must have lens to shoot weddings?

[Markw]

I just shot my first wedding. What you need for a wedding and what you need for a reception are two different things. For a wedding, I needed everything from the 10mm of my Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6 to the 200mm of my Nikon 80-200mm F/2.8. For the reception afterwards, I used the 10-20 and 18-50 only. Never broke out the 80-200. For both you will need a flash. My inverted dome diffuser made life an incredible amount easier and made the photos much better. Is it possible to shoot with a 35mm and 50mm 1.8? Sure. Are you going to be miserable the whole time? Definately. Without zooms covering at least 18-150mm, I think youre making it harder than necessary. Also, stock up on batteries. Mainly for your flash, but also for your camera. I only used 1 battery on my D300s, but used 24 NiMH batteries in my SB-600..

Mark

 

[Tbini87]

thanks guys, tons of good info for me to digest! we will be shooting with D90s, and i am looking into sb-600 and 800 flash units right now. i am definitely intimidated when it comes to using flash... we usually shoot with our primes pretty wide open and don't need flash too often. I am planning on getting plenty of batteries and memory cards. i will definitely be looking for zooms in the 18-50mm and the 50-200 range here soon! thanks guys.

 

[Markw]

If you dont want to use the flash for every single photo during the ceremony, look into getting F/2.8 zooms. Church lighting can be a major pain to deal with without a fast lens.

Mark

 

[Fedaykin]

There's no "must have lens" for a wedding other than it having a max aperture of f/2.8 or greater. Depends on your style and if you have a second shooter I guess. I like using primes and moving around a lot so if I had a second shooter I'd prefer a 35mm 1.4 on FF and something like an 85 or 135 on FF. If I was alone I would go the safer route and have a 70-200 2.8 on the long end.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

i like to use the 24mm f/1.4, wide angle with shallow DOF.

Sure, but you have to get all up in people's faces.

It's not like you're doing headshots, you can do a full body with the camera in a horizontal orientation and get some pretty narrow DOF with obvious background blur.

It's perfect for the PJ-style wide n' tight composition where you want context in the image. Don't knock it till you've tried it, I've shot entire PR events using nothing but the 24G, and the pictures came out awesome.

Another good option is a 35mm f/1.4 if you want that wide-angle-that-doesn't-look-like-a-wide-angle perspective where you can mostly get the context but with narrower DOF and a more "traditional" perspective.

Two recent ones from a wedding from the summer:

Again, as soon as the ceremony was over, the 24mm f/1.4 didn't come off the camera.

 

[MrLogic]

i like to use the 24mm f/1.4, wide angle with shallow DOF.

Sure, but you have to get all up in people's faces.

It's not like you're doing headshots, you can do a full body with the camera in a horizontal orientation and get some pretty narrow DOF with obvious background blur.

I'm familiar with the Canon 24mm. I meant that you have to get really close with a 24 f/1.4 for some good background separation. Though what is narrow DOF is debatable, of course.

The "all up in people's faces" comment was not to be taken literally. Sorry, my English is not that good.

Another good option is a 35mm f/1.4 if you want that wide-angle-that-doesn't-look-like-a-wide-angle perspective where you can mostly get the context but with narrower DOF and a more "traditional" perspective.

Yeah... though I still think the 28mm f/1.4 AF-D* is better than the 24. At least, the bokeh is better judging from the images I saw. The 24 f/1.4 is just okay in that respect, IMO. (I don't expect the 35 to be better than the 24.)

Now, if only I could find one for a reasonable price...

 

[Tbini87]

Hey guys, since we already have a 55-200mm kit lens and probably won't be able to afford a 2.8 version, would you even consider taking that kit lens with you to cover that range? any other cheaper alternatives? maybe an 85mm prime or something? do you think that range is necessary to cover with 2 shooters?

 

[David Dvir]

I'd pick up the sigma 50mm 1.4, and then the nikon 24-70. If you need more reach, the 70-200 as well. There's your wedding kit. If you want more, the next one would be a wide like the 14-24, 16mm fish, or perhaps a macro or extension tubes for those detail shots.

 

[Bram]

I'd pick up the sigma 50mm 1.4, and then the nikon 24-70. If you need more reach, the 70-200 as well. There's your wedding kit. If you want more, the next one would be a wide like the 14-24, 16mm fish, or perhaps a macro or extension tubes for those detail shots.

The man just stated above that he needs a cheaper alternative and you give him 2 lenses that together can hit four grand.
Yeah it's the ideal kit but also he doesnt want to sell his home to get a couple lenses. To be honest I would go with a regular zoom like the on you have but only under one condition, that being: Only if your lighting will be good. If you're outsde in the shade during the day with the sun in the sky, by all means go nuts with the 55-200, I would use that lens and then the 24-70 only if you can afford it, if not. I don't know an alternative straight off the top of my head here. I would think maybe a 18-105. Just a thought i could be way off here but with those two lenses you might hit 1500 bucks. So there are some cheaper alternatives if you want to give up a couple stops.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

You certainly could shoot a wedding with just those lenses. It wasn't that long ago that a typical wedding photographer would use only a single lens.

Thanks Big Mike, you make me feel a bit less old, lol.

I shot weddings with an 80mm and a doubler. Never had a problem.

That was with a MF camera...

No need to take seriously what you read here, ie the wedding photogs with every lens in their brand's line up. All that means is that they can't shoot simple photos.

 

[Tbini87]

I have been researching 2.8 lenses in the 17-55 focal range. The nikon 17-55 is probably awesome but expensive. There is a Tamron 17-50 that looks comparable with a much smaller sticker price. There are also about 3 or 4 sigma lenses i noticed that looked comparable, but i couldn't tell exactly what all the OS HSM bla bla stuff meant, so couldn't really tell what i was looking for.

SO...
of those 3 brands could anyone give me a breakdown of comparisons, or link me to something out there that might compare them? I would certainly be interested in the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 or 24-70mm 2.8 lenses at a cheaper price point than nikon. Thanks.