Which is a better lens for wedding/event photography?

[burningacid]

Hi, can some expert tell me, between Tamrom 17-50 f2.8 and Tokina 12-24 f4, which is a better lens for wedding/event photography? Contemplating to buy either one....

thanks!

[madmacs]

i would go with the tamron cos i find it more useful - 17-50 ~24-75 equiv assuming 1.5x crop, and the f/2.8 max aperture.

[burningacid]

i would go with the tamron cos i find it more useful - 17-50 ~24-75 equiv assuming 1.5x crop, and the f/2.8 max aperture.

initially Tamron was my only choice but it seems that there are many cases of focusing issue with this lens?

[TheChef]

I don't know about your shooting preference. However, most photographers will go for 17-50 on DX cameras. On FX, I had seen many photographers use 24-70.

[madmacs]

initially Tamron was my only choice but it seems that there are many cases of focusing issue with this lens?

i don't have this lens myself, but i haven't heard about the focus issues. perhaps would be better if you test it with your cam at the shop before you buy it.

[bluffname]

Hi, can some expert tell me, between Tamrom 17-50 f2.8 and Tokina 12-24 f4, which is a better lens for wedding/event photography? Contemplating to buy either one....

thanks!

If between these two lenses, the 17-50 does seem to be the better choice. However, a more meaningful answer would come if we know, for example:

What other lenses you have
What camera you use
What other lenses had you considered but ruled out, and why.


By narrowing down to these two, you seem to indicate that you expect all your wedding shots to be wide-angle or, at most, roughly "normal" range. If I shoot a wedding, I would definitely include a telephoto zoom such as 70-300! Because most times you cannot go near enough - without getting into people's way.

Also, if we know what camera you use, maybe we can suggest other lenses that you did not consider? Eg if you use Nikon, the 16-85 is a good lens to have whether for wedding or other types of photography.

[TheChef]

Eg if you use Nikon, the 16-85 is a good lens to have whether for wedding or other types of photography.

How about Nikkor 18-200, the jack of all trade lens that is the rave over at the other forum? This seems to be a good solution for Esplanade shoots for many photographers as well. Sounds good on paper too.

[bluffname]

How about Nikkor 18-200, the jack of all trade lens that is the rave over at the other forum? This seems to be a good solution for Esplanade shoots for many photographers as well. Sounds good on paper too.

Not sure how good that lens is. From reviews, it seems to be very good considering that it is a hampalang lens. In other words, not absolutely good. Also, I note that many people are selling that lens second hand. Not a good sign (but could merely mean that many people have money to upgrade).

[madmacs]

i think 18-200 is overpriced. i would rather use an 18-70.

[burningacid]

howdy, thanks for the inputs so far. Sorry i didn't mention what gears i have... I'm using Nikon D200 and I do have the "hampalang" 18-200 :)

So i wanted to add one lens for wedding/events photography... Nikkor lens are great but it's over my budget. Unless i sell off my 18-200 to fund another lens?

[madmacs]

howdy, thanks for the inputs so far. Sorry i didn't mention what gears i have... I'm using Nikon D200 and I do have the "hampalang" 18-200 :)

So i wanted to add one lens for wedding/events photography... Nikkor lens are great but it's over my budget. Unless i sell off my 18-200 to fund another lens?

why not use your 18-200 for now since you already have it?

[burningacid]

why not use your 18-200 for now since you already have it?

I've tried once actually.. but I'm also looking for something which I can use in low light. I'm thinking with Tamron, it might work... the reason why i included Tokina was for it's sharpness...

[TheChef]

I've tried once actually.. but I'm also looking for something which I can use in low light. I'm thinking with Tamron, it might work... the reason why i included Tokina was for it's sharpness...

Don't waste money, stick to 18-200VR. The VR is for sure effective under low light. (even my 55-200VR cheapo is effective in low light).

[burningacid]

Don't waste money, stick to 18-200VR. The VR is for sure effective under low light. (even my 55-200VR cheapo is effective in low light).

thanks for the assurance!

Any other inputs are still welcome!

[bluffname]

thanks for the assurance!

Any other inputs are still welcome!

