Spirit Vision Photography
New member
He does not suggest that. He says that he sometimes does.
Wedding shooters Nikon 24 - 120 F4?
- Thread starter mrpbnm
- Start date
He does not suggest that. He says that he sometimes does.
TwistedThrottle
Senior Member
Still a good conversation, I find myself in the current predicament. I have been asked to be the photographer at my nephew's wedding. I've never done a wedding before but I have the 24-120 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 to be used with a Z7ii and Zf. I've been considering buying (or renting) the 24-70 f2.8 since I want to give my nephew the best, but I am not convinced the extra stop of light will be needed since I have the 50 f1.8 when light gets low as well as a speed light with a couple of AD200's. If I did this kind of thing all the time, I'd get the 2.8. Is it worth it for just one wedding?
BF Hammer
Senior Member
Likely not for 1 event. But do not forget to consider the extra background isolation f/2.8 gives. That is noticeable and extra ISO won't help that. This coming from myself who shot (unofficially) my own nephew's wedding and reception entirely with a Z24-70mm f/4. Nice lens, did not get much bokea on the shots that were asking for isolation. Wish I would have packed my 70-200mm f/2.8 F-mount to help with that.
Spirit Vision Photography
New member
The 24-120 f/4 is an excellent wedding/event lens.
Blue439
New member
The Z mount has changed the rules. With DSLRs, I always stuck to the Holy Trinity —that is, when zooms had to be used, as I normally would favor primes. I figured there was a good reason why the optical engineers had limited the range of the trans-standard zoom to 24 and 70, and I would never have dreamed of buying anything like a 24-120 (or, God forbid, even broader!) for fear of degrading the image quality. That viewpoint seemed to be echoed by most serious reviewers, even though broader zooms were perfectly acceptable for less demanding users or those with other overwhelming priorities, such as travelers concerned about weight and bulk.
When the Z mount appeared, and considering the type of photography I now mostly do, I figured I didn’t need any zoom faster than ƒ/4, and so I bought the 14-30 (luckily, I got an excellent copy which still gives me outstanding results) and the 24-70. Then, I read wonders about the 24-120 ƒ/4 by reviewers I trust, and I bought it to try. At the aperture values I most often use my lenses (closer to ƒ/8 than ƒ/4), it gives me excellent results, not quite as good as the F-mount tilt-shift primes in sharpness but much better in chromatic aberration (the bane of the tilt-shifts) and flare fighting. For me, it is definitely a keeper, and my light traveling kit today comprises the 14-30, the 24-120 and the 100-400. In contrast, the “heavy” kit comprises only primes.
Now, I don’t do weddings and I understand this discussion is mostly about them. I would understand a wedding photographer arguing they need very fast lenses because they often work in low-light situations and flash lighting isn’t always an option. I understand less easily why ƒ/2.8 would make such a big difference over ƒ/4. After all, it is just one stop... and at very large aperture values, the depth of field gets so paper-thin... Seeing how well the 24-120 performs wide open, I think I would use it for a wedding-like situation as I would be happy to trade off one stop for its wider range of focal length options. But, as I said, that’s all in theory, as I am not a specialist in that field!
When the Z mount appeared, and considering the type of photography I now mostly do, I figured I didn’t need any zoom faster than ƒ/4, and so I bought the 14-30 (luckily, I got an excellent copy which still gives me outstanding results) and the 24-70. Then, I read wonders about the 24-120 ƒ/4 by reviewers I trust, and I bought it to try. At the aperture values I most often use my lenses (closer to ƒ/8 than ƒ/4), it gives me excellent results, not quite as good as the F-mount tilt-shift primes in sharpness but much better in chromatic aberration (the bane of the tilt-shifts) and flare fighting. For me, it is definitely a keeper, and my light traveling kit today comprises the 14-30, the 24-120 and the 100-400. In contrast, the “heavy” kit comprises only primes.
Now, I don’t do weddings and I understand this discussion is mostly about them. I would understand a wedding photographer arguing they need very fast lenses because they often work in low-light situations and flash lighting isn’t always an option. I understand less easily why ƒ/2.8 would make such a big difference over ƒ/4. After all, it is just one stop... and at very large aperture values, the depth of field gets so paper-thin... Seeing how well the 24-120 performs wide open, I think I would use it for a wedding-like situation as I would be happy to trade off one stop for its wider range of focal length options. But, as I said, that’s all in theory, as I am not a specialist in that field!