Good lenses for wedding photography? I just purchased the d90 with the lens that came in the kit...the 18-105mm. I was just asked to do my first wedding this summer and would like to purchase a good overall lens for most of the shots...does anybody have any suggestions? I am new to the digital slr world and am excited (but nervous!) to do a wedding when I am so new. Any suggestions or comments would be very appreciated! Thanks so much! Oh, and the wedding is located in a replica of a Norweigan church (gorgeous woodwork but not too much in the way of natural lighting...part of me is thinking that I am crazy to do this!) Good lenses for wedding photography? I just purchased the d90 with the lens that came in the kit...the 18-105mm. I was just asked to do my first wedding this summer and would like to purchase a... » Read More Good lenses for wedding photography? I just purchased the d90 with the lens that came in the kit...the 18-105mm. I was just asked to do my first wedding this summer and would like to purchase a good overall lens for most of the shots...does anybody have any suggestions? I am new to the digital slr world and am excited (but nervous!) to do a wedding when I am so new. Any suggestions or comments would be very appreciated! Thanks so much! Oh, and the wedding is located in a replica of a Norweigan church (gorgeous woodwork but not too much in the way of natural lighting...part of me is thinking that I am crazy to do this!) « Show Less
512170
The best combo in my opinion, if you want truly professional results, are the combo of the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Nikon 70-200 VR f/2.8. A 2.8 aperture is vital for many wedding situations (indoors; lower light), and both lenses are pro grade as far as build, sharpness, contrast, and the rest. They are also expensive, but you get what you pay for. While the lenses suggested here in other posts are good in many situations, they are not as versatile as is often needed at weddings, and ones with aperture ranges of 3.5-5.6 simply don't cut it often in real situations. Take care,Pete The best combo in my opinion, if you want truly professional results, are the combo of the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Nikon 70-200 VR f/2.8. A 2.8 aperture is vital for many wedding situations (indoors; lower light), and both lenses are pro grade as far as build, sharpness, contrast, and the rest. They are also expensive, but you get what you pay for. While the lenses suggested here in other posts are good in many situations, they are not as versatile as is often needed at weddings, and ones with aperture ranges of 3.5-5.6 simply don't cut it often in real situations. Take... » Read More The best combo in my opinion, if you want truly professional results, are the combo of the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Nikon 70-200 VR f/2.8. A 2.8 aperture is vital for many wedding situations (indoors; lower light), and both lenses are pro grade as far as build, sharpness, contrast, and the rest. They are also expensive, but you get what you pay for. While the lenses suggested here in other posts are good in many situations, they are not as versatile as is often needed at weddings, and ones with aperture ranges of 3.5-5.6 simply don't cut it often in real situations. Take care,Pete « Show Less
512171
16-85mm DX. Equivalently covers 24-128mm. The classic 24-120mm film lens was a wedding photographer fave, despite its mediocre optics. The 16-85 has MUCH improved optics and is highly rated. I've been using one on my D90, which I bough body-only. FYI, despite only having an extra 2mm on the wide end (ie 16mm vs 18mm), there's a noticeable wider field of view due to the exponential benefit with each millimeter decrease in focal length.
1251771
i bought that lens for my d7000 and had great success with it . i gave my daughter the camera and lens and since have bought the d800 and liked the lens so much i bought it again for that camera . with that said i recently sold that lens and am in the process of getting the newest nikon lens the 80-400mm . to sum up my reply great lens but its my understanding that because of the wide range the sensor area is always affected but should work fine when used on your d700...i believe this lens is a great buy
759242
If anyone is interested I have a 24-70L 2.8 Canon Lens. I only use it about 5 times total. 6 weeks after I bought it I purchase the 24-105 IS Canon Lens because I shoot mostly Wedding & Party's. The 24-105 IS works much better for the type of photography I do. I would sell it for $900.00 and include the B&W; UV Filter which is the top of the line brand filter which is made in Germany. Plus $25.00 for shipping. You can email me at rjgphoto@sbcglobal.net if anyone is interested.
