24-70 zoom or wide angle prime for Nikon?

Cam81

Cam81

Messages
11
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,
I'm pretty new to wedding photography, and am in a bit of a lens dilemma. I'm sure there will be similar threads elsewhere, but I wanted to get some opinions on my specific situation. I have now shot a total of 5 weddings, with more coming up in the near future. I shoot Nikon and currently my lens lineup comprises a 24-70e 2.8 VR, 85 1.4G, 70-200 vrii, 50mm 1.8G, 16-35 f4G and a macro 60mm 2.8G. I usually carry 2 camera bodies with the 85/70-200 on one and the 24-70 on the other.

The 85mm lens is fast becoming my favorite lens. The fantastic subject isolation and ability to open up to 1.4 in really low light makes all the difference in very low light environments, and there is a certain quality/warmth to the colours, that I just love. Its not the sharpest lens fully wide open (i usually shoot at 1.8 - 2.8), but I like having the option to go to 1.4 if needs be. It has got me thinking that I miss the equivalent at the wide end. While the 24-70 is okay, It definitely is lacking that certain something that the prime lens seem to give. I'm starting to wonder if I should replace with or add a wide angle prime. As you can probably tell, I definitely favor Nikon lenses, as I have had good experiences with all my Nikon lenses previously (not the case with Sigma for example), and also for consistency of colours in an album.

I'm leaning towards one of the 1.4 Nikon primes. The 24mm 1.4 is definitely under consideration. Partly because it seems to be very highly thought of, but also for those situations where there is a large group and lack of space. But then again there is the problem of it being too wide in some circumstances. Also under consideration is the 35 1.4. It seems to be more of a classic wedding focal length, but reviews on this lens seem less glowing and I'm slightly worried by apparent lack of sharpness wider than f2.8. The 28 1.4 seems to be stellar, but is out of my budget for now. Of course there are also the 1.8 versions of these lenses.

Perhaps those who have experiences with some of these lenses at weddings could give their take on which lenses they have gone with and why. Or it would be good to hear from those who favor the flexibility of a 24-70 over the primes.

Thanks in advance.
 
Do you have an allergy to Sigma? Their 35mm F1.4 ART is plenty sharp, as is their F2 24-35mm ART. They are heavy compared to Nikkor F1.4 primes, though.
 
It might not be the answer you want but I ended up using both a 35 and 24-70. 90-95% was 35 as it was just a superb length for me and really flexible. The 24-70 only really came out for large groups for the wide end and for dance floor shots where I could get into the action and shoot at the wide end again.

Some weddings didn’t require the 24-70 at all but I was always glad it was in my bag just in case. As a standalone I would be confident shooting a full wedding on this lens if push came to shove but always preferred the shots out of the primes despite the zoom being an impeccable lens.

Since stopping shooting weddings the only lenses I’ve kept are my 35mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8D (the latter not being worth selling for the money they go for!) so just goes to show how much I liked it, it’s worth mentioning I have the Sigma though. It’s superb wide open and a comparative bargain but obviously there is some question over getting a good copy etc. I bought new so I could always return it if needed but mine was a good one. I always found having 2 stops of extra light handy even if I rarely shot it at 1.4 especially when it came to some cavelike wedding receptions :LOL:
 
>It’s superb wide open and a comparative bargain but obviously there is some question over getting a good copy etc.

I realise people have reported variability with the AF on the 50mm ART, but haven't seen any complaints on the 35mm. This is news to me.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned Sigma as the OP has had bad experiences...but was this with the ART? IQ has never been an issue with Sigma in my experience. AF used to be an issue (i.e. 'hunting' on some earlier models), but I thought the ART series had cured this. The 24-35mm ART that I had focused uber quickly.
 
WD40 said:
>It’s superb wide open and a comparative bargain but obviously there is some question over getting a good copy etc.

I realise people have reported variability with the AF on the 50mm ART, but haven't seen any complaints on the 35mm. This is news to me.

I probably shouldn't have mentioned Sigma as the OP has had bad experiences...but was this with the ART? IQ has never been an issue with Sigma in my experience. AF used to be an issue (i.e. 'hunting' on some earlier models), but I thought the ART series had cured this. The 24-35mm ART that I had focused uber quickly.
Click to expand...


I was under the impression that comment was for all Sigma lenses but I’m certainly happy to bow to anybodies superior knowledge on the subject :) When I got the 35 I think it was the only Art lens available at that time so perhaps held the same caveats as the rest, as time has gone on maybe it’s been realised that they are better in that regard. I certainly don’t have trouble with mine but I’m only 1 user!
 
Although I've used a couple of ARTs I haven't tried / needed the dock. I wonder if some users have gotten frustrated without trying it? I totally agree that it's a PITA compared to using native lenses, but I guess this is offset against the fact the lenses compete with others costing many times the price in terms of optics.

