What is a good lens for wedding photography?

[Lakewood Photography]

Lens suggestions for Nikon D80 (portraiture, weddings)? Thanks much!

 

[Mike_E]

Which style do you prefer? The range on the first would be good if you like standing back a bit. A ~17-55mm f/2.8 would be better if you like being in close. The standard 80-200 f/2.8 being the other.

I got the aforementioned 28-80mm to go along with my 18-70mm (fast enough in the short end) and I carry a 50mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/2.8 ( I tend to use this with an eleven mm expansion tube for macro shots of rings and minutia) and keep the 80-200mm on my second body.

 

[JIP]

Lens suggestions for Nikon D80 (portraiture, weddings)? Thanks much!

A. Look at my sig I would like to (and intend to soon with another loan) add a 17-55 2.8 a 24-70 2.8 and if I can afford it a 10-22 but that would be a luxury seldom used specialty lens.

B. As I originally stated I cannot afford to buy junk (or cheaper lenses now and buy something else later I just do not have that much disposable money. I prefer to buy the right glass now and not have to buy more later.

 

[atseeyob]

I really appreciate for all inputs. Since all of you have valid reasons to support one lens over another and I am rookie in wedding photography, I will go ahead and start renting rather than purchasing. Based on the outcome, I will make the purchase in the future.

 

[JIP]

I really appreciate for all inputs. Since all of you have valid reasons to support one lens over another and I am rookie in wedding photography, I will go ahead and start renting rather than purchasing. Based on the outcome, I will make the purchase in the future.

Excellent choice!!! since so many people have different prefrences for what they like as far as lenses this is the best way to go for someone just starting out and not sure what focal-length suits them best and if you are going to invest big bucks in a lens you want to make sure it is the one you want.

 

[Mike_E]

Hi, I just ran across a link while cleaning up my bookmarks and thought you might like to see the site.

http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/

If you are going to do it, do it right.

 

[Antithesis]

Find out what the primary likes to shoot most and use something with a different focal length. If the primary is shooting wide, your going to want something tight, like an 85mm f1.8 or 70-200 f2.8 and just get portraits and reaction shots.

I think the rule of thumb is to get the fastest and highest lens quality that you can afford. If you can afford an L, then by all means get it. You won't ever need to replace it, where if you buy a Tokina or Sigma or something, you'll want to replace as you start to see some money. If you get into it as a profession, you'll evenually fill your bag with all top quality equipment, or atleast you should.

The weddings that I've done, I've found the 17-55 range to be the most useful to my shooting style.

Edit: after reading JerryPH's post, I thought I'd add something. My two most recent lens purchases were a Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 70-200 f2.8, because these were all I can afford on a college students budget. The Tokina is plenty sharp and I will probably keep it as my wide lens, and I don't think I'll ever have to worry about it breaking because it's built like a tank. The Sigma on the other hand is a decent lens, but is just holding me over until I can afford the Nikon counterpart with VR and a more usable f2.8. Reliability is also something you'd really have to consider for your primary lens that your going to use a whole lot. I doubt the Sigma that Jerry mentioned comes anywhere close to the Nikon in that regard. My next lens is going to be the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 and will probably stay on my camera 90% of the time.

 

[Mav]

Good discussion.

I've tried some third-party glass and have generally found that you get what you pay for when it comes to lenses. The third-party stuff may perform as well as or even better than the OEM brand lenses that cost a lot more in magazine testing, but there's a lot more to lenses than magazine test results. Some of these third-party lenses while sharp, often have hideous bokeh rendering. Ugly bokeh easily ruins portrait shots, and this isn't commonly tested in magazines. Sometimes there's an odd color shift that results in weird looking photos if the lens propagates different colors with varying efficiency. Overall color and contrast just aren't the same more often than not. Those MTF sharpness tables are tested at varying focal lengths and apertures, but at only ONE optical frequency. What about everything else? (here's where your test matrix quickly snowballs, lol) What about focusing speed? What about focus accuracy? What about tracking ability? What about reliability? What about build quality and durability? What about "sample variation"? You never stop hearing about sample variation and focusing issues with third-party lenses, but it's truly rare to hear about it at all on the OEM branded stuff. And you know that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina PR isn't just going to send a random sample of one of their lenses to the press for testing. Samples are cherry-picked, just like for automotive testing. So what you see in the mags might not necessarily be a good representation of what somebody buying a retail copy of the lens will truly get.

Clearly the OEM branded lenses are built to much higher standards. It's enormously difficult to make a lens do all things well at the same time, and when you try that's when it ends up costing a lot of money. Top of the line professional glass is going to be overkill for most hobbyists and amateurs. It's sorta like a luxury branded car. Yeah they're nice to have if you can afford them, but not needed for most people.

I have a Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro II lens, similar to the 28-80 that Mike_E pointed out above. It's a very nice piece of glass with truly outstanding build quality for the price I paid for it - $250 used. For the money, it's a great lens, but it's most definitely no $1400 Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8. It just isn't, and if you try to convince yourself that it is you're kidding yourself. All of that extra money buys you something, and it won't all necessarily come across in synthetic magazine tests. Just like the essence of the performance and/or handling characteristics of a car won't necessarily come across in acceleration or skidpad numbers. If you're a professional competing with other professionals for business, definitely get the PRO glass. For all hobbyists and amateurs or enthusiasts, it's an optional luxury item sorta like deciding whether to splurge on a BMW, or to just get a Toyota which is "nice", but no BMW.

