BebuLamar

Thank you!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

24-120 is definitely sufficient for a wedding.
Good luck.

Pistnbroke Loc: UK

I shot hundreds of weddings from 13th century churches to big well lit Indian venues and I shoot everyting at F8 auto iso ...Its always light enough to read the paperwork so forget all this f 2.8 rubbish and concentrate on whats in front of the camera.

cmcaroffino Loc: Sebring, FL

Thats all I used at my sons wedding last summer and didn't see a need for anything longer. Used to shoot weddings professionally back in the film days with just a medium format camera and an 80mm lens.

Pistnbroke Loc: UK

Yes in the film days you probably took 80 shots ...we often take 1500...I use a 28-300 and a 14mm Samyang

Al Beatty Loc: Boise, Idaho

Hi Steve,
If you are certain you need the 70-200 then get it and if a wedding is the excuse - OK. That said, I shot weddings for 10 years in the 70's (plus a few in recent "digital" years) and the problem I encountered the most was not having a wide enough lens to capture a "group" of people within a confined space. The 24-120 will serve you much better for weddings than the 70-200. Also, you didn't discuss whether you had (and are allowed to use) a flash(s) which opens another set of options (and challenges). Good luck with the shoot. Take care & ...

Dannj

[quote=lisasells55]Would like to offer you encouragement on your-upcoming wedding shoot! I agree that a 24-70 would be nice, but a fast wide angle may be a better choice for those important wider shots). I am not a professional wedding photographer, but I took my daughter’s wedding photos last September....

I’m sure the photos are a wonderful reminder of the day but thinking back on my daughter’s wedding I would have missed experiencing the day as “father of the bride”.

cmcaroffino Loc: Sebring, FL

Yes equipment and shooting styles have certainly changed over the years especially with the advent of digital photography. My average wedding was 120 shots and 300 shots was a large wedding but it cost about $1.20 per shot with cost of film, processing and proofing so you had to do selective shooting. I for one was glad to make the switch to digital but by then was getting out of the business.

agillot

a 28/300 [ brand ?? tamron ?? ] would cover everything .

RV Loc: Chicago

As a former wedding photographer, it is a no brainer. Get it! At least 50% or more of my shots at a wedding were done with it. Weddings aside depending on what you shoot, this is one of Nikon's most famous lenses that can be used for many styles of shooting. IMHO

autofocus Loc: North Central Connecticut

agree, you will be fine with this setup, save your money! Don't get me wrong, the 70-200 is a very nice lens to own, but to think you "need" this for a wedding, it's hardly warrented considering what you already have. A better investment to consider might be a simple lighting setup for some of the required formal shots...some radios, 2 flash units, bounce umbrellas and lightstands would be a good investment to have if you don't already have them. Plus, great for your portrait work too. My wife and I do shoot professionally, portrait and event work, and let be just say that shooting weddings can be very stressful, make sure you have a good supply of memory cards and batteries...a second full system is also recommended, a system failure can be devastating

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

This is a typical "wedding" thread.

I asked a few questions of the OP and he never responded. I have to assume, by the nature of his question, that he knows very little about the onus and technicalities of wedding photography. Obviously he doe not understand the relationship of focal length choices and usage as it correlates to the various aspects of covering a wedding such as the selective focus and perspective aspects of the formal portraiture, the need for longer lenses for discrete ceremony coverage, the possibility of having to record church interiors, large groups in tight spaces where certain well-controlled wide angle usage would be required.

The OP also stated that he has no interest in doing wedding photography in the future- that's bad! I'd like to see some enthusiasm for the "job" at hand!

So...as usual, there are many well-meaning posts that attempt to discourage the OP from taking on such a responsibility but my experience is that folks will do exactly what they want and won't heed such warnings. After all, is said and done, perhaps there is a hired pro on the job? Another possibility is that the wedding couple can not afford professional services so Uncle is their only recourse? There is always the sentiment that the "Wrath of Hell" will befall poor Uncle if the photographs are not acceptable or God-forbid, non-existent... but perhaps the couple doesn't care all that much and does not prioritize the photography in their budget. Many couples, nowadays may feel that way, that is until they are dissatisfied and then ...well?!

Then there are the "experts" that give advice like "shoot everything at f/8 etc. Believe me, that is not a good idea!

I don't want to get into an "I walked ed to school every day barefoot in a snowstorm" kinda scenario (actually I actually took the Subway and had perfectly warm shoes) but back in the day, many of us wedding professionals shot complete coverages with a couple of large or medium format cameras with fixed normal lenses. We came up with some incredibly good work- candids, portraits, flash, available light- you name it- with modest, simple but reliable equipment. Only to prove that successful wedding photography is less "gear" related than skill, know-how and savvy intensive.

If the OP or anyone else is not into the work and has little or no idea of the "ropes" and the ramifications, it's a little late for a tutorial on wedding photography. Perhaps, he knows exactly what he is getting into and is just asking a rhetorical question? Maybe he is having a GAS attack and wants to justify the purchase on a really cool lens?

In all the years I have been on this site, I have "recited the riot act" to many would-be wedding shooters in this exact same circumstance in order to forewarn them of the possibility of a bad outcome. The either never respond or say they are gonna do it anyway so I give them a few tips and hope for the best. Thing is, I have never seen a followup or come back with some decent wedding pictures so as to prove me wrong- I would have liked to see that because I am not a mean person and prefer to hear about "happy endings".

For those who don't know me, I am a 75-year-old, still working and practicing, commercial and portrait photographer who has also been in the "wedding business" for well over 50 years. I have never resented amateurs or new guys and gals getting into the wedding business- I have trained many of them!. Everyone has to start up somewhere, somehow and in some way. Getting the education, practice, apprenticeship and guided experience is the best approach. Going in "cold turkey" may be exciting but it ain't the best way to be introduced to the job.

ecurb1105

I shot weddings in the 1970s and 80s. I used a pair of Nikons with 50mm lenses. The 50 covered almost all of my shots, with an occasional shot using a 28 or a 135. You'll be fine with the lens you have.
I suggest you use flash for everything but the ceremony itself.
Make sure you check with the minister/priest about their restrictions on photography or if you can bring the wedding pary back to the alter for formal group shots after the ceremony. Some churchs will schedule a wedding every hour so you have to get in and out quickly. Also google for a list of wedding photos you will be expected to shoot. The required shots are well over one hundred. Good luck. Expect to work from morning at the brides house to midnight or later when the bride and groom leave the reception.

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

Rent the 24-70 . . . or hire a photographer that has one. Your lens is NOT ideal!

tiphareth51 Loc: Somewhere near North Pole, Alaska

Nikon has the 70-200 f2.8 on sale. It is a terrific lens and you won't go wrong purchasing it. Others have given you great information pertaining to it so I will not repeat that.