I know you say you have a budget, but you can't go far wrong with the 17-55/F2.8 (Nikon). It's awesome, but it is pricey and thus probably is not what you wanted to hear.
I do a lot of weddings nowadays, and rarely move from my 17-55 2.8, plus the 70-200 2.8. Sometimes also the 50mm 1.8. I find I rarely need more width or length, its a matter of getting used to a little more moving around, but at least I'm not constantly changing lenses either. I use the D300 with the 17-55 permanently on it, and throw the 70-200 on my D40X for the long shots up the church/rings going on hands/first kiss etc, although I will soon be upgrading to D700 and using the D300 as the 70-200 body.
Personally I would forget anything above 2.8 to narrow down your kit bag, you really need the speed in case it rains or the church/venue is dark. That leaves you with some excellent primes, but you'll need to plan when to use them. You should be able to pick up the 17-55 second hand - I got mine for $1500 Aussie dollars when they were $2300, it was only 6 months old.
If you know you're going to be at some amazing scenery such as coastline or something, it could be worth looking at the 12-24, but honestly I still think the 17-55 will do that as long as you work the angles well.
but i'm saving for a house... so i need a more budget friendly lens...
any suggestions?
I just bought the 80-200mm f/2.8 lens, so i'll be selling my 70-210 f/4 and 70-300 VR lenses as they are now useless...
I did think that could be an option, as you do have a lot of coverage in that range. Is it possible for you to scale down your whole kit where its doubled up and fund the 17-55? You won't regret it, it will very quickly become your most used lens. You could try the Tamron, it does have pretty good reviews, but in my experience you will spend less money but more time wondering why you didn't hang out for the Nikon version. I use it 90% of the time nowadays, for anything from portraits, weddings, commercial work and even landscapes sometimes. There is a sweetness about the 17-55 that you will love, although if you're anything like me you'll be wanting the 24-70 too, for that extra little bit of reach :-)
Incidentally, I know many wedding photographers who only use primes, I'm not sure how they do it (they are clearly much better than me!) but I guess they get used to knowing exactly which lens to use at various stages of the wedding after doing 100's of them. You have some amazing primes there, maybe you could use them, make the money on the weddings (I hope you are charging well...) and then buy the 17-55 as soon as you can. And don't tell your wife or your bank balance that you did it ;-)
I just can't justify spending $1500 on a lens reight now... I can get the Tamron one for about $500 New off Ebay from an authorized dealer in Canada...
you are really tempting me... but i think for the mean time I will have to hold off on that sweet lens...
I really like to use primes... I use them whenever I can, but for a lot of shots I end up using my 18-55mm kit lens... it's a sweet little lens, but it just doesn't cut it... I will use primes mostly at the weddings, but I know I will need a short wide zoom to pair with the 80-200mm f/2.8 just incase...
Anyone else heard anything about the Tamron version, or any other third party ones like tokina or sigma ?
Probably should have added that I use this lens 90% of the time too. In fact, I am even wondering why I have some of my other lenses!
Originally posted by salmiakki:
I know you say you have a budget, but you can't go far wrong with the 17-55/F2.8 (Nikon). It's awesome, but it is pricey and thus probably is not what you wanted to hear.
In a perfect world you would use primes and would have just enough time to exchange them whenever you need.
But a wedding isn't perfect, is all about rush, getting the right moment and beeing in the right spot at the right time. The moments will not repeat.
So I love primes but a fas wide zoom will get the job done 90% of the times.
I've tested a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and I've returned it because it was useless above f4. I now have a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and I'm complete fanatic about the quality of this lens. when you save money you will be saving a lot on image quality also.
Yeah, go on, start lusting after the 24-70, its a gorgeous lens. Then the 17-55 will seem cheap in comparison :-)
If you are using the 18-55 you won't know yourself when you pop the sweet one on, its such an unbelievable difference in quality, worth every cent.
If you hold off a bit I might have to sell my 17-55 when I get the D700 (thats the only drawback, it doesn't work well with the full frame - see, start lusting after 24-70!).....but that may be a few months off. The Aussie dollar is cripplingly low at the moment so everything is twice as expensive now.
You might check out the Tokina 11-16mm. It has a constant f/2.8 and is very wide. I had a Sigma 10-20mm and wanted a faster lens for low light situations and think that at any settings so far the Tokina ia much sharper and better colors so I sold the Sigma. It was not bad- I just like the Tokina better. Solidly built too but it can be hard to find. I found one in my local shop. It does not have its own focus motor so it will not autofocus on your D40 but it will on the D90.
After reading a bit closer, maybe you don't want to go quite that wide. Or maybe you do? Take it as you will.
I know you say you have a budget, but you can't go far wrong with the 17-55/F2.8 (Nikon). It's awesome, but it is pricey and thus probably is not what you wanted to hear.
That's a DX lens, correct? Does that just mean it won't be fully compatable with a full-frame sensor?
How does the 17-55/F.28 compare quality-wise with these:
AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF
AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens
AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens
Obviously, I'm looking for a low-light "event" lens. I'm sure there are many threads that explain the differences, but I'm going cross-eyed from searching and trying to keep all the model numbers and codes straight!
I know you say you have a budget, but you can't go far wrong with the 17-55/F2.8 (Nikon). It's awesome, but it is pricey and thus probably is not what you wanted to hear.
That's a DX lens, correct? Does that just mean it won't be fully compatable with a full-frame sensor?
How does the 17-55/F.28 compare quality-wise with these:
AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF
AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens
AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens
Obviously, I'm looking for a low-light "event" lens. I'm sure there are many threads that explain the differences, but I'm going cross-eyed from searching and trying to keep all the model numbers and codes straight!
You can use any DX lens on a full frame camera, however the drawback is that you are loosing some pixel power. with the D700, D3 series as soon as a DX lens is placed on the camera it goes into a crop mode. For the D700 it means you will be shooting at about6 MP. On the D3x you shoot at about 10 MP.