Yes, stick to 18-200. And if you ever have money to upgrade, then I would recommend you go for either 18-70 or 16-85 AND 70-300.

For super wide angle like, eg 11-16 or 10-24, better to just rent or borrow. These are not easy to use and not often used. Most people I know who own such lenses very seldom use them. On the other hand, once you get used to shooting "uptight" with long telephoto - eg to capture the many happy faces and expressions at a wedding - you will find that you use it very often.

Never sell off a Nikon VR lens to buy a Third party non-VR. Some 3rd party lenses may well be (or reputed to be) sharper than Nikon, but sharpness is not everything. In areas like colour and contrast, Nikon usually still better. And it is not that the Nikon is blur to begin with. Even cheapo Nikon lenses are adequately sharp just that a few - very few - 3rd party lenses may be slightly sharper.

And VR is very useful, especially in low light. in my opinion, it is more useful than large aperture like f2.8 (which will usually cost big money).

[salnts]

Hi, can some expert tell me, between Tamrom 17-50 f2.8 and Tokina 12-24 f4, which is a better lens for wedding/event photography? Contemplating to buy either one....

thanks!

Tamron 17-50mm no doubt i have covered a few weddings with this lens. its more versatile over tokina. maybe you can consider the nikon 16-85mm??

[excelglsi]

I uses just a 17-55 F2.8 thru out the whole course of the AD. This was taught by a pro in this field. When I first attach to him he ask mi how many lenses I got with Mi. I told him 4.. 17-55, 10-20, 85 and a 50. He laugh and walk away. Than I saw him just use 1 lens thru out. After finish shooting he told mi, AD wedding is more about capturing the moments. He also stress to mi tat most ppl dont really koe how to see a photo. They onli koe when the photos are underexpose and blur. So for mi I was shoot bright bright and sharp sharp. Instead of thinking wat lens to use why not try to forus more on the tin happening during the event.

Hope this help. :coolnod:

[excelglsi]

Don't waste money, stick to 18-200VR. The VR is for sure effective under low light. (even my 55-200VR cheapo is effective in low light).

18-200 vr Is not cheap and the end result is just so so... So to say its a good walkabout lens...

If u wan to shoot low light bump up ur ISO... U will be surprise on the end result u have... Also dont be afraid of noise.... Normal 4r or even 8r noise is no t a issue.

Also how much u charges them pay an important factor... :rofl:

[excelglsi]

Yes, stick to 18-200. And if you ever have money to upgrade, then I would recommend you go for either 18-70 or 16-85 AND 70-300.

For super wide angle like, eg 11-16 or 10-24, better to just rent or borrow. These are not easy to use and not often used. Most people I know who own such lenses very seldom use them. On the other hand, once you get used to shooting "uptight" with long telephoto - eg to capture the many happy faces and expressions at a wedding - you will find that you use it very often.

Never sell off a Nikon VR lens to buy a Third party non-VR. Some 3rd party lenses may well be (or reputed to be) sharper than Nikon, but sharpness is not everything. In areas like colour and contrast, Nikon usually still better. And it is not that the Nikon is blur to begin with. Even cheapo Nikon lenses are adequately sharp just that a few - very few - 3rd party lenses may be slightly sharper.

And VR is very useful, especially in low light. in my opinion, it is more useful than large aperture like f2.8 (which will usually cost big money).

Haha.. U are rite I do own a Sigma 10-20 most of the time it just sit in my dry box. But it can be fun. It will make the legs long long like this...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2755/4420994304_74d993fb88_o.jpg

[burningacid]

thanks all! Looks like 18-200vr will be my friend for the time being...

[madmacs]

I've tried once actually.. but I'm also looking for something which I can use in low light. I'm thinking with Tamron, it might work... the reason why i included Tokina was for it's sharpness...

if you still want to get a new lens for low light work, then the tamrom with its f/2.8 will be very useful. most reviews i read say the tamron is quite sharp and recommend it over the tokina. as for focal length, any 24-85 (fx-equivalent) lens should be sufficient to cover weddings.

