Wedding + Must Have Lens (NIKON)

Josh220 · Aug 31, 2011

IMO if someone can only afford an 18-55 then they should look into another field besides wedding photography. You can even rent the proper gear and then make the purchase when you can afford it. Shooting something like a wedding with a kit lens is just asking for problems.

joealcantar · Aug 31, 2011

Sw1tchFX said:
17-55 f/2.8 for DX

24-70 f/2.8 for FX

70-200 f/2.8 on both

I like this answer and combo, know you (OP) mentioned you rarely shoot the 30-50 range but the 50mm range on a DX body is the 80mm range (Portraiture) 17-55 is a great lens.
-
Shoot well, Joe

Mike_E · Aug 31, 2011

Get a second body and a 35mm f1.8 then get either an 85mm f1.8 or the 80-200mm f2.8.

Then you need to look into lighting. Look hard into lighting You can usually tell a $100 hack from a real pro by the lights he uses.

I wouldn't go in with less than 12 gb of memory cards either. I'd stick with 4 gigs each in case one gets corrupted. You also need to look into insurance both for your equipment and against personal lawsuits if something goes bad.

Josh220 · Aug 31, 2011

Keep in mind this thread is over a year old. "Okwy" brought it back from the dead, and I have yet to figure out whether he is sincere or a troll.

2WheelPhoto · Aug 31, 2011

Wedding shoot plans before lenses/knowledge, why not purchase a set of surgical tools and plan some operations too

GeorgieGirl · Aug 31, 2011

It seems to me from the quantity of posters that are going to shoot weddings that there is a very fertile market for wedding shooters. And that market includes those pros who do not have the primo gear or the primo knowledge, but that the segment seems to be half of the posters who say they shoot weddings without being geared to the hilt.

Cadillac and Chevy. A fit for everyone.

Kerbouchard · Aug 31, 2011

GeorgieGirl said:
It seems to me from the quantity of posters that are going to shoot weddings that there is a very fertile market for wedding shooters. And that market includes those pros who do not have the primo gear or the primo knowledge, but that the segment seems to be half of the posters who say they shoot weddings without being geared to the hilt.

Cadillac and Chevy. A fit for everyone.

I don't feel like that comparison works. A Chevy will still get you from Point A to Point B. Heck, so will a Kia.

A lot of these 'pro' wedding photographers without the right gear are taking out of focus, underexposed, and motion blurred photos. Even taking quality and composition aside, shouldn't they still be expected to have the gear and the knowledge to at least take shots that are properly focused, acceptably sharp, and properly exposed? To me, that would be the Chevy equivalent.

When you buy a Chevy, they don't have to ask how many tires they should use, if they actually need to use a doors, what settings to use on their ignition system, or what kind of effects the gas pedal, brakes, and engine performance have on the final product. They already know the basics.

Knowing what equipment is needed, how to shoot in difficult situations, and what settings to use for those situations, is IMO, part of the basics.

We get 'photographers' here that just bought a camera, don't know how ISO/aperture/shutter speed effect photos, don't know how to use a flash, and don't even know what lesnes they need, but they are 'ready' to shoot a wedding.

If you want to stick with car comparisons, I think the more appropriate one would be a Ferrari and a Yugo.

GeorgieGirl · Aug 31, 2011

Kerbouchard said:
I don't feel like that comparison works. A Chevy will still get you from point A to Point B. Heck, so will a Kia.

A lot of these 'pro' wedding photographers without the right gear are taking out of focus, underexposed, and motion blurred photos. Even taking quality and composition aside, shouldn't they still be expected to have the gear and the knowledge to at least take shots that are properly focused, acceptably sharp, and properly exposed? To me, that would be the Chevy equivalent.

When you buy a Chevy, they don't have to ask how many tires they should use, if they actually need to use a doors, or what settings to use on their ignition system. They already know the basics.

Knowing what equipment is needed, how to shoot in difficult situations, and what settings to use for those situations, is IMO, part of the basics.

No one cares. The wedding market segment still exists for anyone with a camera with interchangeable lenses.

Kerbouchard · Aug 31, 2011

GeorgieGirl said:
No one cares. The wedding market segment still exists for anyone with a camera with interchangeable lenses.

