Nikon telephoto - advice?

outspann

Hey folks,

looking to buy a telephoto/zoom lens for my nikon, as I've been asked to lend my creative genius to a couple of friends weddings over the summer. Was thinking of the 80-200? Or the 70-200 f2.8 (which seems expensive, could possibly afford, but is it a false economy to go for something cheaper?).

OR

should I go for a prime lens? say the 180mm? Not as versatile, but maybe smaller, lighter and cheaper?

Advice please!

Thanks

nilhg

If you are buying specifically for the weddings I'm not sure if a longish zoom is the best buy, what have you already?

I'd be thinking of a decent flash first of all (maybe you already have) then a couple of fast primes (25 and 50 f1.4) then depending on funds you could look at telephoto.

EDIT: Should have said I'm no wedding expert, could be talking through my a**........

Arciphel

I think you'd need (not necessarily in this order, but maybe...)

SB-800 or SB-900 flash (ideally two)
50mm f1.4
24-70mm f2.8
85mm f1.8
70-200mm f2.8
Wide-angle, like 12 or 14-24mm, f2.8 if you can afford it.
Step-ladder & some white umbrellas

Dundhoone

Would you not be driven daft swapping between 50mm, 85mm and the 24-70mm? And would just the 24-70mm cover at least 80% of your shots?

That combined with something wider for the group shots might be a good start.

I have a 80-200mm afs . takes cracking photos, stays in the case a lot due to weight & awkwardness. Much easier to move closer to the action in a church!

eas

I'd concentrate on getting your zooms before your primes if you can.

extremes in style aside, I think you can cover most weddings with the following :

24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8
50 1.4

sb800/900

tripod/monopod

if I had to choose only 1 lens, I'd carry the 24-70.

outspann

Thanks for the replies!

Unfortunately, the advice only reinforces what I had already been thinking: "hmm, do I really NEED a 200mm?". I was hoping that I would be left in no doubt that a medium telephoto was a goddam necessity. No such look.

I have a flash and a 24-70, so I'd like to think I'm good for 90% of the shots. It's just that I've done a couple of weddings for friends and family before, and have always felt somewhat remote from the action. I agree that the ideal of getting up close (what was it that Robert Capa said about wedding photography? if you're photos aren't good enough, then you're not close enough), but I don't want to be roaming all over the stage.

Dund - as you suggested, I have that fear that if I splashed out on the 70-200, that it would end up sitting in the bottom of the bag, being too unwieldy to carry about. There was a time when 1.3kg was the weight of every bit of photo equipment that I owned, instead of just one lens.

Need to sleep on this one.

coylemj

Dundhoone wrote: »

Would you not be driven daft swapping between 50mm, 85mm and the 24-70mm? And would just the 24-70mm cover at least 80% of your shots?

That combined with something wider for the group shots might be a good start.

I have a 80-200mm afs . takes cracking photos, stays in the case a lot due to weight & awkwardness. Much easier to move closer to the action in a church!

I'd have to agree, without decent lighting a 200mm is going to be no good in a church, that's why the photographer is always up at the front, the same will apply in the hotel, sometimes even more so cause there's often less natural light than in the church. For outdoor shots you can get up close if you're the official photographer so I really don't see the use of a 200m zoom at a wedding.

melekalikimaka

outspann wrote: »

(what was it that Robert Capa said about wedding photography? if you're photos aren't good enough, then you're not close enough)

:rolleyes:

Borderfox

70-200 f2.8 is a staple for Weddings especially with IS/VR

outspann

Thanks for the advice folks. Trawled through a few websites last night looking at prices - Wow.

I. JUST. CAN'T. JUSTIFY. IT.

The fear has got to me, and whatever way I look at it, it's simply too much money for me to try to pay out at the moment. Instead I'm now looking at the 180mm again. True, not as flexible, but significantly cheaper and lighter. Roll on ebay...