Reading mode: Light Dark

24-70mm too short for wedding reception work?

Go to last post
S

sonton2003

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
450
Reaction score
0
Location
US
I was just thinking that my current primary lens is 17-55mm on the D200 so that's 25.5-75mm

I'm moving up to the D3 and have the 24-70mm on order as well. I got to think about the long end of the lens and missing those last 5mm that I am at all the time.

At one point I had the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Which turned into 42-112.5mm as my primary lens and I thought that was fantastic with a long reach to really get the faces of people lit up well though sometimes not wide enough so I went back to the 17-50.

So in moving to the 24-70mm it's wide enough but not long enough. :(
 
Reall, I got to say... even though I'm not a wedding photographer so I can't understand the dynamics of what you are saying!!.... I've never had a problem with taking two steps closer when trying to get an extra 5mm of FL, and I have a 28-75 Tammy and a 80-200mm Nikon to play with, as my only points of reference!

Stepping back has always been an issue for me, and I would appreciate the effort that Nikon has gone to with this new lens!

Sorry I just can't see that your concern is justified!

Doesn't mean that it isn't!! I just can't see why stepping closer a couple of steps is so hard(or simply cropping)??
 
Think it would be right on the nose for wedding/event work. If you were outside maybe a little short. But it is not wide enought for whole table shots. Used to do this a lot and used an 85, 35 and 25 on a Leica. I only used the 85 for head shots, and dance shots most of the time 35 is the lens I used. Get involved with your subjects, photography becomes a drag if you just stand around and be a sniper with a long lens.

Tom
 
sonton2003 said:
I'm moving up to the D3 and have the 24-70mm on order as well. I got
to think about the long end of the lens and missing those last 5mm
that I am at all the time.
Click to expand...
Do some math and you will see that 5 mm on the long end doesn't count so much on FX camera. The horizontal field of view (HFOV) for 70 mm is 28,8 deg. and for 75 mm it's 27 deg.

If your object is 3 m away from the camera (FX sensor) the horizontal dimensional field of view for 70 mm is 1,54 m and for 75 mm it's 1,44 m. I don't think 10 cm is a big difference. Now move your 70 mm lens just 20 cm closer to the object (2,8 m) and you will get the same dimensional view as with 75 mm from 3 meters.

Regards!
 
sonton2003 said:
I was just thinking that my current primary lens is 17-55mm on the
D200 so that's 25.5-75mm

I'm moving up to the D3 and have the 24-70mm on order as well. I got
to think about the long end of the lens and missing those last 5mm
that I am at all the time.

At one point I had the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Which turned into
42-112.5mm as my primary lens and I thought that was fantastic with a
long reach to really get the faces of people lit up well though
sometimes not wide enough so I went back to the 17-50.

So in moving to the 24-70mm it's wide enough but not long enough. :(
Click to expand...
I agree, when the rumors of the FF D3 were flying around, I was hoping Nikon would make a 35- 105mm F/2.8 to match the 17-35mm F/2.8.

Making a 24-70 F/2.8 when they already have the gold standard 28-70 F/2.8 makes no sense to me.
 
Well, that's why, for weddings, I carry two bodies and the 17/55 and 70/200. All bets covered that way. I tend also to agree with a previous poster that you can move about and the 17/55 is a stellar lens for this purpose. Anyway, you can always crop afterwards subject to not printing at poster size.
 
Cameranserai said:
Well, that's why, for weddings, I carry two bodies and the 17/55 and
70/200. All bets covered that way. I tend also to agree with a
previous poster that you can move about and the 17/55 is a stellar
lens for this purpose. Anyway, you can always crop afterwards subject
to not printing at poster size.
Click to expand...
There is always a work around for everything, but wouldn't it make it much more efficient if there was a 35-105mm F/2.8? or a 24-90 F/2.8 that way you dont have to worry about changing lenses, cropping, being too short or not wide enough?