Until they get sued, have to explain the quality of their work in front of a court, have to explain their lack of tax status, have to explain how they aren't a registered business, and have to explain to their family how that 'easy money on the side' just bankrupted them. Sounds like a great plan...

GeorgieGirl · Aug 31, 2011

Kerbouchard said:
Until they get sued, have to explain the quality of their work in front of a court, have to explain their lack of tax status, have to explain how they aren't a registered business, and have to explain to their family how that 'easy money on the side' just bankrupted them. Sounds like a great plan...

Stop. The exception rather than the norm. It's still buyer beware. Give a bride pictures and shell be happy no matter what.

As I said, in the film days the friend tried to shake me down for money for the photos. I didn't ask him to take them. He created a book and wanted me to pay. I told him no thanks but paid for his. suite when he got married and his card was declined to secure the room at check in.

Monied brides are of a different standard. Ergo Cadillac to Chevy.

If someone is taking wedding pix out of good nature at no cost help them succeed for the bride.

Karma is powerful.

Kerbouchard · Aug 31, 2011

GeorgieGirl said:
Kerbouchard said:

Until they get sued, have to explain the quality of their work in front of a court, have to explain their lack of tax status, have to explain how they aren't a registered business, and have to explain to their family how that 'easy money on the side' just bankrupted them. Sounds like a great plan...

Click to expand...

Stop. The exception rather than the norm. It's still buyer beware. Give a bride pictures and shell be happy no matter what.

As I said, in the film days the friend tried to shake me down for money for the photos. I didn't ask him to take them. He created a book and wanted me to pay. I told him no thanks but paid for his. suite when he got married and his card was declined to secure the room at check in.

Monied brides are of a different standard. Ergo Cadillac to Chevy.

If someone is taking wedding pix out of good nature at no cost help them succeed for the bride.

Karma is powerful.

Most of the people that ask this quesiton aren't people who are taking pix out of good nature at no cost. They are people who booked a wedding, are charging people for their services, and don't have the knowledge or tools to deliver.

The others are people who just want to learn more and shoot a few shots at a friends wedding.

I have never shot a wedding on my own. I've been a third shooter at fairly high end weddings for about a year now. We actually have a completely different philosophy towards 'Uncle Bob's' or 'friends with cameras'. At just about every wedding I have shot, there have been guests that have asked me what settings I'm using, why their pictures aren't coming out great, or how to shoot in certain circumstances. You know what I do? I tell them. For those that don't know how to adjust their settings, I do it for them. We want everybody to get great photos and to enjoy themselves. We also usually step in when the Bride or Groom are unsure about what to do next, help with tying ties or bow ties that nobody knows how to tie, remind other vendors about flowers that haven't been passed out, and generally just try to help out anyway we can.

In my opinion, there is a huge difference between helping a guest at a wedding get good shots vs trying to explain to a photographer who is getting paid for his services what equipment and what settings he should use. It's kind of a moral thing.

GeorgieGirl · Aug 31, 2011

anuarD said:
sorry i new in photography, and sorry for my broken english.
i just wondering what is the best lens or must have lens for wedding.
thanks in advanced.

Here is the OP.

Kerbouchard · Aug 31, 2011

GeorgieGirl said:
anuarD said:

sorry i new in photography, and sorry for my broken english.
i just wondering what is the best lens or must have lens for wedding.
thanks in advanced.

Click to expand...

Here is the OP.

The OP hasn't even visited this site since November of 2010. I'm not sure the original post really matters at this point.

2WheelPhoto · Aug 31, 2011

Wonder how many weddings he's shot

niptate · Nov 4, 2013

I realize this is an old topic, but I thought I'd throw in my suggestions on wedding lenses for Nikons if you're on a budget. Here's my current lineup: Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0; Nikon 35-70 2.8; Nikon 70-210 4.0; Nikon 50 1.8D; Tokina 100 2.8 Macro. I think I spent about $1,200 for the whole bunch and they are all excellent, fast and sharp. The current 24-70 and 70-200 may focus a split second quicker, but with the exception of the Tamron, I doubt you could tell the difference. And you'll save enough money for a new D800. An added bonus is combined they don't weigh as much as the 70-200 2.8.