Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 16-85 and a prime or Sigma 17-50 F2.8 for wedding (friends) kids (ours) etc

Go to last post
S

shadowhawk2020

Member
Messages
34
Reaction score
4
I have a Nikon 16-85 that will arrive at my door today that I purchased for $430 new. I was also going to be picking up a 50mm 1.8 prime to go with it.

But I saw a deal for a Sigma 17-50 and have read that it is better for indoor photography because it is a faster lens.

Typical use for the lens will be everyday pictures of my two kids, vacations and just random around the house kinda photo's. BUT my wife has been asked to photo a couple of weddings for friends (they are broke and my wife would do it as a wedding gift).

Is the 16-85 too slow for that application? I figured I was going to get the prime lens for her for portraits, but now I am worried I may be better off with the Sigma.

Oh we currently have a D40, but are waiting patiently for a good deal on a refurb D7000
 
Replying to add. She has done a wedding with a kit lens (keep in mind she doesn't charge but she has poor friends) so she knows it is possible.
 
A d40 and a 16-85 feels too slow for indoor use. I'd either get a flash for that combo or work some magic with your prime. Even with the 2.8 zoom, you may not like boosting your iso to get a fast enough shutter speed.
 
It depends on the body you'll be using. I shot a wedding last weekend in difficult light and 75 percent of the pictures were made with the 16-85 on a D7100. (The remainder were made with the 12-24 Nikkor and the 8mm Rokinon, which does have its uses in these kinds of events.) No problem and no flash. Good pictures.
 
I am going to edit the original post. By the time the wedding rolls around we should have the D7000. Not that it makes the lens faster.

I am thinking most of the indoor stuff will be shot with the prime anyways, so I am probably leaning toward sticking with the 16-85.
 
depscribe said:
depscribe wrote:

It depends on the body you'll be using. I shot a wedding last weekend in difficult light and 75 percent of the pictures were made with the 16-85 on a D7100. (The remainder were made with the 12-24 Nikkor and the 8mm Rokinon, which does have its uses in these kinds of events.) No problem and no flash. Good pictures.
Click to expand...
that has probably more to do with the fact that your other lenses were ultra wide - ie not really useful for shooting a wedding, except for those 4-5 pictures
 
Just to throw this into the pot.

Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical.

One of the features I love is the constant 2.8 which is very handy.
 
If the wedding is either outdoors, or indoors, and you will be using flash, then the 16-85 should be adequate. However, if you plan to do available light photography indoors, then a lens with a maximum aperture of f2.8 is a must, IMO.


Jon
 
shadowhawk2020 said:
shadowhawk2020 wrote:

I have a Nikon 16-85 that will arrive at my door today that I purchased for $430 new. I was also going to be picking up a 50mm 1.8 prime to go with it.

But I saw a deal for a Sigma 17-50 and have read that it is better for indoor photography because it is a faster lens.

Typical use for the lens will be everyday pictures of my two kids, vacations and just random around the house kinda photo's. BUT my wife has been asked to photo a couple of weddings for friends (they are broke and my wife would do it as a wedding gift).

Is the 16-85 too slow for that application? I figured I was going to get the prime lens for her for portraits, but now I am worried I may be better off with the Sigma.

Oh we currently have a D40, but are waiting patiently for a good deal on a refurb D7000
Click to expand...
And learn to use it well. Stop all this nonsense about 'fast lenses'. If there is not enough light then add some. Using, say, a F1.8, lens wide open is a recipe for shallow depth of field (sometimes desirable for portraits) and concommitantly unless all subjects are in the same focal plane, some will be out of focus - useless for social events.

I do weddings and events (for friends now, mainly but used to do it paid) - and tend to use a Nik 18-35, which is often a bit too short - so I think the 16-85 would be ideal.

The D40 is good in that it has a decent, proper, flash x-sync of (I believe) 1/4000s - no modern DSLR has that so you are laughing if you want a nice soft fill flash in sunlight with large aperture. I use my ageing D70 for that (1/8000s).

I'd look for a refurb D7100 if I were you.

