threedeers Loc: Northern Illinois

I do not know what your current lens are but if you are satisfied with them how about picking up a second Nikon 3000 series camera. Put your two favorite lens on them and that will save you changing them and also you could get an upgrade in camera technology.

Papa j Loc: Cary NC

You did good :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

denwin580 Loc: Kettering, Ohio

I have the Sigma 18--250 on my D7100 and have never looked back. With that lens you can do everything you want. Sure a special portrait lens 50 1.4 would be wonderful for $600, but really how much would you use it. The sigma is ready for anything---save yourself a lot of money just being kind to people.

anotherview Loc: California

Good morning. I own and use that Sigma lens for my Canon T6i. The pictures come out a little soft by comparison with the new Sigma 17-70mm lens.

Yet, in your case, the wedding pictures should not really suffer if reduced a little in sharpness; after all, experienced photographers may slightly soften wedding pictures to flatter the human subjects.

In fact, I could see myself using that Sigma lens for an upcoming military reunion, for a compact lens and camera pairing.

This review may help you decide:

http://photo.net/reviews/sigma-18-250-os-review

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

You might want to look here also. A lot of reviews there.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/747927-REG/Tamron_AFB008C700_AF18_270mm_f_3_5_6_3_Di_II.html

That being said, and for what it is worth, I have a Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC and it struggles a bit with noise when the ISO is above 800 or so. Happy shopping. :D

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Where do you work? I mean where does your household income come from?

How would you like it if I came to your job and did it "just for fun", so that your boss fired you because he or she no longer needed you?

That's basically what you are doing to your local professional photographers who charge a fair fee for their skills and services in order to feed their family and keep a roof over their heads.

Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh or blunt. But it is the sort of reaction you should expect from some people, when you make a statement like that.

But, as to your original question, I honestly cannot think of a much worse lens either for wedding photography or senior portraits! If I'd hired you as a second shooter or to shoot my wedding and you showed up with that lens on your camera, I'd send you home. But then, that's one of the differences between being an amateur and being a professional... the professional will have the right gear for the job, as well as the knowledge why and how to use it.

A wedding is a once-in-a-lifetime event (presumably!) A photographer shooting one should have minimum of two cameras, two flashes (built-in flash won't do), a modest selection of lenses, spare batteries and plenty of memory cards. Anyone who doesn't have those really has no business shooting a wedding.

The "most budget" lens kit I'd consider using for a wedding would be a 50mm f1.8 ($215) and 85mm f1.8 ($475), along with a wide angle such as a Sigma 10-20mm ($275). This gives you two of the most useful portrait focal lengths (also ideal for senior portraiture), as well as a wide angle for reception shots, broader shots of the church, etc. Close-up shots also can be important (rings, cake, bouquet, centerpieces, etc.)... but can be accomplished inexpensively simply by adding macro extension rings to either the 50mm or 85mm lens (macro ring sets from Opteka, Zeikos or Kenko cost $75 to $125).

zimm95030 Loc: Los Gatos, CA

I want to reinforce the rental option.
Large shops will express the lens to you and then you express it back several days to a week later. They even offer "wedding packages" including a body and several lens'.

In the end you can buy the rental at a discount or buy one refurbished.

My experience doing this sort of thing led me to a fast zoom with modest range.

Keep up the good work.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

I think this is good advise. The problem with D3000 and D5000 series bodies is that they don't allow lens-focus fine tuning. I personally don't like the idea of spending good money on lenses that front- or back-focus when using normal PDAF, and I've seen too many people disappointed when their camera won't focus at the right place with absolutely no way to deal with it other than purchase a higher-end body (D7000 or up).

Sigma's new Global Visions lenses solve that problem. They allow the fine tuning to happen in the lens so the body doesn't have to. If I had one of these non-tunable bodies, the only lenses I'd buy for it would be the tunable Sigmas. Period.

For what you are doing and with your camera body, the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 is the perfect solution.

anotherview Loc: California

May I please note that the camera image processor introduces image noise, not the lens used for translating the image to the camera sensor.

RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

Actually, it is a bit harsh if you read the posts where she states she took the pictures for friends who did not have money to hire a professional. Would you rather have seen her decline to take the photos and have the wedding party have no pictures to capture their special day? Having the money is one thing - in these cases the original poster was being kind and trying to help them out because they could not afford a professional.

orriebarber Loc: Stratford CT.

I had the Tamron 18-270mm. Traded it for the Tamron 16--300mm. You gain at both ends and with the 16-300mm you can use the manual focus ring while in auto focus. Very pleased with this lens. I also did a wedding for a friend who was a little shot of cash and the pictures came out great.

Don Fischer Loc: Antelope, Ore

I don't do weddings or any other pro stuff. I had an 18-105 I though was a super lens. Ended up selling it and got an 18-140. If I was going to do a wedding for someone, that is the lens I'd use.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

[quote=amfoto1]Where do you work? I mean where does your household income come from?

How would you like it if I came to your job and did it "just for fun", so that your boss fired you because he or she no longer needed you?

That's basically what you are doing to your local professional photographers who charge a fair fee for their skills and services in order to feed their family and keep a roof over their heads.

Sorry if this sounds a bit harsh or blunt. But it is the sort of reaction you should expect from some people, when you make a statement like that.

I would say that if you are not capable of doing your job well enough that an amateur could get you discharged, you need to look for a different line of work. taking photos for friends or family is not a threat to any legitimate photographer.

Don Fischer Loc: Antelope, Ore

[quote=orrie smith]

Sounds like a pro that doesn't get enough work because he's not as good as he thinks. The lady get's stuff from people that could not afford you!

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

That's odd. I have other lenses that have considerably less noise at higher ISO settings than the Tamron used on the same camera. Maybe I ain't doin' it right. But then again I do not claim to be an expert because I know I'm not.