Wedding setup?

sultanofswing

sultanofswing

Messages
81
Name
Adil
Edit My Images
No
Hello!

I am a hobbyist in hopes of turning into a pro wedding photographer!
Been flirting with different gear since 2008.

I currently have the following gear:

Nikon D600

Tokina 11-16 / 2.8 (works on FX as well)
Tamron 28-75 2.8
Sigma 28-300 & Sigma 70-300

Sigma 24 1.8
Nikon 50 1.8G
Nikon 85 1.8D
Nikon 135f2 AF DC

I recently sold my Nikon AFS 400mm 2.8 IF ED for 2100 pounds, and I have been advised to get the Nikon 24-70 / 70-200 2.8 VRII combo, but I am tempted to get the Nikon 200mm f2 VRI, which is available at certain places for 2200-2300 (used).

In order to compensate for the 70-200 2.8, I am thinking of finding an old Nikon 80-200 28 AFD, in addition to my Tamron 28-75 2.8

What do pro wedding photographers here recommend? Does anyone shoot weddings with a 200 f2?

thanks
 
Nikon D4 with 35mm 1.4
Nikon D700 with 85mm 1.4

On my shoulder:
24mm 1.4, sb900, PW Triggers, Batteries

In the bag:
Litepanels Micro Pro, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 VRII, 50mm 1.4, SB-900,tripod, lastolite softbox, umbrella and stand.

I've done plenty of weddings using no more than the equipment in the top two lines. Zooms are in my bag as backup but I rarely use them :thumbs:
 
A second body would take precedence over any extra glass for me. No point having loads of lenses if your one and only body decides to pack up.
 
It depends on your shooting style - but as lovely as a fast 200 is, it's far from the top of the list of 'useful items for a wedding', the minimum list should be

2 bodies*
2 flashguns
fast std zoom
fast telephoto (either short tele or 70-200)
spare std lens (any lens or combination of lenses that mean you can carry on shooting if your std lens dies)

additional lenses to fit shooting style - you can get away without zooms and you can also shoot with MF lenses IF you are completely comfortable with this style of shooting, don't choose primes or MF lenses for budgetary reasons, but feel free to choose them for artistic reasons.

My wedding kit is 2 bodies, flashgun, 10-20, 17-55, 70-200, 90 Macro and a 50 1.8, remote triggers,(carried on me)
with available spare body, std zoom and flashgun, 85 1.8 reflectors, lightstands tripod monopod etc. (doesn't include the 2nd shooters kit)

*If you're shooting primes, definitely get a 3rd body, if shooting zooms, you may want a 3rd body anyway, but 2 bodies is an absolute minimum - as Tom says, you can't hire yourself out and then stand up half way through the ceremony to announce you're going home because there's an error message on your camera:shake:.

Nice gear is nice to have - but from a business perspective it has to pay it's way. A sheep farmer isn't going to buy a top of the range combine harvester because its 'lovely' when a couple of quad bikes are far more use to him, and much cheaper.

You don't sound like your heart is in the down to earth business of wedding shooting, you sound like you see it as a means to buy more nice kit. There's nothing wrong with that, but my guess is you'll soon think it's not worth the hassle.
 
Yep, agree with Tom - 2nd body is more essential than more glass.
 
Thanks everyone for your feedback and time. I understand the need for a second body and intend to borrow my wife's D90 for that.

My objective was to ask that if you had £2000 in hand, and the existing gear that I have.

What would be a more practical purchase?

As I feel that 24/70-70-200 will be more effective, compared to a "standalone" 200/f2, which is indeed a highly specialised lens...

Or should I get the 80-200/2.8 and the 200/f2,
in addition to the Tamron 28-75/2.8 that I already have...?
 
Phil V said:
You don't sound like your heart is in the down to earth business of wedding shooting, you sound like you see it as a means to buy more nice kit. There's nothing wrong with that, but my guess is you'll soon think it's not worth the hassle.
Click to expand...

Good advice Phil but the above statement is a bit harsh isn't it?

I see nothing to make me think this. OP clearly enjoys photography and wants to get paid for doing what he loves. Nothing wrong with that.
 
If you've got the funds, there's nowt wrong with wanting to have the best gear for the job. I would say that the 200mm f/2 is overkill though. I wouldn't fancy lugging that around for a full day shooting hand held [as you would be 99% of a wedding, if you even use a tripod at all]
 
Phil Young said:
Good advice Phil but the above statement is a bit harsh isn't it?

I see nothing to make me think this. OP clearly enjoys photography and wants to get paid for doing what he loves. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Apologies to the OP and I hope he can prove me wrong, It probably is a bit harsh but here's my thoughts.