606484
I'm so glad there's something posted here - this is one of the lenses I'm considering getting my husband for Christmas. He has the Sigma 50-200mm lens right now and in my experience with it, it hasn't been too bad. Should he be happy with the 18-200?
241544
I have the 85 f1.8D and 35 f2D and they are fantastic. The two lenses you mention should be even better. The 35 is such a versatile focal length, I have been using as my all purpose lens.
2194510
You'll have to inquire from the vendor. I bought mine on Amazon and use it at every wedding I shoot. It's a great lens. It's superb for balcony shots or stair shots for getting the whole wedding party in one shot.I doubt that Amazon would have a vendor that sold non-warranted equipment.
1856383
It is a hell of a great lens for its price. If you have extra money you can consider other lenses such as: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-17-35mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEOS) again, if you have extra money. I have used both but I was happier with this 18-35mm lens because it's so light weight. Unless you have an old camera with not-so-great ISO performance or you like to do astrophotography, I think this lens can make many people happy.
328859
The D70s is very good for both. However, for low-light situations I strongly suggest a good flash. I shot four weddings with it using Nikon's SB-800 flash and got excellent results. If you're new to DSLRs, use "Auto" for everything except ISO. Adjust the ISO as needed for the particular lighting you're shooting in. I also suggest a photo editor such as Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop to bring out shadows, cropping, and adjusting white balance as needed.
1966952
Did you make a decision? I am currently debating the same two lenses. I am leaning towards the Canon since it seems there are quite a few quality/AF issues with the Sigma. Any advice is appreciated.
2236918
It's ok but not great, for daily use i would recommend a 24-105mm, for landscape 17-40mm or 16-35mm, or course your gonna add a few hundred bucks for those lenses but it's worth, I have one of these (28-135) I rarely use it... I don't even know where it is right now... but i have one. If you're really gonna do photography try to invest on a few good lenses...
2029245
Hi Pablo, I have a similar camera (and lens set). I have the GF5 with the X series (compact) 14mm-42mm and I recently got the x series 45mm-175mm. After a ton of reading all the reviews and comments and factoring price and everything (for me) I decided this was the best 2nd lens for me. That said, it is no good UNLESS one is 20+ feet away from what you basically want to shoot. When I take a group shot I have to switch back. I will say the 45x175 is a superb lens, but if you were going to mount one and leave the other home, you would really want the 14-140 (IMO). When I chose the 45-175 I figured why get a lens that was already a range of one I had but in practical use I now see the 14mm-140mm There were a few other factors, one was the price was significantly higher (I got my 45-175 for one hundred ninety two using "like new" on warehouse deals) the other was I really wanted a "X" series lens and the 14-140 is a "G" series only. Two other factors were the 14-140 was almost 8 years older and twice as heavy. I have a GF5 and LOVE how with the 45-175 mounted I can hold it like a soda can in one hand when not using it. I am sure the 14-140 is a great lens, and with the GH2 being a much bigger and heavier camera, I am not sure the increase weight would be an issue. Next time I get another lens my quandary may be similar to your, but it would be the 100-300 vs the very useable 14-140. I already get "Wow" comments with the 45-175 mounted on my tiny red GF5 camera. I can only imagine the comments the humongous 100-300 (zoomed out) would get. I do like how the 45-175 it totally internal and am a tad fearful of the 'zooming/slide' tube feature of the 100-300. I know they have to do it, but it's a tad scary. Overall I really think if you are going to REPLACE (meaning sell or no longer have access the 14-42mm lens) you should opt for the 14-140. That way you ONLY change if you want CRAZY zoom potential! Take care!
