AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G

[Ferrari 1]

Hi guys!

Was a Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G lens good for wedding dinner shoot?

Link:
http://www.nikon.com.sg/productitem_new.php?pid=1310-8934b9b612

 

[jeff7id]

All lenses are good for wedding dinner shoot, depend on how you shoot

 

[Ferrari 1]

All lenses are good for wedding dinner shoot, depend on how you shoot

:think: Mmmm... Thanks for your precious tip,my friend.

 

[TheChef]

Bro, a zoom lens should be more versatile. I prefer 16-85VR2 with SB900 on DX body. If you want to act pro, rent the 17-55f2.8 instead.

 

[ijnek]

my concern abt usin a prime lense is the lack of space should u need to move forward/backward in order to take a shot...especially group photos at each table

 

[TheChef]

my concern abt usin a prime lense is the lack of space should u need to move forward/backward in order to take a shot...especially group photos at each table

Haha...I can imagine bro Ferrari dashing back and forth with his prime lens. :bsmilie:

 

[weegk]

cos of the limitation in the space, think the reason for him to get a 35mm . . . :think:

is it ?

i starting to fall in love with prime too . . .

 

[rubberbands]

I am not experienced shooter but I have this lens. For DX at least, but I suspect also for FX, I can definitetly say that you wont be able to capture more than ~5 people width without standing too far away from the table (in which case the photo might look awkward). So in other words quite unsuitable for the round dinner table shot.

 

[kriegsketten]

I am not experienced shooter but I have this lens. For DX at least, but I suspect also for FX, I can definitetly say that you wont be able to capture more than ~5 people width without standing too far away from the table (in which case the photo might look awkward). So in other words quite unsuitable for the round dinner table shot.

Round table shoot.... hmmm I've recently done that a group meet with round table enough for 10 peeps... I think it's better to use a UWA lens for that purpose... 14mm, 20mm, 24mm... 35mm a bit too narrow already -much like 52.5 on FF, if you're using a DX body... Need to stand further back... Whereas 20mm to 24mm, you just need to be behind the seat closer to you...

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Round table shoot.... hmmm I've recently done that a group meet with round table enough for 10 peeps... I think it's better to use a UWA lens for that purpose... 14mm, 20mm, 24mm... 35mm a bit too narrow already -much like 52.5 on FF, if you're using a DX body... Need to stand further back... Whereas 20mm to 24mm, you just need to be behind the seat closer to you...

actually, about 30mm (on DX) is not bad for about 10 people w some space around them. Because the distance between camera-subject would not cause so much distortion at the sides.
Sigma 30/1.4 :devil:

 

[jeff7id]

:think: Mmmm... Thanks for your precious tip,my friend.

Ha..Ha..Ha.
I said, all lenses will do, because I am a flash photographer

Well 35mm f/1.8G, many people say that it's a sharp lens for DX. But if I was you, I would bring Nikon 17-55 or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC as my main lens. 35mm f/1.8G is useful in difficult situations, such as in low light or in place where won't allow you to use a flash. Usually in a wedding dinner, you will have limitation in your working distance, which is a factor that need to be considered.

 

[2100]

Well you are supposed to bring all the lenses that you think you will require for any particular shoot anyway. So that includes 12-24, 17-55, 85 or 135 or 70-200 range. So for weddings, the 35/1.8 would definitely work. I must have shot well over 100K probably close to 200K frames on the Sigma 30/1.4 on DX. This is a no-brainer focal length (45mm equivalent). I am now using 24/1.4 on DX, works well. There are probably also reasons why people would want to use only 1 single lens like 17-55/2.8 stuff, but I shan't go into that business and logistical aspect.

 

[wmayeo]

used the 35/1.8G during my friend's wedding dinner, mainly on some closeup shots. But not so versatile compared to having my 16-85 with flash, I have not taken it but it is a better combo for wedding. Couple with telephoto zoom lens like 70-200 or 80-200 for candids. I wouldn't really recommend using 35mm for group photos as it would be too tight to contain all 10 people per table and need to stand abt 3.5m apart from the group. Unless you use the 35mm for mingling with people, makes more sense to use it that way.

