35-70mm f/2.8 vs. 17-35mm f/2.8 for Wedding Photography

Hi,

I'm about to purchase my D200 camera. I'm planning to do professional wedding photography. I was wondering if I should get 35-70mm f/2.8 or 17-35mm f/2.8 as my first lens. Eventually I'm planning to get 70-200mm f/2.8G as well. But for how, which of the two should I get? Which is better for this purpose and what's their pro's and con's in terms of wedding photography?

Thanks so much for the help.

Regards,
Marlon

--
AM

Sorry to say,

The last lens I would advice you to buy is the 17-55, not only because it is DX. The 17-35 is too less reach in my opinion.

I use the 35-70 f/2.8D about 70% of the time on my camera, it is one of the best lenses, image quality is comparable with that of the 28-70 AFS mine has beautiful colour and contrast and is even wide open very very sharp.

The 28-70 has a bit more reach and is absolutely the best when you look at focus speed and ease of handling. There is one exception, it's the weight, which is...heavy I think Nikon best choice for wedding is still 28-70 and not 35-70.

--
Curiosity is the key to creativity - Morita Akio
http://www.fotopropaganda.com

I have the 35-70mm and have used it to shoot a wedding before... it was perfect, but that was on film. On digital, I tried using this to shoot an event, and while I did ok with it, I found the lack of a wide-angle was severely restricting. Even that extra 28mm on a 28-70mm would've been nice.

The 17-55mm would be perfect for a wedding, but my guess is that you're looking at the 35-70mm and 17-35mm because you intend to buy a used lens, i.e. you have a limited budget? If this is the case, my advice would be to buy a new Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 instead.

If you can have only 1 lens for a wedding, it must cover wide, normal, and short telephoto. A 35-70 would only cover normal-telephoto, and a 17-35mm would only cover wide-normal. A 17-50 or 17-55 would cover all three.

Marlon Tan said:

Hi,

I'm about to purchase my D200 camera. I'm planning to do
professional wedding photography. I was wondering if I should get
35-70mm f/2.8 or 17-35mm f/2.8 as my first lens. Eventually I'm
planning to get 70-200mm f/2.8G as well. But for how, which of the
two should I get? Which is better for this purpose and what's their
pro's and con's in terms of wedding photography?

Thanks so much for the help.

Regards,
Marlon

Click to expand...

--

Sometimes you just need wide and even 17 can't quite get it. This was at 15mm. I shot most of this wedding with the Sigma 15-30, today I'd use the 17-55 but it wasn't out yet when I shot this. I bought one on nearly first release when they showed up though.



Hope it showed up, half my galleries are locked !!!!

If you need a starter lens take a look at the Nikkor 24-85D 2.8-4, that will get you on your feet till you can buy better glass. It has nice clarity and good contrast as well as color. Otherwise just start out with the 17-55.
David

Marlon,

If you should decide on the Nikon 35-70, 2.8 email me if you would.

--
Chuck Currey

Hi Guys,

Thank you so much for your insights!

Kind Regards,
Marlon

Hi,

For sure. I'll let you know if/when I decide to get the 35-70mm. But as of now, I'm leaning towards getting the 28-70mm f/2.8D.

Cheers,
Marlon

Charles Currey said:

Marlon,

If you should decide on the Nikon 35-70, 2.8 email me if you would.

--
Chuck Currey

Click to expand...

I don't shoot weddings, but I gotta tell you that my 17-35 is my favorite lens. It stays on my d200 85% of the time and I have never had problems with "reach"

Agree entirely... we have the 35-70 and REALLY like it. I believe it is BY FAR the best value in a previously loved Nikon pro glass zoom. It has caused me to rethink whether we will even get the occasionally problematic 17-55, which I doubt would represent any improvement from 35 up (and may have a slight weak spot at 35 anyway). I cite Ron Reznick here:

*********************************************************

The 28-70 is perfect for PJ-work at typical portrait ranges in the middle apertures...you may also consider the 35-70 for that sort of work for a smaller, lighter and somewhat slower-focusing lens that is less intimidating and a heck of a lot less obtrusive (and a lot less expensive).

The 17-55 is a wide angle that extends into the normal range. Most PJ-work will be done between 35 and 85, thus a combination of a normal zoom and an 85 will be perfect unless you want to minimize your kit and also allow yourself to do scenics, in which case a 17-55 and 85 makes a great kit.

