I'm after a prime lens

[GaryNikon]

I've been asked by a friend to take documentary style photographs at her wedding. I'm not the wedding photographer but after she saw what I did at another wedding asked if I'd bring my camera along to hers.

I've currently got the kit lens 18-135mm that came with the D80, but I was thinking that I should get a prime lens to get sharper images.

There's so much choice and so much information and views I've gotten myself lost in a haze of information.

Do I need a prime at all? Should I go for wide angle if so how wide.

I've got £350 to spend and your suggestions would be more then welcome.

[nimbus]

Firstly, are you happy with the results obtained with your existing lens? A prime will in most cases be slightly sharper, but it partly depends on the size that images are to be printed. If you are thinking of the 28mm f2.8 Nikkor AFD, I would advise you to look elsewhere, in my experience, and indeed in some friends experience, this lens is disappointing. In the situation that you will be in a prime will be restricting, really a zoom will serve better. If you want a prime a 50mm is a good starting point, inexpensive and a good performer. A 50mm will of course act as the equivalent of 75mm, considered as beingt within the classic portrait focal length range.

[weasley]

TBH I'd stick with the zoom if you're acting as a kind of "behind the scenes" documentary photographer. When I've done this at weddings I tend to go for something with a good reach, that way you can get close-up pictures of people without them necessarily knowing you're doing it - these often provide the best candid shots. In fact the best coverage I did was with a 70-300 on a D70s, effectively giving a 105-450 equivalent field of view. The main issue comes if the weather's poor and light isn't plentiful.

It may be worth having a fast prime for the indoors stuff though, and you can do a lot worse than the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 for the money (around the £100 mark).

[Learning]

I read your thread title ready to give oodles of ill advised advice but with the best of motives. Now seeing it is a wedding tog question, I am uncharacteristically almost shutting up, but not before saying "Just enjoy the stag night, if sober enough take a few snaps if the professional photographer doesn't mind, use whatever lens happens to be on the camera." If you are really in Baden Powell mode, or is ot Bear Grillis these days, put a suitable lens on the camera the day before and before getting pissed.

[Mark_Norton]

If you live on a diet of kit zooms, you never get to learn how a wide open fast lens can help you isolate your subject from a busy background by restricting depth of field. Chances are too you can shoot in low light where everyone else is using flash.

Sure, your zoom will be useful but with a budget of £350, there are lots of possibilities; the 50/1.8 lens is a marvel for the money, I'd go for the AI manual focus version, buy secondhand, I paid something like £60. Alternatively, for a 50mm, buy the new AF-S 50/1.4 which is great, lovely bokeh when you shoot wide open. If you want a more dreamy quality (think Leica Noctilux), go for the MF 50mm f1.2. Other choices? The 85mm f1.8 AF-D is within reach and if you want to go for something wide, how about the 20mm f2.8 AF-D?

Think about buying secondhand, lots of good examples around.

[Caveat: check any MF lenses are compatible with your camera, not all the bodies like the older MF lenses, though the AF-D and AF-S lenses I have mentioned will be fine.]

Enjoy the wedding shoot and dare to be different!

[GeoffR]

With that budget you could get a 50 f1.8 AF and something like an 85 f1.8 AF both of which are excellent. Personally I would leave the new 50 f1.4 AF-S on the shelf, not because it doesn't perform, but because the older 50 f1.8 is such a bargain.

Oh by the way, if what you find isn't AF-D don't worry too much you are unlikely to see much difference.

[Gold1]

I'm a full time wedding photographer and use the 85mm 1.4 on a Nikon D3. IMO this is the best Nikon lens for the job and the one I use constantly for razor sharp images, shot in the lowest light situations. One snag is that it's way out of your price range, so I'd go for the 50mm 1.4 instead (£250.ish last time I looked). Oh and don't listen to all the old skinflints who'll tell you the 1.8 is better for the money, it just isn't.

[Lazza]

With that budget you could get a 50 f1.8 AF and something like an 85 f1.8 AF both of which are excellent. Personally I would leave the new 50 f1.4 AF-S on the shelf, not because it doesn't perform, but because the older 50 f1.8 is such a bargain.

Oh by the way, if what you find isn't AF-D don't worry too much you are unlikely to see much difference.

Agreed.

The 85mm is a great lens but .... remember it's a dx camera you are using so multiply the focal length by 1.5. In this situation the 50mm f/1.8 lens therefore (IMHO) is by far the best focal length on a dx camera for use as a portrait lens as such (Which is what the 85mm is of course on a full frame film camera or a D3 etc)

I bought a new one a month or so back for £89, the current Nikon new price is aprox £115 but if you look around you may find one at the old price. As regards the f/1.4, I've used both and unless you are a Pro then I'd say leave it because the small difference in f stop and large difference in price between the two does not equate for the average amateur unless you have money to waste. And to stir controversy with the f/1.4 owners a bit more I have found the f/1.8, personally, to be a tad bit sharper too.

