BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

Deciding on a zoom...

This is my dilema. I'm shooting a wedding next weekend. Even though it's a very small wedding with no attendants, I'm thinking I'm going to have a hard time shooting it with just a 50mm, but can't afford the Nikon 70-210 2.8 by the time of the wedding.

I've done some research and have found some lesser lenses, but I'm wondering if these would even be worth buying, even though they would provide the zoom that I need. The wedding is for my brother, and he is very aware that this will be my first wedding. But, I also don't want to waste money on a lens that's going to provide horrible results.

These are the lenses I've found:

Nikon 70-300 4/5.6 Gray Market $109.95
Sigma 70-210 4/5.6 $109.00
Tamron 80-210 4/5.6 $94.95
Vivitar 70-210 4.5/5.6 $99.95

Would you do the wedding with the 50mm and wait til you could afford the Nikon 70-210 2.8, or would you buy a lesser lens in the interim to get you through? If you would buy the lesser lens, which of the above would you choose and why?

Thank you!!! I'm running out of time and am really starting to sweat! ;)

Amber

To love this question, log in above
October 07, 2001

Otherwise I'm not too keen on your other choices as they are too slow and too cheap (you get what you pay for). I think you would do pretty well shooting the wedding with the Nikkor 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 D. While it's about 2.5x-3x the price of your listed lenses, it's not one you're likely to grow out of.

To love this comment, log in above
October 08, 2001

But, I'm starting to do weddings (on a budget) and I have sigma lenses, and I love them. My portrait lens is their 105mm EX macro f2.8D. I love this lens, and you can shoot within a couple inches of your subject. I have a 24mm f2.8 that I haven't used that much. Then, I have sigma's 28-300mm aspherical IF f3.5-6.3. I love the big range, even from way up in the balcony, you can zoom in and get a nice crop of the bride and groom during ceremony. And, it's not that heavy, only 4 inches or so locked in. Yes, it's slow and I probably will "outgrow" this as Jon said. But, right now, I love it. And, because of the wide range, this is the lens I keep on my camera when I'm just out and about. It gives you the freedom to catch almost any shot. I've done quite a bit of research, these are good lenses, rated very well in magazines.

Couple more things, I know I'm rambling...
(1)Yes, it is best to stay away from the slower lenses, but lighting is so bad in most churches, most folks use 400 speed film anyway. Fuji NPH 400 is wonderful. I truly am an amateur, most times I use my N90S' program modes, but this film gives awesome results, and fine grain.
(2)A very important piece of equipment for weddings is a flash bracket and a remote cord for your flash to get it above the lens (at least 12 inches) and most have a flip feature that lets you rotate the camera but still keeps the flash directly over the lens so you don't get those horrible side shadows. This also eliminates any redeye and most other shadows as well!

So, my advice comes from limited experience ... yes. But I just wanted to let you know that you're not going to get "horrible" results from a less-than-Nikon lens. I have gotten super results from my equipment. I think your artistic cabability in capturing nice shots, your "eye," is what is most important!

robin_tucker@yahoo.com

To love this comment, log in above
October 08, 2001

To love this comment, log in above
March 27, 2006

To love this comment, log in above
March 27, 2006