Lens advice for Nikon D7000 - wedding photography

Follow_journey

Follow_journey

Suspended / Banned
Messages
170
Name
M.S.
Edit My Images
No
Hi,

I own a Nikon D7000 and currently job shadow a full time wedding photographer, when I am able to do so. On occasions I get to take some photographs here and there, so that I can get some experience. Essentially, i aim to become an assistant to the main shooter. I have booked part-time courses, to help me learn the basics of photography.

Can anyone recommend the first set of lens I should invest in? I have been adviced to get a Nikon 50mm f1.4; should I go for that bit of glass?

Any advice will be appreciated...
 
I probably use my 70-200 f2.8 most when I help with 2nd shooting. As I like to shoot differently to the main photographer, as I don't see the point in getting the same sort of shots. I find the 70-200 really nice for candid shots and you can pick out individuals in group shots that maybe laughing / crying etc and its just not possible for the main 'tog to get those shots while they are shooting wide to get everyone in.

So I'd probably say something long would be useful to start off with. :)
 
I'm a fellow D7000 owner and shoot weddings every now and then. I tend to use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the kit 18-105mm lens. I also shoot low-light / shallow DoF with a Nikon 50mm f1.8.

These have served me well so far but I'm looking to get a 24-70 f2.8 as I've found that 2.8 is very useful for getting good quality shots in low light situations (like Churches, Chapels and Reception venues)
 
What do you use at the moment? If a zoom is there a particular mm you keep getting the shots you want at?


Secondly you'd need glass that is sharp (post processing you can always blur if required).


I have the older 50mm 1.4 and it is very sharp at f4, 1.4 the DoF is a bit small ;) but useful if shooting in low light. Link in the sig to sample pics for this lens.

If you can, I'd borrow/loan a few of the lenses you are considering whilst on a job, to see which does the pictures you want. Then at least you've tried it and can note which would be better to buy later on.

Personally I prefer the slightly wider 35mm f1.8, but I can see a 50mm or a longer lens being useful (candids/macro etc).

good luck!
 
Phil Young said:
What's your budget and shooting style?
Click to expand...

£200 possibly, but could pay more if at a push. I will probably help out with groom / bride prep and candid shots during the wedding.

I'm only doing shadow work at the moment, so I don't have a shooting style yet I guess.
 
Mank said:
So I'd probably say something long would be useful to start off with. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. I probably do need a wide lens as I think it will suit me best at this stage. It would be good for me at this stage, whilst I am still learning as well. However, I think the lens you have recommended is out of my price range at the moment.
 
photokit_pro said:
I'm a fellow D7000 owner and shoot weddings every now and then. I tend to use a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and the kit 18-105mm lens. I also shoot low-light / shallow DoF with a Nikon 50mm f1.8.

These have served me well so far but I'm looking to get a 24-70 f2.8 as I've found that 2.8 is very useful for getting good quality shots in low light situations (like Churches, Chapels and Reception venues)
Click to expand...

Is there much benefit over a 50mm f1.4 over the 1.8 that you have? I think because of my budget, this sits nicely in my price range...
 
ecniv said:
Personally I prefer the slightly wider 35mm f1.8, but I can see a 50mm or a longer lens being useful (candids/macro etc).

good luck!
Click to expand...

most of the situations will be in low light I guess, as it will be mainly used for wedding photography.
 
I used the 50mm f1.4g this weekend as my test D7k backup camera for a wedding.

I found at f1.4 it was very hard to get the photo in focus because the DOF was so shallow that if you were off by a bit then the whole photo could be ruined. One shot in particular I was pretty cheesed off about since it looked good on the LCD but when I loaded it up on lightroom, the bridesmaid must have been a little forward and she was slightly OOF compared to the others. Luckily I later found the same shot on my primary camera.

That said when you nail the focus, the bokeh is amazing.
 
I wouldn't bother with the 1.4 either.

The last wedding i shot i shot 80% of it on a tamron 17-50mm f2.8. You could buy a used one with your budget. Obviously not as fast as a prime buy gives you more options. But as someone else has mentioned you're shadowing so you might be better off with a zoom and just take candids from a distance.
 
Last edited:
Hey I think the 50mm 1.8 is great value for money, i've been using it since the beginning of the year and havent found any problems with it (so far!). Only slight negative would be that on my crop body sometimes I have to step back a bit further sometimes if i'm doing portraits, but what's a few footsteps hey :)
 
Follow_journey said:
so do you recommend the 1.4 or 1.8 for me?
Click to expand...

Since you are 2nd shooting then I'd say go for the 1.8 over the 1.4

The reason aside from the fact it's cheaper, is that I assume you are doing mainly candids where you sometimes need to be quick to get those grab shots.

