatile than it was on a 1.6x body, especially indoors. I hope you enjoy the new D700 immensely.

 

[matfoster]

having a 24mm could be very useful for you.

 

[ACrossley]

If I were to buy into the nikon system to shoot mainly portraits i'd do this:

24mm f/1.4, for the photojournalist look.

50mm f/1.4, for the full body shots, and when i'd want heads to look a little big.

85mm f/1.8, just because it's a really nice lens, cheap, and can work as a head/shoulders lens in a pinch.

105VR, my preferred range for head/shoulders, doubles as a macro lens, and has VR so it's easier to compose with.


That should be able to give you a pretty good range of options and will definitely give you a great look to your pictures.

Would you dismiss the 70-200 from this list? I think it is more beneficial for the wedding aspect, but from my understanding it is one of the primary lenses I would keep on the body. Just curious as to why you did not list it?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

If I were to buy into the nikon system to shoot mainly portraits i'd do this:

24mm f/1.4, for the photojournalist look.

50mm f/1.4, for the full body shots, and when i'd want heads to look a little big.

85mm f/1.8, just because it's a really nice lens, cheap, and can work as a head/shoulders lens in a pinch.

105VR, my preferred range for head/shoulders, doubles as a macro lens, and has VR so it's easier to compose with.


That should be able to give you a pretty good range of options and will definitely give you a great look to your pictures.

Would you dismiss the 70-200 from this list? I think it is more beneficial for the wedding aspect, but from my understanding it is one of the primary lenses I would keep on the body. Just curious as to why you did not list it?

np

No. i wouldn't take the new 70-200 off the list. HOWEVER, for the style of shooting that i personally would do, i wouldn't use the 70-200. I probably wouldn't even have a zoom lens.

If I shot weddings, i'd shoot them with only primes, because that's what's "in" right now. really super shallow DOF, ambient light, photo journalistic look. If I shot a wedding, i'd imagine the most commonly used equipment would be a 24 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, and 85 f/1.4. I'd pack a 180 f/2.8 for when i'd need alot of compression or a long lens.

but that's me. I'm phasing out my zoom lenses on my SLR in favor of primes. the images with primes just have so much more character and are less surgical. I hate 24-70's for that reason.


but for most people, the most flexible combination for weddings is the 24-70 and 70-200. You could shoot an entire wedding with a 24-70, and look good doing it, becuase that has alot to do with the business to, is you looking like joe-pro.

it's really down to the look though.





i don't shoot weddings. But if i did, i would charge an insane amount of money because i would have at least three people covering it, and the client would get three completely different styles.

I would shoot on a FF DSLR with fast primes only, wide open or close to it, damn near the entire time.

the couple formals would generally be totally over lit with directional dramatic lighting.

my first assistant would be the friend from work or w/e with the 17-55 or 24-70 and the SB-800 on top doing what 95% of wedding photographers do, and come back with no less than 900-2000 pictures.

my second assistant would be the hippie with the tat's and dreds shooting the holga, diana, FE2 and/or 500CM on (at least) Delta 400 or preferably TMAX 3200 for the artsy b&w grainy shots.

(my third assistant would be in a room or corner of the reception hall manning the 'photo booth', in which i'd rent a ringlight for.)

the clients wouldn't get the pictures until about a month later, and would be made into albums already. I'm not sure if they'd get a CD or not, that's debatable.

the terms are non-negotiable because i couldn't give a flying f*ck if they hire me or not. they'd be buying me for my interpretation, and I'd be the guy who does maximum 10-12 a year and that 10-12 a year could easily support me over the down season.


so...yeah. basically that makes sure that i will never do a wedding! fine by me!