Lens advice for shooting weddings with D7000

vaibhav_aroraD40

Hello

A couple years back I received fantastic advice from this forum (especially msmoto / ttj / spraynpray) while upgrading from D40 to D7000. I'm an amateur based in India but hoping to start shooting at weddings and for this i need some advice on lenses.

In the last two years I've got used the D7000 nicely using the kit lens 18-140mm VR that came with it. It's nice but in low light, I'm certain i need something else.

I'm thinking of picking up the 35 mm f/1.8 G and learning a bit by experimenting with it. Is that a fair approach or should i look at another lens altogether since there's no zoom in it? Or should I bundle a wide angle like tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8 AT with it. Personally, i shoot at the wide end a lot but the wedding market (here in India) demands face shots and bust length portraits the most along with some full lengths.

I have the sb-400 that i love but can upgrade that too if needed. Money's a bit tight (no job, downsized last month) so I'd have to justify the investment hence posting it here for any advice i can get.

thanks for reading!
Vaibhav

donaldejose

I don't shoot weddings and will let wedding photographers comment on equipment for weddings. However, I will comment that since you are looking for low light and mild telephoto ability at lower cost you could consider adding a 35mm f1.8G and a 85mm f1.8G. Your current zoom would be ok for outside daylight shooting, your 35 would be good for nighttime and indoor shots and your 85mm would be good for portraits (try shooting it as f2 with the background quite a distance behind the subject).

spraynpray

My 17-55 f2.8 is the lens I used for weddings on my D7100. Even if it went to f1.8 I would still have used it at f2.8 so I didn't have any missed focus problems. In my humble opinion, weddings are not the time to be swapping lenses so if you are going to try the prime lens route, you will need a second body. I aim to never miss a shot due to not being in the right place with the wrong prime fitted so I always use zooms. I now use the D750 with 24-120 VR and the D7100/17-55 is my trusty back-up.

donaldejose

spraynpray is correct.

Ironheart

The 35mm f/1.8G DX is the best possible bang for your DX buck, and you will use the heck out of it. If you still have your D40 you can pair that with the 35mm and keep the zoom on the D7000. This will give you a zoom with your feet option, and a zoom with your zoom option. You don't want to be changing lenses during the event.

As far as low light, you can push the ISO pretty far on the D7000, and very awesome noise reduction software like DxO's PRIME NR costs $199 and will work with any lens you ever buy!

Good luck, you will get lots of advice here :-)

heartyfisher

I have an old 35-70 f2.8 that i really like for DX portraits. Get that secondhand.. on ebay.. or a tamron 28-75 f2.8.. I had a lot of fun portraiting with my D7000 and 35-70 :-)

Alternatively the 18-70 F3.5-4.5 is also a very nice portrait lense on DX.

donaldejose

I think heartyfisher is thinking of this lens. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/3570.htm I have one too and it is very sharp. I had thought of it earlier but thought it might be hard to find these days. It would give you a range from normal to mild telephoto and could be just what you like if you don't need wide angle. But you said you shoot wide angle a lot.

Rx4Photo

For weddings versatility is what you want. I do agree with the suggestions from spraynpray and donaldejose. You'll want wide angle to get those, well, wide angle views from the back, front, and if you're lucky, above the ceremonies. The 17-55mm f/2.8 which I owned for a while with my D7000 was an excellent lens but you could probably get something less expensive from Sigma. A zoom that gets you up to at least 120mm is also another great tool to have.

Now for those really creative looks I also think you should take a close look at the 85mm f/1.8G. Close ups of table setups, jewelry, and especially mehndi, with smooth bokeh in the background will elevate your photography above others who are just shooting snapshots. I thought a macro lens was the only way to go for those shots but it's not totally.

Best of luck to you...

tcole1983

Wedding...my 35 f1.8 stayed in the bag until the dark reception when I took a couple of shots. D5200 had 17-55 and D5000 had my 105 f2.8 on it. Pretty good setup and would have been perfect had there not been a few shots from the back of the church that required my 300 f4. But I would always want my main camera with a zoom on it. Weddings are all about the moments and being able to adjust...while primes are great and I love shooting mine they just aren't practical unless you have two or three bodies with different ones on them. Shooting a wedding is stressful enough without lens changes to worry about. Also think what would you use the 35 for? If you had a f2.8 zoom you are a stop slower, but don't have to mess with another lens...in other words good enough and versatile. As a second lens you want something that adds to your setup. I like the 105 because it is awesome for portraits and has macro for the flowers, rings and other details....also a medium telephoto if you need a bit more reach.

Good luck \m/

haroldp

I have done many ( > 1000 )weddings.

I agree with spraynpray, the 17-55 2.8 is the best choice for DX. I now mostly use he 24-120 f4 for FX.

the 18-70 3.5/4.5 is a very good lower cost lens.

You would do better to spend limited funds on a better flash that has tilt/swivel and can bounce in both landscape and portrait mode. The SB-400 cannot swivel and is too weak to bounce. Direct flash is ugly.