170019
Jason, I am a newbie to taking pictures using anything other than a point and shoot!! But, I love this lens. I used it last night for my grandchildren's Christmas program at church. The church was dimly lit with the stage lit. I used no flash with it set on night scene. The pictures are great, even for an amateur like me. As far as the motor, all I know is that I just screw it on the body and start taking pictures. I love the range of the zoom. I could zoom out and get the entire group or in and get my precious ones. I would buy it again with no hesitation. It is much lighter than my Tamron low light lens, so if either will work for the situation, I choose this lens. Jason, I am a newbie to taking pictures using anything other than a point and shoot!! But, I love this lens. I used it last night for my grandchildren's Christmas program at church. The church was dimly lit with the stage lit. I used no flash with it set on night scene. The pictures are great, even for an amateur like me. As far as the motor, all I know is that I just screw it on the body and start taking pictures. I love the range of the zoom. I could zoom out and get the entire group or in and get my precious ones. I would buy it again with no hesitation. It is much lighter than my Tamron... » Read More Jason, I am a newbie to taking pictures using anything other than a point and shoot!! But, I love this lens. I used it last night for my grandchildren's Christmas program at church. The church was dimly lit with the stage lit. I used no flash with it set on night scene. The pictures are great, even for an amateur like me. As far as the motor, all I know is that I just screw it on the body and start taking pictures. I love the range of the zoom. I could zoom out and get the entire group or in and get my precious ones. I would buy it again with no hesitation. It is much lighter than my Tamron low light lens, so if either will work for the situation, I choose this lens. « Show Less
1509565
I have shot 3 weddings with this lens and I haven't had a problem with it, it's been great. I have used the 70-200 and its just a bit faster that the 80-200 but I can't really tell the difference.
824631
The 28-70 is really a great lens and its f/2.8 does well in low light found at weddings. It works well on the D7100 and will be great if you ever choose to move to a full frame camera. It is one of the heaviest lens made by Nikon.
1239597
Mindy, so far the pictures I've taken have been good, crisp and clear pictures. I'm sure it would depend a lot on various factors especially light and distance. I have this lens on my Nikon 5000 all the time. It has replaced my 18-55 kit lens. I brought it with me walking around in a recent vacation to Maine and when we went sailing. It is a little heavier than the kit 18-55 lens but not as heavy as the 55-200 lens. It is so much more versatile. It has a wide angle and zoom. I'm no pro. Just an amateur who takes pictures of family and sights when on vacation. I love this lens. I hope this helps. Good luck. Mindy, so far the pictures I've taken have been good, crisp and clear pictures. I'm sure it would depend a lot on various factors especially light and distance. I have this lens on my Nikon 5000 all the time. It has replaced my 18-55 kit lens. I brought it with me walking around in a recent vacation to Maine and when we went sailing. It is a little heavier than the kit 18-55 lens but not as heavy as the 55-200 lens. It is so much more versatile. It has a wide angle and zoom. I'm no pro. Just an amateur who takes pictures of family and sights when on vacation. I love this lens. I hope this... » Read More Mindy, so far the pictures I've taken have been good, crisp and clear pictures. I'm sure it would depend a lot on various factors especially light and distance. I have this lens on my Nikon 5000 all the time. It has replaced my 18-55 kit lens. I brought it with me walking around in a recent vacation to Maine and when we went sailing. It is a little heavier than the kit 18-55 lens but not as heavy as the 55-200 lens. It is so much more versatile. It has a wide angle and zoom. I'm no pro. Just an amateur who takes pictures of family and sights when on vacation. I love this lens. I hope this helps. Good luck. « Show Less
608744
I think the 17-50 is 2.8 fixed with 17-70 its 2.8-4 depending on distance. I shoot weddings primarily and love the 17-70 because I get great macro shots of the ring, closeups of bouquets etc, but at the same time I can get great group shots and being between 2.8-4 I just raise ISO when Im closer to 4. But if you prefer consistent aperture and don't care for macro the 17-50 is great too.
861801
Hmm, I guess that I should just take the plunge and get them both.... I have a couple of months before the wedding, so that will give me enough time to save for both....talk about a huge chunk of change, but then again, the lenses are worth the investment! Thanks to both of you for the advice!!!