 

[Ferrari 1]

Bro, a zoom lens should be more versatile. I prefer 16-85VR2 with SB900 on DX body. If you want to act pro, rent the 17-55f2.8 instead.

:think: Mmmm....

 

[Ferrari 1]

cos of the limitation in the space, think the reason for him to get a 35mm . . . :think:

is it ?

i starting to fall in love with prime too . . .

:bsmilie:< hahaha...

 

[Ferrari 1]

Ha..Ha..Ha.
I said, all lenses will do, because I am a flash photographer

Well 35mm f/1.8G, many people say that it's a sharp lens for DX. But if I was you, I would bring Nikon 17-55 or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC as my main lens. 35mm f/1.8G is useful in difficult situations, such as in low light or in place where won't allow you to use a flash. Usually in a wedding dinner, you will have limitation in your working distance, which is a factor that need to be considered.

:think: Mmmm.... Thanks a lot for your tips again,my friend.

 

[Ferrari 1]

Well you are supposed to bring all the lenses that you think you will require for any particular shoot anyway. So that includes 12-24, 17-55, 85 or 135 or 70-200 range. So for weddings, the 35/1.8 would definitely work. I must have shot well over 100K probably close to 200K frames on the Sigma 30/1.4 on DX. This is a no-brainer focal length (45mm equivalent). I am now using 24/1.4 on DX, works well. There are probably also reasons why people would want to use only 1 single lens like 17-55/2.8 stuff, but I shan't go into that business and logistical aspect.

:bigeyes: Bring ALL the lenses? Wow!

 

[Ferrari 1]

used the 35/1.8G during my friend's wedding dinner, mainly on some closeup shots. But not so versatile compared to having my 16-85 with flash, I have not taken it but it is a better combo for wedding. Couple with telephoto zoom lens like 70-200 or 80-200 for candids. I wouldn't really recommend using 35mm for group photos as it would be too tight to contain all 10 people per table and need to stand abt 3.5m apart from the group. Unless you use the 35mm for mingling with people, makes more sense to use it that way.

Thanks for your tips,my friend.

 

[2100]

:bigeyes: Bring ALL the lenses? Wow!

That should be the norm actually.....if one is providing a professional service. Does not matter if you are a full-timer or not. Eg if your client is requesting you to shoot at that famous Pandan gardens church (Calvary Bible Presbyterian) or whatever other churches which require you not to use flash and to shoot at the sidelines, not walk along the aisle during the march-in. What would you do? (anyway the old pastor at Pandan Gardens church already retire I think). A 70-200 VRII would be a huge 3.2k investment and logistically difficult to handle with a 3-body photographer (2 real-time, 1 in bag), and seriously barely makes it at 100mm f2.8 ISO1600 with factored in 2-stops advantage handheld. Either that or 85/1.4, or a 135/2 on a monopod with serious bracketing.
So that is why I said 17-55/2.8 single, but with biz & logistical considerations., and return snapshots. You do get good pix I am sure, but clients look at the whole range, not only 3 award-winning grade pix, which I am sure the parents/relatives would not appreciate why you paid 4-figures for that and snapshots for others with a similar perspective which a PnS can do as well.

 

[Ferrari 1]

That should be the norm actually.....if one is providing a professional service. Does not matter if you are a full-timer or not. Eg if your client is requesting you to shoot at that famous Pandan gardens church (Calvary Bible Presbyterian) or whatever other churches which require you not to use flash and to shoot at the sidelines, not walk along the aisle during the march-in. What would you do? (anyway the old pastor at Pandan Gardens church already retire I think). A 70-200 VRII would be a huge 3.2k investment and logistically difficult to handle with a 3-body photographer (2 real-time, 1 in bag), and seriously barely makes it at 100mm f2.8 ISO1600 with factored in 2-stops advantage handheld. Either that or 85/1.4, or a 135/2 on a monopod with serious bracketing.
So that is why I said 17-55/2.8 single, but with biz & logistical considerations., and return snapshots. You do get good pix I am sure, but clients look at the whole range, not only 3 award-winning grade pix, which I am sure the parents/relatives would not appreciate why you paid 4-figures for that and snapshots for others with a similar perspective which a PnS can do as well.

Very good tips,my friend. Thanks a lot!