Photogs love available light wedding shots, and customers usually do not.

Remember, the customers memory trumps your 'art'.

... H

Pistnbroke

Like harold P I have done too may weddings (joke) but as usual my experience is contary to others. I use the 18-140 on D7100 with no problem from full sunlight to discos. Over 140 mm (18-200 or 300) the quality drops off and you are better cropping. Any prime lens is a waste of time to me as the requirement to change lenses is not an option and you have to stop it down 5.6/8 to get any depth of field.
Your SB400 is aslo fine but you need a flash flipper .you will get no shaddows...power is fine ..I just use 800 ISO ( it changes from 200 to 800 automatically when you turn the flash on ) .all this bouncing is rubbish at weddings with sloping ceilings of different colours/angles/heights beams etc

What I think you should do is change to a D7100 your D7000 is well outdated and the improvement with the 7100 is immense. keep your lens and flash set to sharp +9 auto iso 200-6400 and get on with it .

vaibhav_aroraD40

Oh wow. I am so overwhelmed with so much good advice from all of you. Thank you!

I've spent a fair bit of time today reconciling this information with the market reality here in India (basically in terms of what is available and affordable. Everything's available new certainly but I'm not likely to get paid anything while i build up a portfolio of wedding shots so I'd probably keep the expenses low (approx $500 to start with).

I think I'll have to stick with a zoom and not a prime because as spraynpray, tcole and others said, I cant change lenses. Here the weddings last several days, but the major ceremonies, typically just one or two evenings, are almost invariably at night (till very late, sometimes 3 or 5 am) and when they begin, there's no one to explain anything- and it's pretty fast paced. It's only when I'm contracted to shoot (later, hopefully), that I'd have access to the ceremonies that are held privately and some of them are day ceremonies. I can use a prime then certainly for portraits (and I think that'd have to be another body?).

The second hand market here is very weak, there're no reliable used sellers like adorama / B&H / Keh etc and I have to buy from an unknown individual seller). Anyways, specific take aways so far -

1. The 17-55 f/2.8 indeed appears amazing - thanks spraynpray, harold and rx4photo. However, it is very expensive since I cannot find a reliable used copy here. So I will look for an alternative.

2. The 35-70 is not available new. It does look like something I'd have overlooked due to my tendency to shoot at the wider end (but those were mostly vacation photos, not wedding photos). But thank you donaldejose and heartyfisher for the recommendation.

Also most of the weddings here are typically at night, and typically outdoors (though it's quite well lit, but uneven) so the flash thing is a very valid point. I was thinking an sb700 or should i look at something even bigger? the sb400 can stay on the d40.

ETA: I just read pistnbroke's post. Well, due to budgetary constraints and the camera not having seen enough usage, I'll just stick with the current one. If i could afford an upgrade, then I'd rather look for an affordable FX right away. I think that'd happen in either a few years or a paid shoot, whatever comes first. I will look at the flash diffuser certainly because at the venues here, typically there're no ceilings but more like pitched tents, awnings and such like.

haroldp

There are clearly some venues where bounce cannot be used, high ceilings, colored ceilings, outdoors etc.

Where it can, it is imho ( with a white reflector for some directionality) the most pleasing portable light.

Where bounce can't be used, I use a two light setup on an RRS ring and radio triggers with one mounted atop the camera, and the other on the right side high. This gives me a broad base of light and good shadow fill. Downside is that it is heavy and looks silly, and if there is a wall very close behind the subject, there can be a confusing weak double shadow.

I would never shoot at a venue I had not done before, or scouted ahead so I know what to bring.

IMHO single direct flash photos look harsh, and amateur.

.... H

Pistnbroke

I have never seen any of the venues I shoot weddings at or met the bride and groom everything being internet based ..strange how conditions vary.
From the Indian weddings I have shot you need two photographers one male one female as the bride and groom are separate for a long time and then you are resticted because they will often not even touch one another ...even after the wedding...

OP a D40 and a D7000 for a pro wedding shooter in 2015 ??? I think not.

Rx4Photo

@Pistnbroke, he never said he was a pro...
Line 2 of his opening inquiry: "I'm an amateur based in India..."
Ya gotta start somewhere right?

haroldp

I would rather use a D7000 with better lighting equipment and lens, than spend limited funds on a better body. It will make a bigger difference in results.

.... H

donaldejose

"I have never seen any of the venues I shoot weddings at or met the bride and groom everything being internet based ..strange how conditions vary." Yes, I am quite surprised people trust their wedding to a photographer they have never met in person. What if that "internet guy or gal" never shows up at the time of the wedding? What could you do but go on without them. At least with a personal contact you would feel you know the person and can call them to ask where they are. Pistnbroke how do you give your internet clients a sense of assurance that you will be there for them on that important day if they have never met you in person?

tcole1983

A more powerful flash might be the best use of funds. Available light is great and you can up the ISO a bit, but in the end if possible you want a flash that is powerful enough. I love my SB400, but because the head doesn't swivel you can't take bounce it for portrait oriented shots. And it had limited range. In large areas it won't cut it.

manhattanboy

I think the best thing you can do is the next wedding you go to as a guest take your camera and equipment with you. Shoot some pictures and then look at them in post. What did you like? What did you wish you could improve upon?