There are clues in the original post and me being cynical and having sat through hundreds of 'I want to be a wedding photographer' threads I'm less than my usual level of optimistic. When the first post on a forum with no posting history is 'I want to be a wedding photographer' it's red flag no.1. When they set off talking about gear first it's red flag no.2, already having been given the same advice he'll get here, but ignoring it because it wasn't what he wanted to hear; red flag no.3.

sultanofswing said:
Thanks everyone for your feedback and time. I understand the need for a second body and intend to borrow my wife's D90 for that.

My objective was to ask that if you had £2000 in hand, and the existing gear that I have.

What would be a more practical purchase?

As I feel that 24/70-70-200 will be more effective, compared to a "standalone" 200/f2, which is indeed a highly specialised lens...

Or should I get the 80-200/2.8 and the 200/f2,
in addition to the Tamron 28-75/2.8 that I already have...?
Click to expand...
You really should have mentioned the 2nd body - it's the kneejerk reaction you'll get from everyone that's shot a wedding.:)

I've no idea how the focus motor is on the Tamron - but I wouldn't want any 3rd party lens I've ever used rather than a high end Canon with USM, they're not in the same ballpark and I'd guess it's the same with Nikon. Having great image quality might score points on a review site, but if you can't focus for the first dance - you're screwed.

I'm sure the 200 produces fab results with creamy bokeh, but what do gorgeous headshots say about a wedding? if you're telling a story you need context - I'll get flamed for this but honestly the number of headshots that make it into an album? It doesn't matter how dreamy the bokeh, you'll get more album shots from your Sigma 24mm.

Flashguns? I'm not presuming you don't have one just because you haven't mentioned it - you caught me out with the 2nd body;)
 
I am not a pro or someone who shoots weddings at all but if I was, I would want

2x the following list...

High end prosumer bodies (D600 creeps in, I reckon)
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
fast (f/1.8 or faster) primes at your favoured focal lengths (35mm and 85 maybe - oh, and a 50mm since they can be had cheap as chips [as far as anything to do with photography can be regarded as cheap!])
speedlight
tripod (you'll probably get away with just one but a 2nd can be used as a speedlight stand).

Possibly overkill but as Tom and Phil have already pointed out, you are your own backup so need to be covered in case of every eventuality. Which brings me on to another absolute essential - public liability insurance, ideally a policy that covers you if you can't make it to the venue for any reason (force majeure as I believe insurers like to call it).
 
The 200mm f/2 is an exceptional lens.

But it isn't a stock wedding lens whereas the 24-70mm and 70-200mm are for some people an ideal 2-camera, 2-lens combination.

Certainly at the start, and the end of the time I was shooting weddings (probably 7-8 of the 10 years) it was the combination I used - with supplementary primes for bridal prep and first dance and when I was shooting very low-light and no flash.

For the other two years I was on a 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm prime setup - mainly due to the focussing of the Canon 1D MKIII and my belief that the primes might sharpen up the images (They did...... but only after a wholesale switch to Nikon ;D ).

I got my 200mm f/2 after I stopped shooting weddings, and I wouldn't ever have taken one (or a 300mm f2.8 for that matter) to a wedding. Much more a sport, theatre/dance and shorter distance wildlife lens or possibly very stylised portraits. it is heavier than the 300mm f2.8, about the same length and very imposing looking at the front element. You have to shoot it at f/2 to justify having it really because with hi-iso DSLR bodies like the D600, D800 and D3/D3s/D4 the 70-200mm f2.8 VRII would be at 200mm & f/2.8 so close in performance to the 200mm f/2 that it's versatility makes it the definite choice.

You have plenty of lenses, and if you bought the 24-70 and 70-200 Nikkors then you would have a surplus to clear out - I'd almost certainly keep the Tokina and Tamron (as a backup) and ditch the Sigma zooms. The primes give you cover as well if you stuffed a lens on a wedding. Like most others I'd suggest a second D600 or used D3s as a backup body.

If you want one then by all means go ahead, but I would suggest it is a luxury and not a necessity for a pro wedding photographer.
 
Last edited:
2 bodies, fast and accurately focusing 24-70, 70-200, then a few primes in the same range as faster or backup alternatives and a few flashguns.
200mm f/2 is a sweet lens, but I'd get one for sports or perhaps portraits and I seriously doubt that 70-200mm won't be 'enough'
 
I've spoken to quite a few wedding photographers as well as hung around on many forums like this with wedding togs around.

I've never heard of anyone who shoots with a 200mm f2 lens.

Plenty who shoot with the holy trinity. Some who shoot with primes. But even with the latter group, I've never heard of anyone lugging around that beast.

I've not had the pleasure of using that lens. I'm sure IQ is amazing. But weddings can be fast moving affairs and with a 200mm fixed lens, it's just not flexible enough.
 
I've been doing weddings for awhile now and recently have shot a few entire weddings using a 50mm prime and 70-200.. Used flash only a handful of times too at the most recent wedding.. 24-70 was used for large group shots..Definitely need 2 bodies and preferably full frame!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top