*********************************************************

Optically, the 35-70 is perhaps even slightly better than the 28-70 per several who had both simultaneously. Either makes better sense for weddings than the 17-55, and the extra reach of the Beast > the 35-70 helps a bit at weddings. HOWEVER, weddings are one sure time when the bullet-fast focus acquisition of the much pricier, much bulkier 28-70 surely prevails. [See bouquet throw, etc.] You get no second chances for some shots, and Uncle Frank has noted that light can be low at receptions as well. I have come to believe that low light is a shooter's biggest routine challenge, at least if you eschew "the flash look."

--craig

M Lammerse said:

Sorry to say,

The last lens I would advise you to buy is the 17-55, not only
because it is DX. The 17-35 is too less reach in my opinion.
I use the 35-70 f/2.8D about 70% of the time on my camera, it is
one of the best lenses, image quality is comparable with that of
the 28-70 AFS... mine has beautiful colour and contrast and is even
very very sharp wide open.
The 28-70 has a bit more reach and is absolutely the best when you
look at focus speed and ease of handling. There is one

Click to expand...

exception,which is

M Lammerse said:

it's weight, ...heavy I think Nikon's best choice for
weddings is still 28-70, not 35-70.

--
Curiosity is the key to creativity - Morita Akio
http://www.fotopropaganda.com

Click to expand...

--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.

RaidenCraig said:

Optically, the 35-70 is perhaps even slightly better than the 28-70
per several who had both simultaneously. Either makes better sense
for weddings than the 17-55

Click to expand...

Really, Craig? By whose opinion?

My cards contained in excess of 800 images after the wedding I recently shot. Over 700 of those were with the 17-55 with more than half of them being wider than 28MM.

There seems to be a strong preference for the 17-55 among the professional wedding shooters visiting these forums. A recent post by a member of the PWP (professional wedding photographers) web indicated polls among those members showed a more than 2:1 preference for the 17-55 over all other lenses.

Of the 4 local pros in my area shooting Nikon, all use the 17-55 as their primary lens. The most prolific and popular of those will be shooting my daughter's wedding this afternoon and he and his assistant will both be using a 17-55 mounted on a D2X. BTW, he does own a 28-70. He uses it for high school portraits. It stays at his studio when a wedding is on the agenda.

So, just who is saying both the 35-70 and 28-70 make better sense than the 17-55 for weddings? I would be interested in knowing why.

Phil

RaidenCraig wrote:

The 17-55 makes perfect sense where your venues are tight. I've always gone to wide angle for the bouquet toss, even with 35mm. or medium format. My problem when first entering into DSLR was not having wide enough lenses, you can always find the long ones!!!

The exif says no flash, there was flash it was not dedicated, was the Qflash bounced straight up but leaves no info to read.



AF-S is a must IMO for this kind of work ( the faster action shots) until you get to real wide angle, then most lenses focus fast anyway. FWIW, I would not have gotten this shot at 35mm. from where I had to work from. I took a rapid sequence starting with the bride at 17mm. and caught this one in the middle of the batch.

Ever covered a circle dance, the B+G surrounded by guests all holding hands ? Go to wide angle and stick your rig in there over everyones heads or between bodies and click. A longer lens would just grab one head , a shoulder or maybe if you're lucky a face. The wide lens gets the couple and the crowd, many faces. 35mm. focal length won't get that shot, no way 17 barely gets it in but 15 is great.

I guess you can chock it up to style. Everyone builds on their style, some go tight, some go loose, some cover both. For that reason I use several different lenses and three bodies with three flashes. There is no one rig to cover all this.

Still, the 35-70 is a fine lens, just not " the one" lens to own.

David

RaidenCraig said:

*********************************************************
Either makes better sense
for weddings than the 17-55, and the extra reach of the Beast > the
35-70 helps a bit at weddings. HOWEVER, weddings are one sure time
when the bullet-fast focus acquisition of the much pricier, much
bulkier 28-70 surely prevails. [See bouquet throw, etc.] You get no
second chances for some shots, and Uncle Frank has noted that light
can be low at receptions as well. I have come to believe that low
light is a shooter's biggest routine challenge, at least if you
eschew "the flash look."

--craig

Click to expand...