The best gear is the gear that you know well how to use, not what is the fanciest but unfamiliar.

A powerful flash is nice but shooting open air outdoors there is not much bounce, so I often use a diffuser and angle down (talking about the 910 here). The 35 1.8 or 50 1.8 are fine, but I often find that the increase in shutter speed I need to make up for VR lacking lenses at night cancels out the ISO reductions from the larger aperture opening. The one thing you will notice with a 1.8 over the 2.8, 4, or variable aperture lenses is an increase in the focus speed at night. If when you are shooting as a guest with your current set-up you find you can't focus in time, then think about a larger aperture lens, a flash that throws an IR pattern, or a better camera (as it has greater sensitivity for the AF module).

vaibhav_aroraD40

The one thing you will notice with a 1.8 over the 2.8, 4, or variable aperture lenses is an increase in the focus speed at night. .

Just reconfirming that I'm reading this correctly. You're saying the focusing will be faster with the 35 mm f/1.8?

p.s. thanks for the point about VR. In my adulation for this little prime, I had completely overlooked the lack of it. My current 18-140 has it and it has served me very well (as has the older 55-200 VR- but I dont find the images coming from that one very bright since I've got the 18-140 VR).

vaibhav_aroraD40

I would rather use a D7000 with better lighting equipment and lens, than spend limited funds on a better body. It will make a bigger difference in results.

.... H

That is my line of thinking and the reason for my original post. Thank you for understanding this and helping.

Also @tcole1983, what flash would you recommend? sb 700 or something bigger? This is for D7000.

Pistnbroke

The furthur you put the flash from the centre of the lens the worse will be the shadows..stick with the 400 ...anything bigger gets very wobbly on a flash flipper.

haroldp

I disagree.

Direct flash is for when you have no other option. It was ugly with film, and even more so with digital, since it is common for make up, or even sweat, to create specular highlights in faces that cannot be fixed in post, and will brand you as an amateur.

If you want a more compact high quality flash, look at the Nissin i40, it is almost as small as the SB400, tilts, swivels, and takes 4 AA batteries (SB400 uses 2).

I travel with one, but for weddings where recycle rate matters, and ceilings are higher, I use SB 800's and 900's (also in umbrellas for formals). They are more powerful, and recycle faster.

... H

haroldp

There are probably third party flashes that are equivalent to SB800-900 etc. and less expensive, but I have no direct experience with them, perhaps another member has a recommendation.

... H

tcole1983

I would rather use a D7000 with better lighting equipment and lens, than spend limited funds on a better body. It will make a bigger difference in results.

.... H

That is my line of thinking and the reason for my original post. Thank you for understanding this and helping.

Also @tcole1983, what flash would you recommend? sb 700 or something bigger? This is for D7000.

I shot with a friend's sb600 and I thought it was sufficient. Of course a bigger and newer one would probably be better. I haven't used the sb700, but features on the sb600 I liked were the swivel head and the built in diffusers, but you can get other diffusers that probably work better.

Rx4Photo

@viabhav_aroraD40 I'm not a wedding photographer although I have shot a couple. One thing to know is people (mostly brides) tend to look at wedding photos on the internet and fall in love with the most beautiful ones. Then, in looking for a photographer they're likely to want someone who can produce results similar to what they've "fallen in love" with. It's human nature. That said, if you really wish to get a good foot in the door in your area you've got to do the best you can to produce really good results early in the game. That way you'll increase your chances of getting referrals. If you've already got a 18-140mm then you could almost shoot an entire ceremony with that one lens. Especially outside daytime stuff.

The areas where you'll probably fall a bit short seems to be with lower light events and maybe some portraiture. If you're really intent on spending as little as possible maybe the 35mm f/1.8 is the best lens for you to buy right now. Use it for lower light situations where you don't want to flash the crap out of the whole scene. Otherwise use the 18-140mm with a bit of flash. Remember, the 35mm f/1.8 is not a magic lens. You've got to have really steady technique when shooting wide apertures or you'll get soft images.

In terms of which flash, if you can afford the SB700 then get that one. If still too expensive consider something like the Yongnuo YN560 (YN600 is newest release). I have one and although it's not a Nikon SB9xx it still does a good job. With either flash you'll want to acquire and learn how to use some type of flash diffuser with it - and know which ISO settings to use on your camera. For example, I have a Gary Fong Lightsphere but you can get something more available to you. Point being, you don't want to directly flash subjects all the time, but I think you'll need something more than the 400.


Also you must not be afraid to use higher ISO's for lower light settings. Many out-sourced editing houses for wedding photographers will automatically apply some noise reduction to wedding photos as a part of their workflow. Makes the skin look better and the bride will never complain about that! So, if you do your own editing, noise reduction should be your friend.

Hope this is useful info.