Having said all this, if you are shooting weddings for a living, no one will blame you going native. I probably should never have mentioned the S word :)

Using feet instead of zoom will introduces a new challenge to technique. I think this is definitely a skill that the best portrait people have.
 
andy1868 said:
It might not be the answer you want but I ended up using both a 35 and 24-70. 90-95% was 35 as it was just a superb length for me and really flexible. The 24-70 only really came out for large groups for the wide end and for dance floor shots where I could get into the action and shoot at the wide end again.

Some weddings didn’t require the 24-70 at all but I was always glad it was in my bag just in case. As a standalone I would be confident shooting a full wedding on this lens if push came to shove but always preferred the shots out of the primes despite the zoom being an impeccable lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks both for your comments. Definitely good to hear your opinions. What Andy said above actually makes a lot of sense to me. So at least for the time being I'll keep the 24-70 and likely pair it with a 35mm lens and go from there. I actually have owned the Sigma Art in the past for a fairly brief period. It was insanely sharp, but I also somehow didn't have complete confidence in its AF. I had a couple of times when it would behave erratically. But maybe it was just my copy.

As I mentioned in my original post I like the fact that I could expect the colours from a Nikon lens to look very similar to my other Nikon lenses, so cutting down post processing time and keeping consistency to a wedding album. But obviously the Nikon 1.4 is also the most expensive of the bunch, and on paper the softest of the modern 35mm lens options.

Does anyone have experience with the Tamron 35 1.8? I've heard its really sharp and has VC too, making it a very good low light option!

Cheers
 
Not sure I'd be sweating over sharpness - will your clients notice or will you be able to charge more for having a lens fractionally sharper? I know you'd notice the sharpness when you view the image on screen, but will your clients when looking at a book or print - not so much I'd suggest.

For what it's worth, for the odd wedding I have shot, the Sigma 35mm F1.4 was occasionally useful to get a shallow DoF at close distances. That said, my 24-70mm was used for probably 90% of the shots I took.
 
24-70 to play it safe and you can shoot an entire Wedding on it :)

The results will be a bit boring, but you can do it lol

Last time I looked over 95% of any of mine are shot on the 35/85 combo, and of that about 30/70 for those focal lengths respectively, and mostly wide open or close thereto

Having used the f1.4 versions I saw no benefit to me over the f1.8 ones I usse, except I could go on hols with the saving :D

I'd keep the 50 and the wide zoom and flog the rest if I was you, but then I' not you, so what are you going to do ??? :)

Dave
 
For anyone interested I decided to go out and get the Nikon 35mm 1.4G secondhand, and sell the 24-70. As Andy suggested, it might have been good to have the 24-70 as a back up, but considered it too heavy and too expensive just for that purpose. First impressions of the Nikon 35 are that its exactly what I was hoping for. Wide open it seems plenty sharp (I was never expecting clinical sharpness, just sharp enough), but its the rendering of the out of focus areas and lovely colours, which have impressed me most. I'm also pleasantly surprised how good the lens is for detail shots, thanks to the close focus distance, and how nice the bokeh is at those close focus distances.

I've got a wedding to shoot in 10 days time and I plan on partnering this with the 85mm on my second camera body for most things. If I really need to go wider I have the 16-35.
 
you don't say what cameras you use, that could make a decision on lens choice. there is a bit of a difference say between the D850 and the D3400
 
Last edited:
there lies a consideration with your question , one being 24.3 megapixels FX-format, and the other 36.3Mp FX-format . The same lens on one camera in theory will produce a better picture than the other based on megapixels. if they were the same model then yes the answer above by other members may well apply

If I were you I would keep the 24-70mm lens get the 35mm one then decide which to keep, not ditch one first you may regret it. Even just hire the 35mm one to try out
 
Last edited:
Its true, I've only really used it on the d750 so far. But for anyone who follows Taylor Jackson on youtube, I notice that he's started to use the same lens on the D850, and seems to rate it highly.
 
Just looked at another youtube review and it was favourable but it should be for the price just under £1600
 
Cam81 said:
Its true, I've only really used it on the d750 so far. But for anyone who follows Taylor Jackson on youtube, I notice that he's started to use the same lens on the D850, and seems to rate it highly.
Click to expand...

The D850 is ridiculous for Weddings, it offers nothing better than the D750 you already have and its file sizes are crazy - no-one needs that high resolution. I still have an awesomely sharp and detailsed 20x16 print from my D2Xs, and that's a slight crop from just 12mp, so probably around 10mp; had it been taken with a D850 I very much doubt anyone could tell them apart

That said - you could use the 24 f1.4 with a D850 and just crop the s*** out of it solving your zoom problem as you could crop to equivalent of 100mm and no client would know :D

Dave
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top