Wedding Photography - Nikon D7000

[mrsharon2005]

Hello!

I’m hoping you can all help me out. I have gotten into wedding photography and currently shoot with a Nikon D90. I’m going to invest in the D7000 (use my D90 as a back-up) and would like to know which lens to purchase.

I have:
50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED Nikkor Lens

Any advice?? I'm looking to spend <$1,000 for a solid lens. I love the 105mm, however, want to ensure that the next lens I purchase will be the last for quite some time.

Thank you in advance!

 

[Restomage]

If you are looking to seriously get into wedding photography you will need to invest close to $10,000 - $15,000 as a main shooter to start out. Please keep that in mind and please don't think you can shoot weddings without professional equipment; yes it can be done however your clients will not be pleased.

However on your current budget I would recommend finding a used 80-200mm AF-S (70-200mm if you can find one) or a 85mm 1.4. Good luck!

 

[MarkF48]

Besides what you've indicated, what other equipment do you presently have for weddings? Are you looking at the D7000 as a purchase to be later after the lens purchase?
I wouldn't even consider taking on a wedding without having an absolute bare minimum of.....

- (2) Camera bodies
- Either a lens in a range of about 17-50 or 24-70 with an aperture of f/2.8
- Lens 70-200 f/2.8
- Lens 50 or 85 f/1.4 or f/1.8
- (2) Shoe mount flashes (flash bracket optional)

I shoot Canon, so I can't suggest anything specific to Nikon.

Also take into account the cost of good software and monitor calibration hardware for post processing. You will need to have good workflow consistency and efficiency.

I usually would have on hand more gear than listed above so as to be prepared for any situation that might arise. If you can't deliver the goods, be prepared for the consequences.

 

[flea77]

I am shooting with a D7000 primary and D90 backup as well. Here is what I have found:

12-24 f4: Having 2.8 on this lens really is not needed, this is the one I use to get in shots of the bride getting dressed. You need the 12mm because the distance from the back of the bathtub to the mirror is usually quite small Seriously though, if you want shots in close quarters, this is it. Couple it with a SB-600 to bounce and it does a good job.

24-70 2.8: This is the main lens I use for groups, the dance, setups (food, tables, rings, etc), I could not do without it.

80-200 2.8D AF-D Two Ring: This is my primary lens during the ceremony. It allows you to get the shots at the altar without being in someone's face, with the 2.8 you can get outstanding bokeh to really make the couple stand out and have enough speed to shoot without flash. I also could not do without this lens.

50 1.8, 85 1.8, 24 2.8, 105 2.8 Micro: These are handy to have as well for specific shots but the action is such that they should be aquired after the first three.

Good luck!

Allan

 

[Light Artisan]

You can pick up a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX Macro HSM II for about $799 at Adorama, mine suited my quite well until I could find a means to get the Nikon 70-200 with VR.

The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro HSM is a very nice lens as well if you can't afford the Nikon stuff at this time.

 

[Phil Holland]

Hello!

I’m hoping you can all help me out. I have gotten into wedding photography and currently shoot with a Nikon D90. I’m going to invest in the D7000 (use my D90 as a back-up) and would like to know which lens to purchase.

I have:
50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens
18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR ED Nikkor Lens

Any advice?? I'm looking to spend <$1,000 for a solid lens. I love the 105mm, however, want to ensure that the next lens I purchase will be the last for quite some time.

Thank you in advance!

Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?

 

[Light Artisan]

Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?

Please explain how you shoot illegally, and why it matters for your additional info.

 

[Phil Holland]

Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?

Please explain how you shoot illegally, and why it matters for your additional info.

If you don't have a business license and are not collecting tax for your state you are not in compliance with the law.

If that's the case I personally won't offer any suggestions.

If you are taking the steps to be legal and above board I'd love to offer advice.

That's why.

 

[flea77]

You can pick up a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX Macro HSM II for about $799 at Adorama, mine suited my quite well until I could find a means to get the Nikon 70-200 with VR.

The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro HSM is a very nice lens as well if you can't afford the Nikon stuff at this time.

I would actually recommend the Nikon 80-200 2.8D instead of the Sigma, better glass and better build quality for about the same money, IMHO.