David
 
wlad said:
wlad wrote:
wlad said:
depscribe wrote:

It depends on the body you'll be using. I shot a wedding last weekend in difficult light and 75 percent of the pictures were made with the 16-85 on a D7100. (The remainder were made with the 12-24 Nikkor and the 8mm Rokinon, which does have its uses in these kinds of events.) No problem and no flash. Good pictures.
Click to expand...
that has probably more to do with the fact that your other lenses were ultra wide - ie not really useful for shooting a wedding, except for those 4-5 pictures
Click to expand...
huh?

those other lenses were entirely useful in shooting the wedding, which is why i used them for a quarter of the pictures. my point was that when shooting a wedding one should do a little extra thinking and in addition to the usual boring wedding stuff shoot some unusual, non-boring wedding stuff. as opposed to the constipated get-a-fast-normal-lens-and-use-that thinking.
 
depscribe said:
depscribe wrote:
depscribe said:
wlad wrote:
depscribe said:
depscribe wrote:

It depends on the body you'll be using. I shot a wedding last weekend in difficult light and 75 percent of the pictures were made with the 16-85 on a D7100. (The remainder were made with the 12-24 Nikkor and the 8mm Rokinon, which does have its uses in these kinds of events.) No problem and no flash. Good pictures.
Click to expand...
that has probably more to do with the fact that your other lenses were ultra wide - ie not really useful for shooting a wedding, except for those 4-5 pictures
Click to expand...
huh?

those other lenses were entirely useful in shooting the wedding, which is why i used them for a quarter of the pictures. my point was that when shooting a wedding one should do a little extra thinking and in addition to the usual boring wedding stuff shoot some unusual, non-boring wedding stuff. as opposed to the constipated get-a-fast-normal-lens-and-use-that thinking.
Click to expand...
well, I find ultrawide event shots extremely boring - that's why 4-5 shots are more than enough for me.
 
shadowhawk2020 said:
shadowhawk2020 wrote:

I have a Nikon 16-85 that will arrive at my door today that I purchased for $430 new. I was also going to be picking up a 50mm 1.8 prime to go with it.
Click to expand...
If you are limited to iso 400 or below, that zoom is probably too slow. But honestly, much of the shots you would do with that zoom also require some DOF and group shots at f2.8 end up with half the group out of focus. Rather that buying a faster lens, I think a body with better high iso results would be a better option. A D7K or even a D3200 with the 16-85 would get better results than a D40 and a faster lens by allowing you to shoot with enough DOF for the group shots.

If the portraits are being done indoors then the 50 1.8 would work but it's not my fav lens, the 85 1.8G is SOOOOO much better for portraits in you can find the room to use it IMHO. I would think too it would be better for ceremony shots than the 50 would be as the long end of the 16-85 is a bit slow and prob too much DOF for those shots.
 
shadowhawk2020 said:
shadowhawk2020 wrote:

I am going to edit the original post. By the time the wedding rolls around we should have the D7000. Not that it makes the lens faster.

I am thinking most of the indoor stuff will be shot with the prime anyways, so I am probably leaning toward sticking with the 16-85.
Click to expand...
I can promise you will not being shooting the majority of the indoor shots with a 50mm on DX. If I was stuck using one prime lens for a wedding it would be a semi wide or maybe a "normal" lens (ie 35mm on DX). You can't do any group shots with a 50 on DX.

And yes the newer body does "make the system faster" it just doesn't reduce the DOF as a faster lens would, which can be a bad thing for group shots etc.

Honestly if your wife is the one shooting and has the experience, shouldn't she be the one who decides what to use/buy for this?
 
David Lal said:
David Lal wrote:
David Lal said:
shadowhawk2020 wrote:

I have a Nikon 16-85 that will arrive at my door today that I purchased for $430 new. I was also going to be picking up a 50mm 1.8 prime to go with it.

But I saw a deal for a Sigma 17-50 and have read that it is better for indoor photography because it is a faster lens.
Click to expand...
And learn to use it well. Stop all this nonsense about 'fast lenses'. If there is not enough light then add some. Using, say, a F1.8, lens wide open is a recipe for shallow depth of field (sometimes desirable for portraits) and concommitantly unless all subjects are in the same focal plane, some will be out of focus - useless for social events.
Click to expand...
Agreed. For wedding or any indoor events there are two ways to deal with low light, add light with a flash if you have limited iso (and the skills to use one, which isn't easy..) or get a camera body that works decent at high ISO.

Using a super fast lens wide open is a disaster for event photography. First you assume the AF is going to work perfect (and I mean PERFECT). It won't. Second with all the excitement going on and trying to round people up, working to make sure everything in is the same plane of focus will never happen. You won't notice that half the people are way out of focus till you get home. Shots of the overall event will look silly when 3/4 of the shot is out of focus when shot wide open. For the formal portraits, yes shallow DOF is great, maybe for ceremony shots it would work but for most of the shots it will produce bad results.
 
The sigma is a much better portrait lens having owned the 16-85 it is a great walk around lens but not nearly as nice for people in my opinion, I sold the nikon kept my sigma. The 50 1.8 is nice but for a wedding the 17-50 would be much more versatile.
 
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