Nikon lens for weddings/portraits... Advice

[waynegz1]

I have found myself shooting more weddings and portraits lately. I feel that I will be doing this type of photography for a while. With occasional landscape.

My current lens is a Nikkor 18-200mm VR II. I'm thinking of selling it and going with another lens.

I have a 50mm f1.8 on order already, what other lens would you guys recommend?
24-70 2.8, 135 2.0 are some of the ones I am researching.

Any and all recommendations are welcome!

Btw: current body is a D60, will be moving to a D90 or D300s soon.

 

[KmH]

The 18-200 doesn't have a very good reputation for use making photos for paying clients, because it is a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none lens. So yes, sell it.

The needs for weddings, the needs for portraiture, and the need for landscapes don't overlap well.

Established wedding shooters like the AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 and the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8, and usually use 2 camera bodies so each lens is always ready.

Portrait photographers tend to prime lenses rather than zooms, and the 85mm to 200 mm range is popular.

Landscape shooter tend to wide angle lenses like the AF-S 14-24 mm f/2.8.

 

[waynegz1]

AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 is what I am going to probably end up purchasing, just want to find a used one in MINT condition.

Now the search begins...

 

[Derrel]

I think you really,really need an 85mm f/1.8 prime. It's a basic building block, and ought to be the first prime lens you buy for portraits and wedding work. The 135mm D.C. Nikkor is great on FX, but is kind of long on APS-C bodies, forcing you to work from fairly long distances.

 

[shaunly]

I think you really,really need an 85mm f/1.8 prime. It's a basic building block, and ought to be the first prime lens you buy for portraits and wedding work. The 135mm D.C. Nikkor is great on FX, but is kind of long on APS-C bodies, forcing you to work from fairly long distances.

135mm on a DX is equivalent to 200mm FX. So that means if you get the Nikon 135 f/2, it's like getting a 200mm f/2 but for 1/5th of the price, size and weight! :shock:

 

[Destin]

The 24-70 will work for portraits but it isn't the ideal focal length. For portraits, you really want to be in between 80 and 120mm.

But on a crop sensor, that is 36-105mm. Thats not very wide at all, you'll be wishing it was wider.

Honestly, for both weddings and portraits, I would probably go with the 70-200 2.8. You already have the 50mm for mid range.

Then if you need a wider angle (which you will at some point) you've always got your 18-55 kit lens. (I've got my flame suit on) It isn't really that bad of quality, it's just slow.

I currently own 3 lenses for my d40, the 18-55, the 50 1.8, and a sigma 70-200 2.8. The combo works great for me. I plan on getting a 17-55 2.8 eventually, after I get a d7000, but for now my kit lens still works fine.

 

[waynegz1]

I think that I am going to shoot for the 24-70, then look for a 135mm. Hopefully I can find them a bit lower in price somewhere.

My 50mm 1.8 should be here in a few days, along with my Paul C Buff CyberSync transmitters/receivers.

 

[shaunly]

Remember, 50mm is a short tele on DX (75mm). That will work for full body shots and some portrait. I think you should go with a 70/80-200 and the 35mm f/1.8. The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is what you need for wedding shooting on DX because it's fast, versatile and sharp. The only thing about that lens is the ridiculous price tag of about $1400.

On a differently note. I noticed you are planning on upgrading to a d90 or d300s body? I think you should get the new D7000 instead. It's sensor is the latest and great DX sensor available right now.

 

[Jcampbelll]

Hebrew trinity 14-24 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8. ... I wish!

I would get the 85 1.8. Sweet lens and pretty cheep.

 

[waynegz1]

Remember, 50mm is a short tele on DX (75mm). That will work for full body shots and some portrait. I think you should go with a 70/80-200 and the 35mm f/1.8.

I will soon get a 35mm 1.8 as my second prime lens.

I am really wanting to update my body, but funds are a bit tight right now. How much would you guys say I'd get for my D60 body gripped?

 

[Jcampbelll]

You will miss the wide angle if you are using the 24-70.

 

[waynegz1]

.

 

[IgsEMT]

You're read a lot and all valid, but want to clarify few things.
18-200 vr2 is a crappy lens if you don't know how to use it but if you know its weaknesses and its strength it can be used exclusively.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

don't get the 24-70 unless you're shooting FF. it's not wide enough. Get a Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 used, you 'll be able to sell it for about what you paid for it when you eventually go to FF, not to mention it's a much more useful focal length for APS.

if you do the 17-55 and a 70-200 you should pretty much be set as far as coverage goes. I'd also get the 70-200 used, and get the VR1 version. It's sharper on APS than the newer one. a 35mm f/1.8 could be useful when things are really dark.

 

[waynegz1]

don't get the 24-70 unless you're shooting FF. it's not wide enough. Get a Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 used, you 'll be able to sell it for about what you paid for it when you eventually go to FF, not to mention it's a much more useful focal length for APS.

if you do the 17-55 and a 70-200 you should pretty much be set as far as coverage goes. I'd also get the 70-200 used, and get the VR1 version. It's sharper on APS than the newer one. a 35mm f/1.8 could be useful when things are really dark.

I went into my local camera store to rent/try out lenses, and he told me something very similar. I ended up choosing to rent the 17-55 f/2.8 but they were expecting it back tomorrow. So I will be heading back over there when I get the call back.

I ordered a hotshoe adapter for my SB600 to go with my Paul C Buff CyberSync adapters. I didn't leave the store empty handed.