Being able to go down to 1.8 is more than enough and 1.4 is simply a waste and at the same time being harder to nail because of the very shallow DOF.
 
gadgeteer said:
Since you are 2nd shooting then I'd say go for the 1.8 over the 1.4

Being able to go down to 1.8 is more than enough and 1.4 is simply a waste and at the same time being harder to nail because of the very shallow DOF.
Click to expand...

I am hoping to eventually assist with the groom prep in the morning, as well as candid shots throughout rest of the day. Therefore, is 1.4 more beneficial?
 
~*~ElmoHolz~*~ said:
Hey I think the 50mm 1.8 is great value for money, i've been using it since the beginning of the year and havent found any problems with it (so far!). Only slight negative would be that on my crop body sometimes I have to step back a bit further sometimes if i'm doing portraits, but what's a few footsteps hey :)
Click to expand...

What main shots do you go for with the 1.4?
 
The 1.4 is simply a waste of money IMO, more often than not they are twice as expensive for a minuscule difference. A 50mm f1.8 will give you more than enough DOF and light.

When I bought my 50mm 1.4 I seriously thought I'd been robbed...first thoughts were "what the hell is all the fuss about?!".

Quickly got rid and spent the money on a better buy :)
 
Phil Young said:
The 1.4 is simply a waste of money IMO, more often than not they are twice as expensive for a minuscule difference. A 50mm f1.8 will give you more than enough DOF and light.

When I bought my 50mm 1.4 I seriously thought I'd been robbed...first thoughts were "what the hell is all the fuss about?!".

Quickly got rid and spent the money on a better buy :)
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your experience.
 
gadgeteer said:
Since you are 2nd shooting then I'd say go for the 1.8 over the 1.4

The reason aside from the fact it's cheaper, is that I assume you are doing mainly candids where you sometimes need to be quick to get those grab shots.

Being able to go down to 1.8 is more than enough and 1.4 is simply a waste and at the same time being harder to nail because of the very shallow DOF.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
rjbell said:
I wouldn't bother with the 1.4 either.

The last wedding i shot i shot 80% of it on a tamron 17-50mm f2.8. You could buy a used one with your budget. Obviously not as fast as a prime buy gives you more options. But as someone else has mentioned you're shadowing so you might be better off with a zoom and just take candids from a distance.
Click to expand...

Which zoom do you recommend?
 
You see I'd go for the 1.4 every time. It's not as if you can't stop it down, but there will be a time when having a lens that lets in twice as much light as a 1.8 will be worth the extra cost.
 
Steelmagnet said:
You see I'd go for the 1.4 every time. It's not as if you can't stop it down, but there will be a time when having a lens that lets in twice as much light as a 1.8 will be worth the extra cost.
Click to expand...

The photographer that I have began to shadow, recommends the 1.4. I'm in the process of saving up for one ;)
 
Phil Young said:
Twice as much light?!?!

Isn't it more like a quarter more?!
Click to expand...

It's not quite twice as much light ... it's about 2/3 more :)

1.8/1.4142 = 1.273 (where 1.4142 is used as the square root of 2)

A simple 50mm lens with an aperture of f/1.8 has an aperture area of 606 sq.mm. The area increases to 1002 sq.mm at f/1.4 (roughly 65% more) and 1212 sq.mm (double the f/1.8 area) at f/1.273. I'd guess it's not so easy to make an iris mechanisn that deals in odd numbers like 1.273
 
Plus the 1.4 shot at 1.8 is sharper than the 1.8 wide open :)
 
Follow_journey said:
The photographer that I have began to shadow, recommends the 1.4. I'm in the process of saving up for one ;)
Click to expand...

He may well be using a full frame body on which 50mm is "normal". On such a body 50mm is a good all-round choice of focal length. On your D7000 you need the 35mm f/1.8 to give the equivalent framing.

Whilst I mean no disrespect, you appear to know very little about lenses, so, as mentioned above, I doubt you have the advanced technique to accurately and reliably focus @ f/1.4, especially on a crop body @ 75mm equiv.

Every DX shooter should have a 35mm f/1.8 lens, and they are very cheap. Mastering that lens will improve your technique leaps and bounds. And it's extremely sharp.
 
martsharm said:
He may well be using a full frame body on which 50mm is "normal". On such a body 50mm is a good all-round choice of focal length. On your D7000 you need the 35mm f/1.8 to give the equivalent framing.

Whilst I mean no disrespect, you appear to know very little about lenses, so, as mentioned above, I doubt you have the advanced technique to accurately and reliably focus @ f/1.4, especially on a crop body @ 75mm equiv.

Every DX shooter should have a 35mm f/1.8 lens, and they are very cheap. Mastering that lens will improve your technique leaps and bounds. And it's extremely sharp.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I am very new into photography, so no offence taken. I'm learning everyday...
 
Tough decision, looks like it's going to be between:

1. 50mm f1.4 / 1.8, or the
2. 35mm f1.4.

The main advice is to learn and master the f 1.8, before progressing to the f1.4. However, some think that the 1.4 is the best glass to buy, due to its sharpness.
 
