Lenses to hire for sisters wedding?

Messages
205
Edit My Images
No
Basically, my sister is having her wedding and not getting an official photographer. I've been asked to get some ok'ish shots during the day.

Now I want to enjoy myself, so dont want to spend all day lugging around kit or constantly worried about getting the right shot/settings.

Ideally, I'de like to hire 1 or 2 lenses to do everything, for a Nikon D300s.

Im thinking 17-55 f2.8? And maybe something a bit longer?

Any thoughts or suggestions?
 
Hi Matt, I have the 17 - 55 and it's an excellent lens. However if you could get hold of the 15 - 85 ( which has very good reviews) the extra telephoto end would be really useful and may be all you need. It is a slower lens, so natural light shots in church etc would mean higher iso, but with 3200 perfectly usable these days, i think it would still be a great 'do all' lens for a wedding.
dave
 
You're half way there literally.17-55 2.8 and 70-200 VR will give you everything you need :)
 
Now I want to enjoy myself, so dont want to spend all day lugging around kit or constantly worried about getting the right shot/settings.

Ideally, I'de like to hire 1 or 2 lenses to do everything, for a Nikon D300s.
If your camera is the Canon 40D in your profile, then you'd be better off using that, surely? You don't want to be trying to get to grips with a new system where everything works differently.

For a 40D, the best lens combo would be an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM.
 
If your camera is the Canon 40D in your profile, then you'd be better off using that, surely? You don't want to be trying to get to grips with a new system where everything works differently.

For a 40D, the best lens combo would be an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM and an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM.
this is what i was thinking.
 
40D is old, D300s was bought several months ago.

I know the 70-200 would be ideal, but really, its a bit big to lug around unless there really is no other suitable longish range alternative.

Would an 85 f1.4 or 135 f2 be suitable for the longer shots?

Would 24-70 be a better range instead of the 17-55?
 
Whenever I am a guest at a wedding rule 1 is to stay out of the official photographers face so I tend to go with a longer zoom,70-200/300 keep back from the crowd who are jostling to get a poorer version of what the official tog has set up and look to pick up different shots of people who are not aware that they are being photographed
 
Whenever I am a guest at a wedding rule 1 is to stay out of the official photographers face

But he's already said they aren't having an official photographer.

I took some photos of my brother in law's wedding as they were having two and could only photograph one professionally (different religions so keeping family happy!).

I hired a 17-55mm 2.8 and had a Sigma 50-150 2.8 and Sigma 50mm 1.4. Was quite pleased with the set considering, and I only had a little D40 to shoot with at the time - the high ISO I had to use unfortunately was no where near as good as you will get from your D300s as I am sure you are aware.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35319044@N04/sets/72157622650385075/

I also hired a fisheye to copy some balcony shots I saw and liked on Flickr.

4092705562_806ed43a3b.jpg
 
Would an 85 f1.4 or 135 f2 be suitable for the longer shots?

I'd go for the zoom if you can, churches are really noisy, echo-y places and it can be quite distracting having the photographer moving around lots.
 
Well went for the 17-55 and 70-200. The 70-200 didnt get used too much (mainly for the arty shots at the reception venue and a few at the reception). I can see why the pro's go for a 2nd body too with a long and short lens on each!

The 17-55 was the main staple then, found it wide enough for nearly all the shots i wanted (basically just not wide enough for wide angle church interior shot), but still had the reach for all the important parts.

Also found the auto ISO setting very useful throughout the day going from inside/outside, light/dark etc...
 
Back
Top