[burningacid]

the BBB virus is tempting but i think i will rent one to try out first... i might rent the nikkor 17-55 f2.8 though. :coolnod:

[bluffname]

the BBB virus is tempting but i think i will rent one to try out first... i might rent the nikkor 17-55 f2.8 though. :coolnod:

If you are lucky sometimes can rent the 17-55 for 1/2 price at Camera Rental "Super Saturday" specials. I see it offered quite often.

[TheChef]

Use a 16-85 for wedding shoots. One option is to sell your 18-200 and get a used 16-85 and 50f1.8. The 50f1.8. is for instances when you need some nice bokeh.

[excelglsi]

Use a 16-85 for wedding shoots. One option is to sell your 18-200 and get a used 16-85 and 50f1.8. The 50f1.8. is for instances when you need some nice bokeh.

Bokeh... maybe mostly for ourself to see... Not for ur customer...Its more on capturing the moment...:coolnod:

[burningacid]

I bought the 18-200vr lens as a travel/walkabout lens and i also have the 50 f/1.8 for dedicated portraits taking at home and that i find that it's hard to use on anything else!

i don't think i will sell my 18-200vr because i don't want to keep switching lens when i go overseas but i also don't wish to get lens of the same or overlapping focal length... troublesome right?:knock1:

i guess the only solution that fits me now is to rent :)

[salnts]

no horse run Tarmon 17-50mm f2.8 used price $550. get the one without motor which is at least 3x faster in focusing than the one with inbuilt motor

I have been using it for all events and weddings i have covered except for one which i rented the 17-55mm

pair your tamron 17-50mm with a 85mm f1.8 and there you have it. =)

also use bodies for events and weddings. for my case i use a D50 and my S5pro

go overseas, just bring 17-50mm and 85mm enough liao also:P

i recently purchased a Sigma 12-24mm FX lens... that could be an option too if you got a HUGE family to fit in during weddings but so far 17mm has served me well..

[TheChef]

also use bodies for events and weddings. for my case i use a D50 and my S5pro

I also use the same combi bodies for events. :cheers:

[sellerbuyer2008]

I feel Thread Starter's D200 with 18-200mm is good for weddings. What he needs is an external speedlight with bounce and softbox diffuser. Bounce off wall if it is low and white, direct soften if wall is high or painted other undesired colors. This theory is good for all beginners in weddings and events. Forget about fast lenses, F2.8 F1.2. Unless you are shooting potraits of a single person in weddings and events you tends to shoot people in groups, in rows or random positions. When the frame you want to have more faces in focus you will still have to stop down from its biggest aperture and lose light. A powerful SB-900 should light up the scene naturally. Of course increasing ISO may solve the exposure issue but at least make sure your photos are presentable when doing large prints, acceptable when you blow it up 100%. 17-50mm range is good. Don't be afraid to go up close to your subjects. You are the event photographer and has the right to position yourself to capture good photos without crossing the boundaries or disrupt the activities. 12-24mm wide end is good for large group shots.

Go get an external flashlight with bounce and softbox diffusers.

[KopiOkaya]

It depends on whether the TS is shooting wedding professionally or just taking wedding pictures for his friends or relatives. For the latter, a 18-200 VR is more than sufficient. Keep in mind that during a wedding, changing lenses is NOT an option. You will miss some of the moments.

To shoot professionally, the TS will definitely need a "pro" lens and a 'pro' flash. This has NOTHING to do with image quality but has a lot to do with justifying his service charges and to satisfy his clients. If the TS cannot afford "pro" equipment yet, he can always rent them.

Now, assuming that you are the bride or groom. How would you feel if the wedding photographer you hired uses a Nikon D80 (built-in pop-up flash) with a 18-200 lens and charges you S$1,888 for his service?

[sellerbuyer2008]

Of course i will feel bad. Especially one with pro equipment but producing underexposed, blurry and poorly composed photos. :rofl:

[TheChef]

Since I am not a tan chiak photog, I have sold my 17-55. I prefer my 16-85 in most situations to 17-55. Don't know why my 16-85 seems sharper in low light and has better colour rendition than my ex-17-55. When I am using 16-85, I usually use either the widest end (16mm) or the tightest end (85mm). I can get quite sharp pictures even at 1/2s using 16-85 handheld with no additional support, so no problem at all.

