Best wedding lenses on the Nikon line for D700?

X

xil3

Suspended / Banned
Messages
356
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
No
Sorry if this question has been asked many times before, but I'm currently trying to think what lens I should get (since I'm returning my Tamron and will need a replacement).

I need something that'll be great for weddings.

I'm currently looking at the following:

nikon 24-70 2.8
nikon 17-35 2.8

Any other suggestions?

P.S. I've lost faith in 3rd party lenses!
 
70-200 VR 2.8
 
xil3 said:
I heard it wasn't that great on FX bodies...
Click to expand...

I heard it too, and bought it. Its a load of bull, AWESOME Lens.

Through glass:
3110202210_36c22b3eb9_o.jpg



Also through glass:
3089965496_b3a45a310a_o.jpg



These at f2.8. It gets sharpest at f8 :D

Gary.
 
xil3 said:
I heard it wasn't that great on FX bodies...
Click to expand...

You keep saying this! Its like a stuck record :lol:

Can I suggest you stop "hearing" and start USING!

Then come back and say what you think :)
 
puddleduck said:
You keep saying this! Its like a stuck record :lol:

Can I suggest you stop "hearing" and start USING!

Then come back and say what you think :)
Click to expand...

You're right :lol:

Will try it out and see how it goes :p

What about the other 2 lenses I mentioned though?

Keep in mind that I'd also like to use this lens for walking around :p
 
EdinburghGary said:
I heard it too, and bought it. Its a load of bull, AWESOME Lens.

Through glass:
3110202210_36c22b3eb9_o.jpg



Also through glass:
3089965496_b3a45a310a_o.jpg



These at f2.8. It gets sharpest at f8 :D

Gary.
Click to expand...



EG, hope you don't mind me commenting just on the piccys; I'm a Canon user so can't comment on suitable glass, but those shots really drew the awwww factor from me and made me chuckle.

Fantastic shots and lighting/composition :) :clap::clap:
 
Just to let you know Kerso has 2 in stock though one is reserved for me:)

Re other lenses, both are good but I'd go for the 24-70 first.
 
xil3 said:
What about the other 2 lenses I mentioned though?

Keep in mind that I'd also like to use this lens for walking around :p
Click to expand...

The 17-35 is really really awesome - funnily enough I had a wedding shooter pop over to try mine out last week (he was wanted to trade his 14-24 for my 17-35, didn't like or use the 14-24 for weddings).

The 14-24 is sharper wide open (which is useful when its dark) but the 17-35 is certainly more useful as a range.

I don't think the 17-35 is sharp enough wide open on the long end to be truly useful for weddings. Great lens, but I suspect the 24-70 will do 35mm better here. Personally the 17-35 is probably my favourite full frame lens, but I shoot landscape stopped down, not weddings...
 
markta said:
EG, hope you don't mind me commenting just on the piccys; I'm a Canon user so can't comment on suitable glass, but those shots really drew the awwww factor from me and made me chuckle.

Fantastic shots and lighting/composition :) :clap::clap:
Click to expand...

Thanks, hopefully a good demo of the lens, and in amateur hands too.

Gary.
 
Alright, so the lenses you guys recommend I get are in this order (best for wedding and walk around lens):

1. 70-200
2. 24-70
3. 17-35

Is that right?
 
If you want zooms, yes. Although the 70-200 is no 'walkaround' lens. Add at least one fast prime, probably the 50/1.4 or 85/1.4.

I'm assuming you've shot a wedding before.
 
Radiohead said:
If you want zooms, yes. Although the 70-200 is no 'walkaround' lens. Add at least one fast prime, probably the 50/1.4 or 85/1.4.

I'm assuming you've shot a wedding before.
Click to expand...

Well, I have the 50mm 1.8 and I just returned my Tamron and bought the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 (it's a beaut!)
 
i am slightly worried that you needed to ask the question in truth.

i dont mean offense, but if your not sure what focal lengths you will use for a wedding are you sure you have enough experience to cope with shooting one???

the general consensus is a 70-200 f2.8 and a 24-70 f2.8, along with a 50 or 85 prime just in case
 
fletch5 said:
i am slightly worried that you needed to ask the question in truth.

i dont mean offense, but if your not sure what focal lengths you will use for a wedding are you sure you have enough experience to cope with shooting one???

the general consensus is a 70-200 f2.8 and a 24-70 f2.8, along with a 50 or 85 prime just in case
Click to expand...

Well, I knew, but I just needed that extra piece of mind...

And I'm just preparing for the future right now - don't plan on shooting a wedding for awhile (need to get more experience).
 
fletch5 said:
i am slightly worried that you needed to ask the question in truth.

i dont mean offense, but if your not sure what focal lengths you will use for a wedding are you sure you have enough experience to cope with shooting one???

the general consensus is a 70-200 f2.8 and a 24-70 f2.8, along with a 50 or 85 prime just in case
Click to expand...

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's easy to say "..you need x lens or y lens.." but the reallity is that like any aspect of photography, it depends entirely on YOUR style of photography within this huge catagory of 'Weddings'.
As with any expensive purchase, you have to consider how your lens choice(s) impact other areas of your photography.

For example, in my case, I would go the 70-200 route and one or two fast primes. But then I love a very candid approach :shrug:
That said, the 24-70 is a cracker :love:
 
future proofing is a great idea:thumbs: did you think of the same lenses that are being suggested?
 
I can't remember the last time I used my 70-200 at a wedding, conversely. And I shoot with a 24-70 and 50/1.4 almost exclusively now.
 