For example I love the 18-70 DX lens range (28mm- 105mm on a DX)Nikon already has a 28-105mm Lens, why not just make it a constant F/2.8 with AF-S, it would be a superb range on the D3

I Know easier said than done
 
Jorge Barrantes said:
Cameranserai said:
Well, that's why, for weddings, I carry two bodies and the 17/55 and
70/200. All bets covered that way. I tend also to agree with a
previous poster that you can move about and the 17/55 is a stellar
lens for this purpose. Anyway, you can always crop afterwards subject
to not printing at poster size.
Click to expand...
There is always a work around for everything, but wouldn't it make it
much more efficient if there was a 35-105mm F/2.8? or a 24-90 F/2.8
that way you dont have to worry about changing lenses, cropping,
being too short or not wide enough?

For example I love the 18-70 DX lens range (28mm- 105mm on a DX)Nikon
already has a 28-105mm Lens, why not just make it a constant F/2.8
with AF-S, it would be a superb range on the D3

I Know easier said than done
Click to expand...
If Nikon will build it, I will buy it :)
 
Before I retired due to back problems definitely aggravated by dragging around a couple of Canon 1DS MkII's, I found their 24-70 okay for most wedding shots but definitely limited my shooting style at receptions where I used a mix of styles including PJ. Frankly, yeah you can take a couple of steps and get a nice tight shot. But don't think for a second it'll be candid...your working distance is just plain too short. Canon solved the problem by offering a 24-105 which worked terrifically to overcome the working distance issue for candid PJ shooting.

And no I'm not a troll. After retirement, I sold off all my Canon stuff and bought a D200, 12-24mm, 10.5mm, and 17-55mm, along with an SB-800. I always loved the Nikon ergonomics and glass. And frankly, for heavy use in various weather conditions, the D200 was the best deal on the market, particularly, if you have back problems, until the D300 was announced. I'm a very happy Nikonian!

If you're planning to shoot full frame, with a D3, you'll be able to get the job done with the 24-70, depending on your style; but, I can't help think you'll mutter under your breath about limited focal length if Nikon doesn't offer a PJ/Wedding lens like a 24-105 or even better a 24-135 f4.0, VR, ED professional grade lens. (Nikon has enough consumer no offense junk lenses out there.) They really need to service the working PJ/Wedding pros with intermediate length lenses that won't totally destroy your back after 8-10 hours of work. The 70-200 on another D3 body while an option is really insane under wedding reception conditions unless you're on steroids. (Although shooting isolation candids during the ceremonies works great when on a tripod.)

Good luck,
Steve
 
I think it's ideal myself :-)

Future setup (from November onwards):

D3 + 24-70 + sb800
D3 + 70-200 + sb800

This will cover 99% of my work I suspect. Will probably keep the 10.5mm in my pocket for the odd times I need a fisheye.

Current setup:

D2xs + 17-55 + sb800
D2xs + 70-200 + sb800

In my bag a 10.5mm, 12-24mm, sb800
 
Clickshots said:
In my bag a 10.5mm, 12-24mm, sb800
Click to expand...
I never shot weddings.If you use the 12-24 Dx whit D3 and get 5.1 MP. Can you print whit this resolution for normals wedding works?.I ask about to combine Dx anf FX lens in the
same session for weddings whit D3.
Thanks
 
Steve Adamson said:
Before I retired due to back problems definitely aggravated by
dragging around a couple of Canon 1DS MkII's, I found their 24-70
okay for most wedding shots but definitely limited my shooting style
at receptions where I used a mix of styles including PJ. Frankly,
yeah you can take a couple of steps and get a nice tight shot. But
don't think for a second it'll be candid...your working distance is
just plain too short. Canon solved the problem by offering a 24-105
which worked terrifically to overcome the working distance issue for
candid PJ shooting.