[sellerbuyer2008]

Online crop and resize image posting is okay. The real challenge comes when people review your photos in 100% blow up. Still I came across photos online that has flaw even in cropped and downsize resolution, and also people still producing the same type and quality of photos after they upgrade cam body, say for example from a D80 to D300s.

[KopiOkaya]

Especially one with pro equipment but producing underexposed, blurry and poorly composed photos. :rofl:

At least you can get away claiming you are a "pro", just that the lighting was bad and you were suffering from a very bad migraine that day (despite the discomfort, you decided to go shoot your client's wedding anyway because you wanted to show them your dedication and professionalism). :grin:

[sellerbuyer2008]

That has to be so if you are working alone. Some professionals work in small groups so another rep can stand in if the guy is not feeling well.

Back to the topic i feel for the thread starter if he is short on cash his 18-200mm is good, just need to watch the wide end for any distortion if he do include some architecture features in his wedding shots, and correct it if he is able to. Just felt having an external flash unit is more appropriate to his D200 setup.

[KopiOkaya]

That has to be so if you are working alone. Some professionals work in small groups so another rep can stand in if the guy is not feeling well.

That is IF you (the main photographer) have a dependable "rep" or assistant who have adopted your photographic style.

[TheChef]

To sum it up, there is no such thing as best lens. What works for me may not work for others. Some like prime, while some like zoom. Some like variable aperture while some like big hole lightning lenses. Some like macro, while some don't like cut eye sharpness. This is why manufacturers produce so many types of lenses. This is also why we experience lens diarrhoea in the B&S section on photography forums. This is how the rental and second hand photography equipment shops get regular business. B&S of lenses is a buzzing trade and the absence of a one size fits all or Universal Lens is key in ensuring that the photography equipment trade continues to be buoyant in years to come. Cheers and happy shooting!

[KopiOkaya]

To sum it up, there is no such thing as best lens. What works for me may not work for others. Some like prime, while some like zoom. Some like variable aperture while some like big hole lightning lenses. Some like macro, while some don't like cut eye sharpness. This is why manufacturers produce so many types of lenses.

Well said!!! :cheers: I could not have agree with you more.

Let me add to the conclusion. As long as the lens meets your photographic needs and budget, then it will be considered your so-called "better" lens.

[sellerbuyer2008]

That is IF you (the main photographer) have a dependable "rep" or assistant who have adopted your photographic style.

The way i operate is to show client the works of all the photographers in the group. Client can choose to select which photographer they want to work with. Contract can have the photo agency to use another photographer within the group if the one they choose cannot make it on the day due to unforseen circumstances. Client should have viewed all the portfolios from the agency to know what 'style' this group can offer and willing to accept alternatives.

I feel everyone should have their own style, and i really mean style.

[KopiOkaya]

The way i operate is to show client the works of all the photographers in the group... I feel everyone should have their own style, and i really mean style.

Your kind of wedding photography service is catered for the mass-market. It never occurred to me to operate my business this way. During then, I was the main photographer. Clients came to me through recommendations from their friends or relatives. They looked at my portfolio and if they like what I do, they would engage my service. I hired assistants only if I needed extra hands or when I had to cover larger weddings.

Anyway, I think both of us shall not OT further here. Let the TS continues his discussion.

[mohsinkhalid]

Don't waste money, stick to 18-200VR. The VR is for sure effective under low light. (even my 55-200VR cheapo is effective in low light). as my friend said

[TheChef]

Don't waste money, stick to 18-200VR. The VR is for sure effective under low light. (even my 55-200VR cheapo is effective in low light). as my friend said

Wah! In this case, I should bang my head against the wall for wasting my money. :eek:

[KopiOkaya]

Wah! In this case, I should bang my head against the wall for wasting my money. :eek:

The 55-200 VR is a good lens but I find the images too contrasty and harsh for my liking. Both the 70-200 VR and 80-400 VR have more softer appearance which are more suitable for portraiture.

Amberture covered his friend's wedding last Saturday with a 18-200 VR. I was the second "body" that day. Slightly better than the 55-200 VR but I still prefer my 17-55 for its superb distortion control.