[Mark_Norton]

Agree about the 85/1.4 (providing you don't use a filter and do use a proper hood) but also about 85mm being a bit long on a DX camera. I've only started using my 85 in earnest since FX was available. That brings me back to the 50/1.4 AF-S, great for portrait on a DX camera.

[weasley]

If portrait is the brief I'd fully agree, however a longer option may make the reportage style easier. I had assumed the portraits would be covered by the pro'.

I am glad to see the 1.4 vs 1.8 debate too as this is the internal struggle I am currently facing. The 1.8 gets a slightly better review in terms of sharpness and distortion but the 1.4 is 1.4 and AF-S.... but then it is £350 too.

[GaryNikon]

"Just enjoy the stag night, if sober enough take a few snaps if the professional photographer doesn't mind, use whatever lens happens to be on the camera." If you are really in Baden Powell mode, or is ot Bear Grillis these days, put a suitable lens on the camera the day before and before getting pissed.

I don't really care if the Pro minds or not, I won't get in his way. I refused to do this as the main photographer. My last set of 'snaps' adorn the walls of the last couples wedding I attended, the 'Pros' photo's are nowhere to be seen, so I hope I can improve on that wedding and give the couple a set of images that capture the day as they remember it.

Thanks for the help all.

[ASTROVANMAN]

The AFS 50mm 1.4 is expensive, these is also the 50mm f1.4 AF-D, the older version, that can be had secondhand for similar money to a new f1.8 which is also a AF-D lens.

I got a mint one recently for £125 (Really it was just the postage I paid, as the sale of my old EOS-5 paid for the lens).

[Rhys]

Tbh, I think everyone should have a 50mm lens in their kit bag. Gone are the days when they were included with a camera body - pity.

[PaulatUKcamera]

Can I put a word in for the Sigma f2.8 18-50mm. Just sold mine tonight (the D700 has rendered it obsolete) but it is a cracking lens - £150-£200 secondhand.

Why? Well I have the f1.8 50mm for portraiture, but this is not studio photography, this is a wedding - an all action event and you need the versatility more than anything. The lens at f2.8 is nearly (but not quite) the match for the shallow depth of field of the f1.8 (I wish now that I had not deleted the two photos I took to demonstrate to the purchaser that there wasn't much in it!)

It gives you a range of 28mm to 75mm which is not bad.

Inside a church the other day I used my manual f1.4 on the D300, but that is probably ruled out for you by the fact that the D80 loses its metering and becomes too slow to use in a fast moving event.

I must admit I now do my "candids" with the 70-200mm f2.8 vr, but it is, I admit, a bit of a bulky awkward beast! Most modern zooms get to around f5.6 at the furthest setting, so if the light is poor (always a risk) and the D80 is not brilliant at over 1000 iso (Don't know - is it?) then a faster lens is a must.

Hence my advice to buy the Sigma. It is good compromise, fast enough, small enough, cheap enough and versatile enough (wide angle to portrait)

I only hope my new 24mm to 85mm will do the same job on Tuesday on the D700 (f4.5 + better iso perfomance v faster constant f2.8 on the D300 - probably not much in it)

Remember the first rule is - keep moving - you can often reach the parts the professional's can't reach!

Paul

[TimF]

this is a wedding - an all action event and you need the versatility more than anything.

Maybe, but it's true also that a photographer with vision can cover a wedding with just a 50mm lens and do a damn fine job. I've seen two separate examples in the last week - one using an M8, the other a Sony A900.

[PaulatUKcamera]

I agree on the principle - but .........

You used the word "with vision" I would again agree

However we live in the real world and if you have other things on your mind like "enjoyment" then a more versatile tool is needed.

I was a prime lens enthusiast and used to just cover weddings with them - a f1.4 50mm for the church, a f2 35mm for groups (why do I now consider "28mm" not adequate I wonder?) and an f2 85mm for the "character shots" + 3 FE2s to save the lens swapping!

Would I do it now? Not on your life! It's called experience! On Tuesday in Brighton I'll be zooming in & out furiously - hoping that I can get some really good shots.

Why? Well it may have something to do with the fact that the bride is from Cartagena in Columbia and they are having another wedding (blessing?) next year. Always fancied a trip to South America. (My son says in view of the crime rate I should take an old manual Nikon!)

Paul

[GeoffR]

Why is everyone so keen to talk about the 50 f1.4 or f1.8 AF-D. There are a huge number of non "D" 50 f1.8 AF lenses out there and they are optically identical to the AF-D. Unless you are buying new when the only option is the AF-D.

Paul is right that the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is a good lens but not as good at the wide end, in terms of distortion, as it could be. It wouldn't be my first choice here.

[ojb28]

You might find this article interesting on the subject of prime lenses for portraits

http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2...it-lenses.html

I too find 50mm (in my case the Pentax-M f/1.7) a little too short for portaits, but I cant afford the superb FA Limited 77mm f/1.8...

[Mark_Norton]

If you're looking for inspiration, worth taking a look at Riccis Valladares' site:

Riccis Valladares

Riccis uses Leica cameras and glass but his reportage style is excellent, really a case of capturing the moment and shows off the benefit of the fast glass he uses and the shallow depth of field which results.