And no I'm not a troll. After retirement, I sold off all my Canon
stuff and bought a D200, 12-24mm, 10.5mm, and 17-55mm, along with an
SB-800. I always loved the Nikon ergonomics and glass. And frankly,
for heavy use in various weather conditions, the D200 was the best
deal on the market, particularly, if you have back problems, until
the D300 was announced. I'm a very happy Nikonian!

If you're planning to shoot full frame, with a D3, you'll be able to
get the job done with the 24-70, depending on your style; but, I
can't help think you'll mutter under your breath about limited focal
length if Nikon doesn't offer a PJ/Wedding lens like a 24-105 or even
better a 24-135 f4.0, VR, ED professional grade lens. (Nikon has
enough consumer no offense junk lenses out there.) They really need
to service the working PJ/Wedding pros with intermediate length
lenses that won't totally destroy your back after 8-10 hours of work.
The 70-200 on another D3 body while an option is really insane under
wedding reception conditions unless you're on steroids. (Although
shooting isolation candids during the ceremonies works great when on
a tripod.)

Good luck,
Steve
Click to expand...
That's exactly right Steve. You and I think alike for sure. I just don't know what to do about that gap! Carrying around the 70-200mm with the sb-800 can be done, i've done it, but it's no fun, no fun at all. :(

There are no mid-range zoom's that will work just right, the Tamron 28-75 actually will work, but it get's out of focus all too quick, mine went out just a month after getting it serviced and it took 6 weeks to get serviced :( I guess i'll settle for the 24-70mm
 
Steve Adamson said:
If you're planning to shoot full frame, with a D3, you'll be able to
get the job done with the 24-70, depending on your style; but, I
can't help think you'll mutter under your breath about limited focal
length if Nikon doesn't offer a PJ/Wedding lens like a 24-105 or even
better a 24-135 f4.0, VR, ED professional grade lens. (Nikon has
enough consumer no offense junk lenses out there.) They really need
to service the working PJ/Wedding pros with intermediate length
lenses that won't totally destroy your back after 8-10 hours of work.
Click to expand...
AMEN Brother ! 24-135mm F/4 AF-S VR is the way to go. I'm still scratching my head over the fact that Nikon decided to create a 24-70 F/2.8 when they already had the 28-70 F/2.8, not to mention four different flavors of 18mm - xx
 
That's my typical setup. D2xs + 17-35, D200 + 85/1.4. And I have the 18-70, 28-70, 105 Micro VR, 50/1.8 and 70-200 VR on standby just in case. In a wedding you need backup of pretty much everything - you really don't want to be in a situation where you don't have a backup camera, lens, flash, memory card, etc.

--
Alberto T., PPA
 
well i wont need the 12-24 when i have the d3 + 24-70.
I've never had need for a lens wider then 24mm to be honest.

5.1MP would be fine for most wedding work though, I used to use D2h cameras and they're only 4MP
 
I think the 24-70 will work just fine on your D3 (pretty similar range to the 17-55mm) I'd suggest getting an 85mm or 105mm prime to go on your current camera for the long range stuff, that would cover you for most things - and be a lot lighter than using a 70-200mm!

...assuming you don't need that extra range.
 
Jorge Barrantes said:
I agree, when the rumors of the FF D3 were flying around, I was
hoping Nikon would make a 35- 105mm F/2.8 to match the 17-35mm F/2.8.
Click to expand...
They would likely charge $2500 for such a lens.
Jorge Barrantes said:
Making a 24-70 F/2.8 when they already have the gold standard 28-70
F/2.8 makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
Really, the 14-24, 24-70 are both introduced to generate revenue in the mad scramble of the new FF D3 (I should know, I have all of them on order). Likely the 14-24 & 24-70 will be better than the 17-35 & 28-70 counterparts (the examples recently shown are displaying this, especially the corners of the 14-24 are much sharper), but the 17-35 & 28-70 make a much cheaper combo for those trying to save a bundle.
--
http://www.arizonadigitalphotography.com - finally up, give a look

http://www.davidlakephotos.com - wedding site in the works...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top