[TheChef]

The 55-200 VR is a good lens but I find the images too contrasty and harsh for my liking. Both the 70-200 VR and 80-400 VR have more softer appearance which are more suitable for portraiture.

Amberture covered his friend's wedding last Saturday with a 18-200 VR. I was the second "body" that day. Slightly better than the 55-200 VR but I still prefer my 17-55 for its superb distortion control.

Wah!! I have sold some of my good lenses including the superb 17-55. Now, I have to rely on my 16-85VR2 with external flash with diffuser (a must now after some unimpressive event shoots) on S5 Pro. :knock1:

[PhotoSnapper]

Wah!! I have sold some of my good lenses including the superb 17-55. Now, I have to rely on my 16-85VR2 with external flash with diffuser (a must now after some unimpressive event shoots) on S5 Pro. :knock1:

The 55-200 VR is a good lens but I find the images too contrasty and harsh for my liking. Both the 70-200 VR and 80-400 VR have more softer appearance which are more suitable for portraiture.

Amberture covered his friend's wedding last Saturday with a 18-200 VR. I was the second "body" that day. Slightly better than the 55-200 VR but I still prefer my 17-55 for its superb distortion control.

So 17-55 is still an ideal lens to use for wedding photography. Being wide angle can't cover tele shots. Recently bought a 17-200 VRand use both lense in the field. 17-55 have a nicer image taken than the 17-200 VR. But when close up events on events like birthday party 17-55 is still an ideal to use.
Just my opinion.
:)

[KopiOkaya]

Recently bought a 17-200 VR...

Did Nikon just launch this new lens? :confused1:

[TheChef]

So 17-55 is still an ideal lens to use for wedding photography. Being wide angle can't cover tele shots. Recently bought a 17-200 VRand use both lense in the field. 17-55 have a nicer image taken than the 17-200 VR. But when close up events on events like birthday party 17-55 is still an ideal to use.
Just my opinion.
:)

For close up shots, I use 70-200VR. I always bring 2 bodies for serious shoots. One mounted with 16-85VR2 and another with 70-200VR. If I prefer light weight, I use 55-200VR instead of 70-200VR. Also, if one camera breaks down, I still have another camera as contingency.

[excelglsi]

So 17-55 is still an ideal lens to use for wedding photography. Being wide angle can't cover tele shots. Recently bought a 17-200 VRand use both lense in the field. 17-55 have a nicer image taken than the 17-200 VR. But when close up events on events like birthday party 17-55 is still an ideal to use.
Just my opinion.
:)

For wedding now I am using 18-70, unless being a paid shot than I will be using the 17-55. I felt both lens can do the job... with of course a S5pro... but with a Nikon tat another story...:coolnod:

[TheChef]

For wedding now I am using 18-70, unless being a paid shot than I will be using the 17-55. I felt both lens can do the job... with of course a S5pro... but with a Nikon tat another story...:coolnod:

Most photogs use Neekon cameras for wedding shoots. Many of them use D700 with 24-70f2.8 and SB800. Years ago, I asked my friend to help me take my wedding pigs using my F90X, 35-70 lens and SB25 flash.

[excelglsi]

Most photogs use Neekon cameras for wedding shoots. Many of them use D700 with 24-70f2.8 and SB800. Years ago, I asked my friend to help me take my wedding pigs using my F90X, 35-70 lens and SB25 flash.

Haha... Same here also... Using the F90 with v grip...:cheers:

[jacob]

Don't waste money, stick to 18-200VR. The VR is for sure effective under low light. (even my 55-200VR cheapo is effective in low light). as my friend said

i beg to differ. VR lenses are only good if your subject are moving. 18-200VR ain't for me cause i can't freeze my moving subject. so all my pictures blur blur...... tested before but failed.

18-200VR is good for general shootings. meanwhile i'll stick to my 17-55 f2.8 unless there's a 17-55 f2.8 VR....hehehehe.

[TheChef]

i beg to differ. VR lenses are only good if your subject are moving. 18-200VR ain't for me cause i can't freeze my moving subject. so all my pictures blur blur...... tested before but failed.

18-200VR is good for general shootings. meanwhile i'll stick to my 17-55 f2.8 unless there's a 17-55 f2.8 VR....hehehehe.