That said, if anybody wants a Nikon mount Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro lens, I have one for sale. PM me. It got replaced with a Nikkor 17-55DX f/2.8 which costs 5 times more, and is simply an amazing lens. Images come straight off the camera looking hot with no post-processing needed, not even sharpening. The color, contrast, bokeh, sharpness, even wide open, is just "there". It also has machine-gun like tracking with the AF-S motors clicking at about 3-5 Hz. Is the Tokina bad? No, but it's simply no Nikkor. Do I truly "need" this professional lens? No. I could have gotten by just fine with the Sigma or Tamron versions for a lot less money. I don't shoot weddings or other things for a second source of income and only really do it for fun and for the experience when my buddy who does do it for additional income calls me up to come along as a backup. But I nearly killed myself at the office last year, finally got my big bonus, use this range all the time, and wanted to reward myself with something nice to shoot my 11 month old with, who is only going to be 11 months old once, (and 10 months, and 9 months, and 1yr, etc). For a car I'd rather have a Toyota and am not too particular. I'd rather shoot with "BMW" lenses, though.




BTW, not even a week after getting this lens, my daughter already managed to accidentally give it a good whack with a not so lightweight solid wooden rattle that she has. I would have been seriously scared with either the Tamron or Sigma lenses, but it didn't even faze the Nikkor, nor would it have the Tokina, both of which are built to very high standards mechanically. Considering I'm down on the floor shooting my daughter a lot, I'd much rather have a well-built Tokina than a perhaps optically better Sigma or Tamron if they're not going to take any "abuse", lol. Tokina has a 16-50mm f/2.8 which is rather pricey but well-built, but also got panned optically, even in magazine reviews. I never considered it, but it might be worth looking into for somebody else.

 

[Dubious Drewski]

Some of these third-party lenses while sharp, often have hideous bokeh rendering. Ugly bokeh easily ruins portrait shots, and this isn't commonly tested in magazines.

No, this apparently is not true. A hypothetical mathematically-perfect lens would render bokeh with very sharp edges (One article described it as looking like a bunch of rolled-up condoms), it's the imperfect lenses that create the better bokeh, ironically. (Good bokeh, to me, is characterized by perfectly even, soft-edged circles of confusion, not too sharp, not too blury)

This article is the best one I found that explains it in detail.

 

[Mav]

There's more to it than that. Compare Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses. You can argue all day long as to which is sharper and not come up with an answer. One thing that's obvious though is that the f/1.4 has very nice bokeh rendering whereas the f/1.8's is on the ugly side. I'm no lens designer, but it looks like the solution lies in using more extremely expensive optical/photographic grade glass in order to get both. My 50mm f/1.8 lens was extremely sharp, but had hideous bokeh. My f/1.4 version has very nice bokeh, but lacks that critical sharpness that the f/1.8 had. My Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 has nice bokeh and it's insanely sharp all at the same time, which is probably why it cost a grand.

I've seen image samples from the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and it's definitely sharp, but the bokeh is also definitely ugly. Haven't seen bokeh specifically from the Sigma 18-50. The Tokina 16-50 as I recall had fairly nice looking bokeh, but just wasn't all that sharp of a lens at least compared to the others. You can only get so much at certain price points.

 

[JerryPH]

Haven't seen bokeh specifically from the Sigma 18-50.

Obviously bad examples as bokeh was not the goal in either shot, but enough to give you an idea with a Sigma 18-50. I could do a lot better if the goal is to show off the lens' bokeh later on when I have a bit of time.

The 18-50's macro capabilities are nice as well (this is still reduced but enough for an idea):

Believe it or not, thats an old memory chip I had laying around and tested with. What you are looking at is a single module of memory on that stick of ram.

It's a very sharp lens and has no additional warming contrasts that the Tokina adds, so colors are more accurately depicted:

 

[Mike_E]

The OP asked if there was a lens that was "comparable" (i.e. close to) to a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L lens. The OP also stated that the L lens was not in their budget.

You can only do what you can do and renting is fine. I guess some people don't need to practice or doesn't renting for weeks on end add up?

The Tokina I was taking about was supposed to be soft @f/2.8 and it will only go to 80mm. This has minor photoshop- resizing and a defogging, but the bokeh is straight from Tokina...

80mm@f/2.8 ISO100 (the focus point is the "a" in Tokina on the bag.

No, it's not a Nikon but I didn't pay $2000 for it either. And, I really don't think that anyone is going to gripe when they get their photos!

mike

 

[JerryPH]

Concerning a best lens for photography, there is no one such animal. The demands of a wedding are extremely varied from closeups in small rooms to needing a wide angle for group shots to a telephoto to get the shot of the couple from the back of the church.

I any case, no matter what lens you do choose, one thing does stand out in weddings... you shoot in places that have inherently very poor light and are going to need a fast lens.

So, though a 10-300 mm at f/1.2 would be the ultimate lens (if you and 2 of your buddies were willing to carry it with you... lol), in weddings, one will need several fast lenses to fit the situation if they want to get all the good shots. Though one can do many shots with a mid-range zoom (ie: 17-55), it is going to not be very helpful in places where the couple is more than 20 feet away (pretty much anywhere inside the church, outside portraits, reception candids, etc...)

 

[Mike_E]

Yes, but the OP wasn't asking about the Best lens. He already knows about Canon's L glass- as he has a Canon.

The question was is there any thing close. (you can check easily enough)

There are several Serviceable lenses that cover that range. What Many don't seem to understand is that most wedding shots are not printed at 20X24 but at 4X6. If you get a great prime for the shots you know are to be enlarged to go along with the rest of your kit you can do some fine work!

No, you won't be doing $10,000 weddings but you aren't going to be doing those anyway until you have a LOT more experience!!! By the time you get there, you should have acquired all the great glass you will ever need.