28-300 3.5 -5.6 as a wedding lens

Well I do now. I'll certainly be switching to a 28-300 for this season and returning the 24/1.4 that arrived today :D
 
lmao, no really i think primes are the way to go for me personally but there is something to be considered imo in having a superzoom in the kit bag just not feeling the 2.8 zooms at all for their 1 stop benefit over a superzoom :S

Anyway, radiohead, do you mind me asking how many weddings you shoot a year on average and how many do you aim to book?
 
In all seriousness, do what works for you.

I aim for 30-35 and book that number. I'm already fully booked for 2011.
 
Dave Pickett said:
Butter olocks, If the weather is bright then it will be flexible and allow the tog to work quickly and capture all the best shots,
isnt that what you want.........................
Click to expand...

It's not butter ollocks, I wouldn't be impressed! I'm entitled to an opinion.

Maybe the images would be great on a sunny day. But for such a focal length range there has to be some trade off on image quality along the line. I'd sooner book someone with the right tools for the job than a 'one size fits all' approach. But that's just me.

It's all very subjective of course. The best kit doesn't guarantee great results either.

via TP Forums for iPhone
 
Tbh I did a couple of weddings on a film camera, used my 28mm, my 50mm, and my 70-150 zoom, never used a higher zoom, cant see the point of a 300mm, and as for f stops there are only a few places where the vicar/priest doesn't like flash, have a word with him first.
 
MatW said:
If I'd booked a wedding photographer and he turned up with a superzoom, I wouldn't be impressed!
Click to expand...

In all honesty how many people who never delved in photography equipment (quite a large number of them) would figure that out?


Did me some varouis tests (shoots around) with F4 and F2.8..... when F4 fails, f2.8 is just 1 step ahead and on the verge of failing too in most cases... 1 step not 10 steps ahead like the price suggests. If one wants real fast then one should really stick to fast primes.. thats were real useful Fs come along.
 
Radiohead said:
Well I do now. I'll certainly be switching to a 28-300 for this season and returning the 24/1.4 that arrived today :D
Click to expand...


would not be a bad choice TBH, shocking vignetting untill around f4, extremely poor border resolution and bokeh that would scare chuck norris. I'm sure you'll be more than happy with it :thumbs:


even worse if its a mk1 :lol:
 
I'm a massive fan of the 28-300. It's sharp, covers a large range and means you only need to carry one lens.

However, as many others have pointed out, doing weddings means you have work in conditions with very low light. 2.8 is a bare minimum, which rules out the 28-300.
 
Just read through this thread, and I'm surprised that so many people want to jump into giving opinions without reading the OP's postings properly.

As you're using a Nikon D700, the aperture range of the Nikon 28-300 can be offset somewhat by shooting at higher ISOs -1600/3200 are perfectly feasible.

I shoot stage performances without flash and printing at 10x8 I can easily get away with ISO 6400.

The range of the 28-300 will give you great possibilities for candid shots, and great flexibility generally.

The Nikon 28-300 has received a very favourable reception from a number of people, including Bjorn Roslett and I think it's well worth considering. It's a matter of the trade-off between ultimate IQ and the likelihood of actually getting the shot in the real world.
 
Luckynp said:
Just read through this thread, and I'm surprised that so many people want to jump into giving opinions without reading the OP's postings properly.
Click to expand...

I think most have read it.

Luckynp said:
As you're using a Nikon D700, the aperture range of the Nikon 28-300 can be offset somewhat by shooting at higher ISOs -1600/3200 are perfectly feasible.
Click to expand...

Which begs the question as to why fast primes are so desired. Put it this way, I regularly need 1600+ with f1.4 lenses. I'd be stuffed with a lens this slow.

Luckynp said:
I shoot stage performances without flash and printing at 10x8 I can easily get away with ISO 6400.
Click to expand...

Get away being the operative. You always want to use the lowest ISO, so why put yourself in a situation where that's an issue.

Luckynp said:
The range of the 28-300 will give you great possibilities for candid shots, and great flexibility generally.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But this doesn't outweigh the negatives IMO.

Luckynp said:
The Nikon 28-300 has received a very favourable reception from a number of people, including Bjorn Roslett and I think it's well worth considering. It's a matter of the trade-off between ultimate IQ and the likelihood of actually getting the shot in the real world.
Click to expand...

Remind me when Bjorn last shot a wedding? There's a good reason why you tend not to see superzooms used by wedding photographers (those that don't rely on flash anyhow).

IMO the liklihood of getting the shot is reduced with a slow zoom.
 
So what your saying is that if i turn up with my sigma 150-500 that wouldn't be a good look?? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top