Allan

 

[Light Artisan]

You can pick up a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX Macro HSM II for about $799 at Adorama, mine suited my quite well until I could find a means to get the Nikon 70-200 with VR.

The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 Macro HSM is a very nice lens as well if you can't afford the Nikon stuff at this time.

I would actually recommend the Nikon 80-200 2.8D instead of the Sigma, better glass and better build quality for about the same money, IMHO.

Allan

Have you used both? Because I have... the focussing on the Sigma is much faster in my opinion, and I don't think you'd be able to tell a difference in IQ, I couldn't. The Nikon was a little more contrasty perhaps, but the Sigma definitely holds its own.

Just a quick grab out of my Flickr:


Mallard by Light Artisan Photography, on Flickr

 

[Formatted]

If your serious about wedding photography.

Your not just going to need all the camera gear but thats going to set you back 10,000 or so. Your going to need a business license, website, portfolio, accountant and so much more.

Its a massive commitment and if you aren't doing it properly your damaging the industry for everyone else. You'll be under cutting legitimate photographers who have properly invested.

So if your going to do it go for it. Other wise don't both your doing more harm than good.

 

[ghache]

Just so I can answer with more info, do you have a business license or are you shooting illegally?

Please explain how you shoot illegally, and why it matters for your additional info.

If you don't have a business license and are not collecting tax for your state you are not in compliance with the law.

If that's the case I personally won't offer any suggestions.

If you are taking the steps to be legal and above board I'd love to offer advice.

That's why.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL:lmao:

 

[flea77]

Have you used both? Because I have... the focussing on the Sigma is much faster in my opinion, and I don't think you'd be able to tell a difference in IQ, I couldn't. The Nikon was a little more contrasty perhaps, but the Sigma definitely holds its own.

I have to admit I have not used the Sigma II, but have used his older brother and own the 24-70 2.8 siggy. When I used the older version it focused about the same speed and felt like a fisher price toy compared to the Nikon which is pretty much one big hunk of steel and glass.

So since I have not used the newer one, I went looking for reviews. DPreview.com was happy with the lens although they did mention some issues with image quality such as:

Image quality when shooting at short focus distances with wider apertures is distinctly weak, with a combination of general softness, focus shifts due to spherical aberration, and red/cyan fringing around slightly out-of-focus regions (due to axial chromatic aberration) giving very unconvincing imaging indeed.

and...(emphasis is mine)

The optics are perfectly competent, if not outstanding; indeed the lens is really very good towards the short end, but weaker at 200mm, where it's slightly soft and suffers from relatively high levels of chromatic aberration.

From what I can tell reading reviews, and from remembering the older version, it also does not have weather sealing which the Nikon does.

DPreview does not review the Nikon so I went to other places. Fred Miranda lists the lens and it seems to have comments for both the original and II siggys showing 64% of the people would recommend it with an overall rating of 7.8. The Nikon is also reviewed these showing 95% of the people would recommend it with a overall rating of 9.4.

Then if you like Ken Rockwell (I like some of his stuff, don't like some of it, meh) he talks about the Nikon as:

This Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (new) is the world's best buy in professional telephoto zooms.

Instead of that, lets look at the #1 seller of photo equipment online, B&H Photo. The Sigma lens you mention has 126 reviews, 4.5 stars, 8 people say it focuses slow and 5 people say it has blurry focus. The Nikon lens has 196 reviews, 5 stars, 5 people say it focuses slow (you would expect more since it has more reviews) and 0 people say it has blurry focus.

Now, add all that together and that is why I recommended the Nikon over the siggy. Not that the siggy is a bad lens, but if I was in that price range already, I would go ahead and spring for the Nikon. I bought my 24-70 siggy because the Nikon was $1700 and the siggy was $550 so I got 90% of the performance for less than 1/3 the price, that is not true with the 70/80-200 2.8 lenses.

Allan

 

[Formatted]

WARNING OFF TOPIC!

This Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (new) is the world's best buy in professional telephoto zooms.

Nikons 200-400 f4 is probably the worlds best telephoto zoom. Since there is nothing else like it in the world, super sharp and great auto-focus.

 

[karenli]

my friends have done some other short film with D7000,
you can see what lens they use in the description.~

by Jocelyn Tam


by Maia Horniak
[video=vimeo;18083132]http://vimeo.com/18083132[/video]

by Shern Sharma