I beg to differ from what you begged to differ. Most if not all of the usual wedding scenes are quite static, unless the couple forewarns the photog that it will be an action packed scene, i.e. faster than Esplananade street dance performance, then 18-200VR may have some motion blur issue. If not sure no problem. If it is action packed, then we should be using a fast prime f1.4 - f2. f2.8 vs f3.5 is not much of a difference to me for normal wedding shoots.

[Anson]

For commissioned events, I am typically using 17-35F2.8-4, 28-75F2.8 & 70-200F2.8IS mount on a FF & crop.


To me its cover 90% of all of my jobs. Unless someone want to engage me to shoot airshow or birds... haha

[TheChef]

For commissioned events, I am typically using 17-35F2.8-4, 28-75F2.8 & 70-200F2.8IS mount on a FF & crop.


To me its cover 90% of all of my jobs. Unless someone want to engage me to shoot airshow or birds... haha

I will probably use 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR2 all the way.

[Anson]

I will probably use 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR2 all the way.

For non-commission events, sometime you would see me with a crop + 18-200IS for the whole event. As for these events, I do not have the obligation to deliver my photos.


However for commissioned events, ultimately you would still need to deliver to your client having a faster lens does help alot.

[excelglsi]

Shooting with flash? If so don't tin u need a fast lens to do the job... Fast lens is for u to charge at higher price... :cheers:

[Anson]

Shooting with flash? If so don't tin u need a fast lens to do the job... Fast lens is for u to charge at higher price... :cheers:

Lenses with bigger aperture would enable faster focusing if compare it with a smaller aperture lens both with AF assist on flash. There is a different.

For rates, it would depend on how much the photographer market his services and how much the clients willing to pay.

Can I use a 18-200IS w/580EX2 with a crop to cover the whole event and have photos that my clients can accept? The answer is yes. :)

But would I get the same desired effect (without PP) as you get from a F2.8 or bigger aperture lens for any event covered? Anyone?

[macsmith]

Sorry, I do not have any information about lens of camera. But I think you need a good quality photograph then lens of the camera must be good.

[harrynkl]

for me 1 lens fix all using 28-200 on 5d mk2 :victory: hate to change lens

and use a 270ex flash :grin: in all play with ISO too

[TheChef]

Shooting with flash? If so don't tin u need a fast lens to do the job... Fast lens is for u to charge at higher price... :cheers:

Install a battery grip on your S5 Pro and use SB900 with big diffuser. Even with 16-85VR, which is a relatively small lens compared to 17-55f2.8, you will still appear quite professional.

[hpotter11]

i think for wedding shoots you need the 24-70 f2.8 or anything similar

this is the ideal focal length for shooting wedding, partnered with another body with a 70-200 and it would be almost perfect

[sophie01]

Hii this is the best camera for wedding photo shoot...choose you self..

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 – US $100

A great lens for an unbeatable price. Every photographer should look into getting this or a similar lens.
Nikon 85mm f/1.4 – US $1000

Considered by some to be the best portrait lens ever made by Nikon. It’s an extremely sharp lens, for both your photos and on your wallet.
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 – US $750

This lens provides a great portrait focal length and has the added ability of taking stunning macro (close-up) shots such as wedding rings, cakes and bouquets.

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 – US $1,600

[KopiOkaya]

Hii this is the best camera for wedding photo shoot...choose you self..

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 – US $100

A great lens for an unbeatable price. Every photographer should look into getting this or a similar lens.
Nikon 85mm f/1.4 – US $1000

Considered by some to be the best portrait lens ever made by Nikon. It’s an extremely sharp lens, for both your photos and on your wallet.
Nikon 105mm f/2.8 – US $750

This lens provides a great portrait focal length and has the added ability of taking stunning macro (close-up) shots such as wedding rings, cakes and bouquets.

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 – US $1,600

Unfortunately, the prices of these Nikon lenses are much higher in Singapore. :knock1: For example, a new Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF-D selling for around US$150 with tax here.

[brotherian11]

a mid zoom and zoom combo would be great for a wedding

24-70 if you only have one body, coupled with a speedlight