Take a breath Phil-- it is your daughter's wedding day! Congratulations! My best to the happy couple!

I knew I could get a bite if I put some bait out there-- it worked! Touche!

Although it is a seemingly endless polemic here, I see quite a lot of folks who cite the best lens for and highest and best use of the 28-70 as for weddings... inferentially, Ron Reznick does here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=16701212
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=16605646

Clearly in part it boils down to individual style. You fellows beat it to death in threads like this with no definitive conclusions:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=18409805

It is interesting that Todd and others speak of doing weddings with either together with the 85 1.4 or the 70-200... what seems clear is that the pro glass especially earns its keep when you cannot do a repeat and speed is important. Some even advocate the 17-35 and 28-70 together, and others note that the size of the church matters... different pews for different shooters. The bullet-fast focus acquisition of the 28-70 surely helps for its intended PJ role... some have suggested it as the best one wedding lens choice, and it was meant for the best bodies.

Phil Youngblood said:

RaidenCraig said:

Optically, the 35-70 is perhaps even slightly better than the 28-70
per several who had both simultaneously. Either makes better sense
for weddings than the 17-55

Click to expand...

Really, Craig? By whose opinion?

My cards contained in excess of 800 images after the wedding I
recently shot. Over 700 of those were with the 17-55 with more than
half of them being wider than 28MM.

There seems to be a strong preference for the 17-55 among the
professional wedding shooters visiting these forums. A recent
post by a member of the PWP (professional wedding photographers)
web indicated polls among those members showed a more than 2:1
preference for the 17-55 over all other lenses.

Of the 4 local pros in my area shooting Nikon, all use the 17-55
as their primary lens. The most prolific and popular of those will
be shooting my daughter's wedding this afternoon and he and his
assistant will both be using a 17-55 mounted on a D2X. BTW, he does
own a 28-70. He uses it for high school portraits. It stays at his
studio when a wedding is on the agenda.

So, just who is saying both the 35-70 and 28-70 make better sense
than the 17-55 for weddings? I would be interested in knowing why.

Phil

Click to expand...

--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.

In 35+ years of shooting receptions and weddings, I figure I've learned by experience. I prefer to avoid wide angle when I can but find focal lengths in the 28mm to about 45mm very useful for groups (this on full-frame - on APS-C/DX that would be a range of about 18mm to about 30mm). With tighter shots, of individuals and verticals of two people or horizontals of three, I prefer focal lengths in the range of 50mm to about 85mm, depending on the space I have in which to work (translates into 35mm to about 60mm on Nikon DSLRs). For portraiture, at least with my shooting style, I like lenses in the range of about 85mm to about 135mm with 105mm being my ideal (again, translated to the smaller format, about 60mm to about 90mm with 70mm being my preference).

The remainder of my shots at such events are usually long and usually entirely centered around 180mm (about 120mm on DX format).

True, occasionally I need something a bit wider or a bit longer; however, those times are very rare, probably less than 2% of all my shots.

So, were I to ask for the perfect set of lenses for DX format, based on my needs, I'd want the following:
1) the 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S Nikkor lens (general use),
2) the 28-70mm f/2.8D AF-S Nikkor lens (portraits), and,
3) the 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR lens (long shots).

... just my way of thinking -- your mileage may vary . . . .

Why is it that whenever the subject of lens evaluation comes up we have to imediately start talking of use in weddings. I have a 35-70, avoid weddings as much as possible and love the lens. Are there not other more interesting things to shoot than the very expensive images that are to be looked at once, placed in a book and never to be looked at again? Ok, Ok you think that I am some kind of a nut so let me ask you, how many times a year do you married folks break out your wedding album and just enjoy going from page to page? I thought so, you don't.

My point is that this is not a professional wedding photog site and the information we are offering is being consumed by people looking for outstanding lenses for their everyday use in photographing most everything except weddings in most cases. So lets get real, the 35-70, 17-35, 28-70 and 70-200 are all fine lenses period.

Thanks for letting me vent, I have contributed over $80,000 to the weddings of my 4 children and found it to be the most wasteful expense of my entire lifetime. Just think, for that I coud have bought each of them a D2X, 17-35, 35-70, 70-200 and had enough left over for a 10 day trip to any of our wonderful national parks.
Sorry Phil, please subtitute a 17-55 in place of the 17-35

Jim

--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.