Furbugsy Loc: NJ

I have the Nikon 18-140 f3.5-5.6 And an 18-300 f3.5-5.6 for outside photos , but for inside the hall I like to get the 17-55 f2.8. I have a 50mm 1.8, but I may not have the room to move, and take a photo. I have a Nikon D7200 that I like very much. Your advice is needed and would appreciate very much. 😁

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You'll probably be better served leaving the camera equipment home and attending and enjoying the moment as a proud parent and grandparent.

Quixdraw Loc: x

That is one way to look at it. I photographed my Son's wedding. Carefully stayed out of the way of the professionals and shot without flash. Did the whole thing with a Nikon 55mm 1.2 on a DF. I got a lot of photos the Pros missed, though the two of them shot constantly. I had a great time - kids got my photos nearly six weeks before the Pros delivered. I would do the same today.

Edit: I used the old lens for all the indoor shots - I used a 24-85 outside - didn't think I got that lens that long ago.

CO

The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is really Nikon's only DX lens that has pro build quality. It's an outstanding lens but it doesn't have vibration compensation and sells for $1496. I would get a large aperture lens that has stabilization. If you're shooting indoors in low light and hand holding the camera, it could help. You might take a look at the Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 SP Di VC USD G2 lens ($1,199). Tamron's latest lenses are excellent. Their SP series lenses have pro build quality. Another one to consider is the Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC lens ($649).

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

I also was going to mention the Tamron 17-50. I have that lens but the older version without VC.

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

Have you considered renting the lens for the occasion?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

So I’m assuming that you won’t be using a flash? If so, speed will be more important than zoom functionality. When my son was married a few years ago, he had it professionally photographed, but I took my 5D3. Although the indoor hall was quite well lit, it was immediately clear to me that I’d need a faster lens than any of my zooms. I went to the car and grabbed my 85mm f1.8, and shot the wedding at ~1/150 f2-f2.8 and auto ISO (that varied from ~5000-10,000). I made a point of chatting with the pro first, staying out of his way, and of course, no flash. I learned a lot from watching the pro (as I always do), and my couple of hundred shots, which supplemented the pro, were greatly appreciated by both families. My first suggestion, as Paul has already said, is to leave the camera home and enjoy the event. But if you MUST shoot the wedding, let me suggest a fast lens like the 85 f1.8 on a FF or a 50 on a crop and just crop as needed. Unless the hall is huge, that should get you plenty of “reach”, and I think you’ll be glad for the extra stop or two over the zoom.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

While I am all in favor of zoom lenses for a wedding, and the 17-55 is an excellent lens, unless you really plan to use this lens frequently you'd be better off renting one. The lens is fairly large, particularly compared to the other lenses. Also, shooting wide open can be difficult due to the small DOF unless you can really be sure the subjects are at the same distance from you (it's a wedding, you will be taking photos of couples or groups).

The ceremony is usually the part where you want to avoid flash distractions. Also, there's not usually a lot of action, so you might be able to use a slow shutter speed. However a reception is much less formal and I don't consider flash to be a problem for that part of the proceedings. You might consider getting yourself a nice speedlight.

Whatever you do, carry at least one spare battery and several spare cards and take lots of photos.

When I first got a DSLR I got a 50mm f/1.4 figuring it would be good for low light. Due to the small DOF it rarely got used below f/5.6 or f/8. Even my 17-55 was used in that range, and today, with a lot of lenses my use of f/2.8 is pretty small, limited to shots where I really want the small DOF.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

I don't know your budget, but a 35 f1.8 and a comfortable pair of shoes will do the same thing as a 17-55 f2.8 for a fraction of the price assuming you still are reasonably mobile ... and its over a full stop faster.
The most expensive option is not always the best option.

OTOH if its a lens you really want and can comfortably afford, the 17-55 f2.8 is a great museum and all purpose zoom.

My $0.02, your mileage may vary.