Follow_journey said:
Tough decision, looks like it's going to be between:

1. 50mm f1.4 / 1.8, or the
2. 35mm f1.4.

The main advice is to learn and master the f 1.8, before progressing to the f1.4. However, some think that the 1.4 is the best glass to buy, due to its sharpness.
Click to expand...

It's the 35mm DX f/1.8 I was on about. Small, cheap and good. The 35mm FX f/1.4, never used it but it sounds spectacular, is an entirely different, large, expensive lens. Get the cheap one. I can assure you there's little that's sharper on a DX body. If anything. Don't worry about lens sharpness, it's all in your focussing technique, especially with moving objects (humans)!
 
Follow_journey said:
Tough decision, looks like it's going to be between:

1. 50mm f1.4 / 1.8, or the
2. 35mm f1.4.

The main advice is to learn and master the f 1.8, before progressing to the f1.4. However, some think that the 1.4 is the best glass to buy, due to its sharpness.
Click to expand...

Dont confuse what the previous poster said about sharpness... The 1.4 is only sharper at 1.8 because it is not at the limit of its aperture. The 1.8 is just as sharp when also stopped down a touch. The 1.8 is a stupidly sharp lens and at its price is a must for anyone. Where the 1.4 benefits is its ability to render better bokeh, and that only really relates to highlights which are harsher on the 1.8. I still use my 1.8 in some situations on my D3 and I have far more expensive lenses that cover this focal length.
 
However said:
depends whom you read, I have seen plenty that rate the 50 1.8 over the 1.4.

Personally I have the 50 1.8D which was given to me by an ex film shooter and it has been welded to my camera ever since, I haven't used my 35 1.8G at all- but I have been trying lots of short dof portrait stuff which is easier than with my 18-200.

I suspect (for me at any rate) that the difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is so small, that my technique and ability are the limiting factors more than the lens. I am a big believer that given reasonable equipment, the equipment is not the limiting factor. Bono still sounds great on an SM58 (£75 stage mic) - and I am qualified to say that as a professional sound mixer of 25 years!
Now about my photography.....cough cough...

Buy a lens and shoot shoot shoot.... spare yourself the gear angst.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I assume you're referring to the 50mm lenses here? I agree with your analysis but the OP is a DX shooter so needs the 35mm focal length, and as the 1.4 is way overkill especially in price, it's the 1.8 or nothing.
 
martsharm said:
It's the 35mm DX f/1.8 I was on about. Small, cheap and good. The 35mm FX f/1.4, never used it but it sounds spectacular, is an entirely different, large, expensive lens. Get the cheap one. I can assure you there's little that's sharper on a DX body. If anything. Don't worry about lens sharpness, it's all in your focussing technique, especially with moving objects (humans)!
Click to expand...

Price isn't an issue, as I am prepared to save up. However, you are right, the issue is more to do with focusing techniques at this stage with me.
 
Last edited:
MIKEROPHONICS said:
depends whom you read, I have seen plenty that rate the 50 1.8 over the 1.4.

Personally I have the 50 1.8D which was given to me by an ex film shooter and it has been welded to my camera ever since, I haven't used my 35 1.8G at all- but I have been trying lots of short dof portrait stuff which is easier than with my 18-200.

I suspect (for me at any rate) that the difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is so small, that my technique and ability are the limiting factors more than the lens. I am a big believer that given reasonable equipment, the equipment is not the limiting factor. Bono still sounds great on an SM58 (£75 stage mic) - and I am qualified to say that as a professional sound mixer of 25 years!
Now about my photography.....cough cough...

Buy a lens and shoot shoot shoot.... spare yourself the gear angst.
Click to expand...

Are you a lead or assistant shooter?
 
My best ever portrait was on my d40x with the kit lens on day one of owning the camera a few years ago. Shot in South Africa in very harsh sunlight in a beach car park on the fly as the rest of the party were shouting hurry up at me. I get compliments about the image. I think people obsess too much about lenses and sharpness - and agree with cuddly Ken Rockwell on this one (although not from his experienced view point).

I have found mastering the d7k focusing to be hard and had been trying to tie myself in knots by trying to use f1.8 all the time. I have now calmed down and stop down a bit as 2.8 still removes backgrounds fine and allows a margin for focus.
 
MIKEROPHONICS said:
My best ever portrait was on my d40x with the kit lens on day one of owning the camera a few years ago. Shot in South Africa in very harsh sunlight in a beach car park on the fly as the rest of the party were shouting hurry up at me. I get compliments about the image. I think people obsess too much about lenses and sharpness - and agree with cuddly Ken Rockwell on this one (although not from his experienced view point).

I have found mastering the d7k focusing to be hard and had been trying to tie myself in knots by trying to use f1.8 all the time. I have now calmed down and stop down a bit as 2.8 still removes backgrounds fine and allows a margin for focus.
Click to expand...

So what's the main lens that you use?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top