Radiohead said:
I can't remember the last time I used my 70-200 at a wedding, conversely. And I shoot with a 24-70 and 50/1.4 almost exclusively now.
Click to expand...

The Nikon 70-200 is a lot heavier than the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS... haha.... definitely not a walk around lens...
 
Radiohead said:
The Canon is 1470g
The Nikkor is 1468g
Click to expand...

Bah - well I guess if you want to get technical :p

I was just assuming based on how it felt in my hands... (I used to own a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS)
 
EdinburghGary said:
I heard it too, and bought it. Its a load of bull, AWESOME Lens.

Through glass:
3110202210_36c22b3eb9_o.jpg



Also through glass:
3089965496_b3a45a310a_o.jpg



These at f2.8. It gets sharpest at f8 :D

Gary.
Click to expand...

How sharp!! so you will be liking your 70 -200 then?
If you had to choose out of your collection of lenses which one would you buy first??
 
Radiohead said:
I can't remember the last time I used my 70-200 at a wedding, conversely. And I shoot with a 24-70 and 50/1.4 almost exclusively now.
Click to expand...

I second this, its handy to have a 70-200, but it will hardly get used. 24-70 + 50 is a great combo for a wedding.
 
contrastingLight said:
How sharp!!
Click to expand...
At web size at least...it's a great lens (I should know, I own it) but I cringe everytime someone comments how sharp a lens is based on a web sized image.

70-200 is a great lens though, I love mine. I've only shot three weddings (and only one of those as 'official' photographer) but I used the 70-200 a lot, but that's probably because I like to use longer focul lengths over wides. That said, I had my 28-70 too and wouldn't be without that for one second either! But I am in no way an authority on wedding photography :help:
 
Richard Peters said:
At web size at least...it's a great lens (I should know, I own it) but I cringe everytime someone comments how sharp a lens is based on a web sized image.

70-200 is a great lens though, I love mine. I've only shot three weddings (and only one of those as 'official' photographer) but I used the 70-200 a lot, but that's probably because I like to use longer focul lengths over wides. That said, I had my 28-70 too and wouldn't be without that for one second either! But I am in no way an authority on wedding photography :help:
Click to expand...

To be fair, web size at 800 pixels is the same size as a medium sized print is it not, in terms of width etc?

But I see your point. I never look at my images "larger" than my display size, whether it be a print, or screen image.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
To be fair, web size at 800 pixels is the same size as a medium sized print is it not, in terms of width etc?

But I see your point. I never look at my images "larger" than my display size, whether it be a print, or screen image.

Gary.
Click to expand...
True (actually that's an interesting point, exactly how big would an 800 pixel image print?)

In general terms though it's still no indication of how sharp a lens is, just that you can do a small print. I've managed to get 'really' bad shots to look sharp for the web just to see if I could, so it can be very miss-leading to someone looking to see the optical quality of a lens.

But that's a whole other topic :)
 
Richard Peters said:
True (actually that's an interesting point, exactly how big would an 800 pixel image print?)

In general terms though it's still no indication of how sharp a lens is, just that you can do a small print. I've managed to get 'really' bad shots to look sharp for the web just to see if I could, so it can be very miss-leading to someone looking to see the optical quality of a lens.

But that's a whole other topic :)
Click to expand...

I agree. 800x533 is less than 1 megapixel and severely downsampled.

Critical sharpness at 100% is very important as it has a direct relationship with how big you can print.

But its a whole other topic :)
 
Richard Peters said:
True (actually that's an interesting point, exactly how big would an 800 pixel image print?)

In general terms though it's still no indication of how sharp a lens is, just that you can do a small print. I've managed to get 'really' bad shots to look sharp for the web just to see if I could, so it can be very miss-leading to someone looking to see the optical quality of a lens.

But that's a whole other topic :)
Click to expand...

I dont mean it like that, hard to explain. Thinking in literally the LENGTH of an image as it appears on screen at 800 pixels, and the length of the same image as its printed, at its full resolution, at say 8" x 6". They are of a roughly similar size?

Therefore, to see a true representation of your printed image, before you print, would you not look at an image, which had the same physical width, on your monitor screen? At 96 Dots Per Inch, 960 pixels wide = 10 inches.

Am I right?

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
I dont mean it like that, hard to explain. Thinking in literally the LENGTH of an image as it appears on screen at 800 pixels, and the length of the same image as its printed, at its full resolution, at say 8" x 6". They are of a roughly similar size?

Therefore, to see a true representation of your printed image, before you print, would you not look at an image, which had the same physical width, on your monitor screen? At 96 Dots Per Inch, 960 pixels wide = 10 inches.

Am I right?

Gary.
Click to expand...

No, at typical print resolutions (call it 300dpi) web size its about 3 inches by 2.
 
puddleduck said:
I agree. 800x533 is less than 1 megapixel and severely downsampled.

Critical sharpness at 100% is very important as it has a direct relationship with how big you can print.

But its a whole other topic :)
Click to expand...

See my other reply, I was not meaning to print an 800 wide image. Print the FULL resolution image, and compare it to an image of the same physical width on screen.

Imagine holding the print to the screen, the photo on the screen should be the same size.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Imagine holding the print to the screen, the photo on the screen should be the same size.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the image on screen has only 0.5 MP and the image on print has 5MP or more.

Richard's point is that you can't tell how good a lens is, when you're only asking it to deliver 0.5 MP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top