BebuLamar

Buy the lens and use it! It's a good lens. If you want to take pictures of the wedding do it. Don't listen to others (but well that including me).

Dossile

With a Dx body, the 50 1.8 is a great lens to have on your camera for most of the wedding. At my 2 children’s wedding we had professional photographers. My kids love the candid shots that I took of people, of preparations, of the couple in unscripted moments. I used a 80-200 2.8 on a D800 and a 70-200 E2.8 on a D850 quite a bit in that role to keep my distance and get the spontaneity. I laid my camera down a lot too, enjoying the time with family. I am glad that I did. A lot of what you chose depends on what your role is. I personally don’t like the pictures that I have taken of people with anything wider than a 28, even corrected in photoshop. I also only use a camera wide open on a body part, like the face or hands, and even then, it’s for the effects given with the narrow focus range. Image stabilization then becomes more important with the F stop above 4. I love my Nikon 24-70 E2.8. The Tamron came out after and by reports is equivalent in quality and less expensive. My vote goes to image stabilization: a Nikon or Tamron 24-70 f2.8 or a Nikon 70-200 E2.8 to use along side the 50 1.8 that you already have.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

As a 30 year professional wedding photographer I will inform you that you gain little with the 17-55 for indoors. I am assuming you are older considering you have a grandchild of marrying age, the 17-55 is a BIT heavier than your 18-140.
My strong suggestion is that you use the 18-140 for your indoor shots.
Besides, you are not (I strongly hope) the prime photographer. Just take candid's using your on board flash using the 18-140 and ENJOY the wedding.
When I did receptions with my Hasselblad, most of my shots (90%) were taken with a 50 mm equivalent lens.
Unless you are going to be in a very small room I would think your 50mm 1.8 will deliver what you need.
But, if you insist, attach a Nikon SB800, turn the flash up and behind you, use TTL on the flash and set your camera to manual at say 1/60 sec. at f4, that should do it. Oh, iso of 400-800 ought to be good.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

There is nothing wrong with either of your lenses, but it depends on what you are looking for as a result. If you are looking for shallow depth of field shots, then a faster lens used at or near wide open will give you that. But your DoF will likely be so shallow that group shots will be difficult because it will be hard to get everyone in focus - which means you'll have to use a smaller aperture, like F5.6 or F8. Then the only advantage of a very fast lens will be a brighter aperture for composing and focusing.

Your best bet is to get comfortable using a camera - mounted but bounced speedlight

This guy has excellent tutorials all over his blog that can help you:

https://neilvn.com/tangents/wedding-photography-tutorials/

These are a few images at a wedding that I took in the manner described above. The key takeaway is to never point the speedlight at the subjects - bounce the light off a ceiling, a wall, or even a large woman in a white dress. You'll get softer, more flattering light.

The gear I used was a D700 with a Nikkor 24-70 F2.8. I used a manual speed light (old school, but I like the simplicity), a shutter speed of 1/250 to minimize ambient light and camera/subject movement, an ISO of 1600, which is a walk in the park for this camera, and apertures from F4.5 to F5.6.

Billnikon's advice is spot-on as well.

But if you really want to get a new lens, then get it. But I suggest you rent one first so that you full understand what you are getting and what it will do for you that your current gear, if correctly used, cannot do for you in this setting.

Another lens worth considering is the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 Art - it's really sharp, and has excellent performance when used wide open, and is about 1/2 the price of the Nikkor 17-55.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/sigma-18-35mm-f1-8

.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Not a lot of point in competing with the Pro - (s)he will be there anyway and have prime positioning all through.
If you have a travel camera take that and stick to taking loads of candids. Have fun - tell your grandaughter what you intend to do - ask if there is any particular pics she would like.

jerseymike

CHG_CANON, is right. Leave the camera/lenses at home. Enjoy the day. Be the good guest. If you fell the need there is always your cell. Enjoy the day and hope it's her only wedding.