p.3 #2 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
If you go with the D7000 then you can use the 17-55 f/2.8 G lens and get similar results to what you would get with a 24-70 on a D700 and save a few more bucks. Ive shot with both lenses and they both are very fast to focus and are equally sharp.
I agree on your idea of going with the D800 & D7000 combo and like you said, they use the same batteries so if you already have spares, it is more savings for you.
p.3 #3 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
Yeah I'm leaning towards a D800 and D7000 combo.
Just sold my 105 DC and bought and 85 1.4G. I think that'll suffice for range, as I've previously shot weddings with the 80-200 f/2.8G and found myself using the 80-150 region more than closer 200.
85 with the 1.5 crop of the d7000 gives me around 130mm, so that might work for me
p.3 #4 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
85% of my wedding shots are with the 24-70mm, 5% with the 14-24mm, and 10% with the 70-200mm lens. The only time I used a 24mm f1.4 prime was when shooting with a Canon 1D Mark III 1.25 crop camera where it became a 30mm prime and only because I did not trust the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 to provide consistently accurate autofocus.
Hard to believe you do not understand the need for a 24-70mm lens for wedding photography.
p.3 #5 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
elkhornsun wrote:
85% of my wedding shots are with the 24-70mm, 5% with the 14-24mm, and 10% with the 70-200mm lens. The only time I used a 24mm f1.4 prime was when shooting with a Canon 1D Mark III 1.25 crop camera where it became a 30mm prime and only because I did not trust the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 to provide consistently accurate autofocus.
Hard to believe you do not understand the need for a 24-70mm lens for wedding photography.
Not to be rude, but 85% of YOUR wedding shots are with the 24-70. I'd bet my shooting style is very different from yours, as I used the 24-70 sparingly. There's no "understood need" for the 24-70 - it's a tool that some may prefer, while others may prefer multiple primes.
p.3 #6 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
I find a use the 24-70 mostly when the lights get dimmed at the reception and you have to use flash. At that point I mount it on the D700 (now 800) and throw everything else in the bag.
I was thinking of getting rid of the 70-200 but I found I use it all the time for outdoor weddings. Before I "discovered" primes I would shoot an entire wedding with those 2.
p.3 #7 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
Heh... this thread helped me out a lot.
I am a gearhead and still trying to figure out what solid kit would be useful to me for my wedding business.
I had a lot of lenses and I ended up with a 24L II, 85L II and 70-200 IS II.
I had a debate between a 24-70L (I had a 24-70L and 16-35L II before) and 24L II... But reading all of these responses helped me to keep all three lenses and add an additional UWA for an outside walkaround.
Now I will have a solid two prime and two zoom setup paired w/ 5D2’s...
My conclusion would be this: if you can afford it, get a fast prime and a “slow (f/4.0)” UWA zoom for a walkaround
and a fast prime tele (85L II) and some 70-200 for a walkaround or event.
If you CANNOT afford all four lenses, get a 24-70L and 70-200 IS, period. (and of course add a nifty or at least a 50mm 1.4)
p.3 #11 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
D. Diggler wrote:
"The NEED"? If it's such a "need", how is it that many wedding photogs are doing without it?
none, not one photog does weddings without a 24-70. Maybe what we are trying to say is that the 24-70 is a very valuable tool. Its got great iq, very versatile and a great focal length. If you had to choose ONE lens to cover a wedding with, it is THE lens.
p.3 #12 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
adamdewilde wrote:
+1
lol. well if you just stand in once place like a noob with a zoom lens, basing your focal length purely on the distance from your subject then yes.
2 bodies with a 35/28/24mm on one and a 85mm on the other is kinda like having a 24-70mm on one body. There are perspective differences but same framing can be replicated without much trouble. You just have to move a bit.
Its just all about the look and style that you want. If you dont care about thin DOF effects ,and primarily use flash indoors then might as well go with a 24-70 on one body.
p.3 #14 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
Have not done an event in a bit, occasional part timer here. But, I want to do a better job next time.
Thinking about upgrading my (boring to me) 28-70. Think I might be better off with a 17-35 & throw a 50 in a pocket, 2nd camera would have either an 85 or 70-200.
If I had one camera only, the 24-70 probably should be on it most of the time, but I am thinking that the 17-35 on one body and something longish on the other would be an ideal setup.
PS-my 28-70/2.8 has issues, so that is why I am evaluating.
How does the 17-35 do? Have not used a wide zoom at an event before?
p.3 #15 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
RKB58 wrote:
How does the 17-35 do?
RK,
I may be in Blacksburg, VA this coming Sunday (Feb. 10). I have all three Nikkor lenses (17-35mm, 24mm f/1.4, 24-70mm).
If you like, I can bring all 3 so that you can compare them all using the same camera body in the same environment, then download them, pixel-peep at levels no bride will ever do and authoritatively declare anyone who disagrees with your opinion as an idiot.
What's MY opinion? I "need" all three... but am going to be selling either the 17-35mm or 24mm f/1.4 to fund buying a used D3s that I "need" to replace one of my two D700. Somehow, someway, it has produced images that have pleased brides, so don't tell them that it "needs" to be replaced.
p.3 #16 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
honorerdieu wrote:
Not to be rude, but I can't imagine shooting a wedding with one prime lens at the wide focal length, and another at the telephoto length.
.
I've only done 6 weddings in the past year, but have some thoughts. I just can't imagine not having a "work horse" zoom such as the 24-70mm. I'd be missing shots left and right. With a zoom I can get multiple shots of a bride coming down the aisle, reframing as I go. The other lens that has saved me was the 70-200mm VR. Half the weddings banned photographers up front during the ceremony, but with the 70-200mm I was still easily getting shots from the back. I would have failed without both zooms, NO doubt about it.
I own lenses from every era of photography, starting with the 1840s. I still actively shoot many different formats--4x5, half plate, 6x9, 6x6, 35mm, and digital. For the life of me, I still don't understand why someone would buy a single focal lens for general purpose. Sure, back in the 1960s you didn't have all that much choice, but now some of Nikon's best lenses are their f2.8 pro zooms. The pro zooms are the very peak of technology! As for a 24mm f1.4 being sharper than a 24-70mm--maybe, if you always use a tripod. My own personal experience is that a $100 kit lens will beat a $1,800 single focal lens in sharpness if the kit lens is used on a tripod and the other lens is not. There are a few times when things are almost too dark for moving shots at f2.8--maybe the wedding is being done at night by candlelight or something. Really though, I find single focal lenses to be crippling for something like a wedding. I tried the single focal lens thing a few years ago and was extremely frustrated.
p.3 #17 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
Iluxa007 wrote:
If you CANNOT afford all four lenses, get a 24-70L and 70-200 IS, period. (and of course add a nifty or at least a 50mm 1.4)
You will also need a SOLID back up camera, at least one SB-900 flash, and a couple of more lights (such as Einsteins) and lightstands/modifiers for the formals. I always bring at least three flash. Three are handy for some kinds of shots, plus the third one is a back up. I always, always have back up gear for a wedding. Telling the bride you didn't get many photos because something quit working just isn't going to cut it.
