Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising
mudman2

Jamison, US
188 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author
mudman2 Silver Member Nikonian since 14th May 2009
Sun 22-Apr-12 06:57 PM

Got 2 x 7000 bodies

17-55 f2.8 on one. What else would you put on the other to save time swapping ?

I don't mind what you suggest just trying to decide if I have everything I need or if I need to buy/rent another

Thanks in advance

I don't suffer focus issues is my new mantra (touch wood)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

David D Busch

US
178 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#1. "RE: Wedding Lenses" | In response to Reply # 0

David D Busch Silver Member Nikonian since 07th Nov 2011
Sun 22-Apr-12 08:18 PM

>Got 2 x 7000 bodies
>
>17-55 f2.8 on one. What else would you put on the other to
>save time swapping ?
>
>I don't mind what you suggest just trying to decide if I have
>everything I need or if I need to buy/rent another
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>I don't suffer focus issues is my new mantra (touch wood)

It really depends on your style and the kind of photos you shoot. If it were me, I'd have the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I on the second body for selective focus shots from a slight distance. Only a small gap in focal length between 55-70mm, VR I is much cheaper and about as good on a DX body than the VR II, and the copy I have is excellent wide open or at f/4. The VR makes it hand-holdable.

An 85mm f/1.4 might be a good substitute if you move around a lot and don't need to zoom. Incredible bokeh and also also good at large apertures.

Of course, I'm a selective focus kinda guy. I'd use one of those two lenses on the second body, and rely on the 17-55mm when shooting groups and/or more depth-of-field required.

purple5ive

AU
31 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#2. "RE: Wedding Lenses" | In response to Reply # 1

purple5ive Registered since 07th Jan 2012
Sun 22-Apr-12 08:36 PM

70-200 f2.8 is an excellent lense. bit pricey though

billD80

US
2241 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#3. "RE: Wedding Lenses" | In response to Reply # 0

billD80 Silver Member Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2007
Mon 23-Apr-12 12:46 AM

A real sleeper is the 80-200/2.8 AF-S. Said to be VERY sharp, and a good deal less expensive than the 70-200/2.8's. No VR though, if that's important to you.

www.billkeane.zenfolio.com

km6xz

St Petersburg, RU
3574 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#4. "RE: Wedding Lenses" | In response to Reply # 0

km6xz Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge in various areas, including Portraits and Urban Photography Nikonian since 22nd Jan 2009
Mon 23-Apr-12 03:29 AM

Yes, another vote for the 70-200VrI or II and possibly swapping the 17-5 5 and some money for a 24-70 2.8 which is optically better and has a more useful range.
The 85 1.8G is optically very good and much cheaper than the 1.4 version. I have a 85 1.4D but for detail shots and candids like are so popular wedding photography, the 70-200 has just as good of bokeh and isolation at 2.8 plus is more versatile.
I have the 17-55 also and never really warmed up to it, in that range I prefer my 24 1.4 and little 35 1.8. The image quality for people shots is just better with the 24-70 on DX. Nothing wrong with a 17-55, it is competent but it only is lessened by comparison to quality glass.
Stan
St Petersburg Russia

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

mudman2

Jamison, US
188 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#5. "RE: Wedding Lenses" | In response to Reply # 4

mudman2 Silver Member Nikonian since 14th May 2009
Mon 23-Apr-12 03:29 PM

Thanks guys I appreciate the inputs. I wish I had a 24-70 but I don't so I will muddle my way thru it.

The 85 I do have access that and a 70-200 just thought it was a little heavy to hump around all day was thinking of the lighter 70-300, not as good but a lot lighter.

Wish me luck

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

ericbowles

Atlanta, US
10633 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#6. "RE: Wedding Lenses" | In response to Reply # 5

ericbowles Moderator Awarded for his in-depth knowledge and high level skills in various areas, especially Landscape and Wildlife Photoghraphy Writer Ribbon awarded for for his article contributions to the community Donor Ribbon awarded for his very generous support to the Fundraising Campaign 2015 Nikonian since 25th Nov 2005
Mon 23-Apr-12 04:04 PM

For me, f/2.8 is enough to justify the extra weight of the 70-200 over the 70-300. I don't think the 70-300 is fast enough and does not provide enough subject isolation.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

mudman2

Jamison, US
188 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

#7. "RE: Wedding Lenses" | In response to Reply # 6

mudman2 Silver Member Nikonian since 14th May 2009
Mon 23-Apr-12 04:19 PM

ok you convinced me I will take it along but i will take the 70-300 just in case 12 hour is to long to carry it haha

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

G