lenses for church wedding

[Larry]

Originally posted by erwinx
Really?

yeah very possible. i did one without flash before. the event organisers didn't want the ceremony by my incessant flashing, so i used a 50 f/1.8 and Press 800 (this was an afternoon event) and whacked away...

Originally posted by ckiang
Regarding prime lenses, it is entirely possible to cover a wedding with just 2, say a 28 and a 50. I've covered a dinner (minus table shots) with just a single 50mm on a friend's wedding where I am not official.

agree with ckiang here as well... before i got my zooms, i was using a 24mm and 50mm to cover events. the lazy bum in me got the better eventually though and i got meself a zoom. but switching primes isn't really that bad. just needs some practice.

something to note here though, for those who plan to do weddings (esp Chinese ones). 28mm may not be enough for those group table shots, esp in cramped restaurants/ballrooms. better prepare a 24mm or wider lens.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Larry
something to note here though, for those who plan to do weddings (esp Chinese ones). 28mm may not be enough for those group table shots, esp in cramped restaurants/ballrooms. better prepare a 24mm or wider lens.

Actually, that's caused by those 'buay zi tong' people who dun want to shift from their seats, causing an unnecessarily W I D E group shot with the couple standing behind him like the twin towers. Ugly.

Regards
CK

 

[David]

Nothing beats a zoom for something like wedding...

Primes are too cumbersome... I haven't seen any pros using primes so far for weddings. It's usually some wide angle zoom and a mid range zoom.

Gone are the days when primes are more superior than zooms in image quality.

You are prob going to use lots of flash (unless on certain very rare occasions when this is prohibited) so wide aperture primes are pretty unnecessary.... With f/2.8 zooms, i don't see much problem for more than 99% of local weddings.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by David
Nothing beats a zoom for something like wedding...

Primes are too cumbersome... I haven't seen any pros using primes so far for weddings. It's usually some wide angle zoom and a mid range zoom.

Gone are the days when primes are more superior than zooms in image quality.

You are prob going to use lots of flash (unless on certain very rare occasions when this is prohibited) so wide aperture primes are pretty unnecessary.... With f/2.8 zooms, i don't see much problem for more than 99% of local weddings.

Very few, but they do exist. I've seen wedding photogs with just a prime, manual one somemore, on a F5. He's only got one body.

You're right to say that zooms are a lot more flexible in this regard, and these days they have become very good.

Regards
CK

 

[james m]

Originally posted by David

Nothing beats a zoom for something like wedding...

Primes are too cumbersome...

I will still take a prime over a zoom for a wedding even with zooms like the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8 and 28-70/2.8

I find zooms like that to cumbersome.

 

[fruitybix]

hey jimmy,

morning, it is 8.30am over here at Spore..

Have been asked to cover a solemnisation on Monday, thinking of the following setup..

2 film bodies:
Main cam with 28-70 lens, ISO 100 SUPRA with Flash
Backup body with 35-135 lens, Delta 3200 BW (use without flash)

Have little experience with the Delta 3200, anyone has anything to say about this film, which i intend to used without flash, indoors?

Thanks!!

 

[David]

Originally posted by mysteriousjimmy
I will still take a prime over a zoom for a wedding even with zooms like the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8 and 28-70/2.8

I find zooms like that to cumbersome.

Huh?? How come such zooms are more cumbersome than the primes? Do you usually snap weddings with primes instead? Unless you're a petite lady who finds holding and moving around with f/2.8 zooms tiring and strenuous. There're always the consumer f/3.5-4.5 zooms available in that case.

I know some will, for whatever reasons, support primes, I just wonder how long it will take one to change lenses on primes. I'm not saying you can't take weddings with primes, but you're bound to miss or have some less than satisfactory composition on candid or important split-second scenes. Imagine you're changing lenses... ok you may think you take a quick 5 secs flat to do that. In the process BOOM, the bride lets out a spontaneous facial expression. You are 3 m away and you've got only a 35mm prime. Uh-oh... You're dead in that scene. You missed it. Of cos you can argue there are other good shots you can still get, but you lost THAT moment.

I think of it like a war zone...you've got to have plenty of ammunition and you can't always be fiddling with this or that. Once you see the target, shoot!

Ok, a bit of long-winded up there... ;p

 

[clive]

Huh?? How come such zooms are more cumbersome than the primes?

thats just his personal unique style, nothing wrong with it

if u r stuck with primes or want to use primes then u wil sure lose some moments BUT NOT TOO MUCH LOSS ACTUALLY; that is if u r in the first place already used to using primes ("speed thru skill")

suggested compromise:
(1)heavier items: 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8,80-200/2.8,{300/2.8 AND 1.4x AND 2x}

(2)lighter items: 20/2.8, 50/1.4, {135/f2 OR 200/2.8}

(3)compulsory items: body+flash

feel free to mix n match from sets (1), (2), (3) according to personal taste/experience/body strength

 

[sojourner]

supra for people shots? how about npc, nps 160 or nph 400. supra has been discontinued, stock up and keep what you have

2 film bodies:
Main cam with 28-70 lens, ISO 100 SUPRA with Flash

 

[james m]

Originally posted by David
Huh?? How come such zooms are more cumbersome than the primes?

and also a waste of money, why pay all that money for a lens that I only use at 2 focal lengths. For some reason I always seem to use a zoom at either end of the focal range and nothing in between.

Originally posted by David

Do you usually snap weddings with primes instead?

yep.... I prefer primes for all my photography.

Originally posted by David

Imagine you're changing lenses... ok you may think you take a quick 5 secs flat to do that. In the process BOOM, the bride lets out a spontaneous facial expression. You are 3 m away and you've got only a 35mm prime. Uh-oh... You're dead in that scene. You missed it. Of cos you can argue there are other good shots you can still get, but you lost THAT moment.

Doesn't really matter if it is a prime or zoom lens on the camera, there are any number of reason why you may still miss the shot.

When I use to shoot weddings before it was with primes and I will be doing a few later on this year and again it will be with primes.

But along with those primes I will also have 2 or maybe 3 camera bodies. My main lens will be the 85/1.8 on one camera with either the 35/2 or 50/1.8 on the other. If I have the 3rd body by then it will have either the 135/2.8 or 180/2.8. Plus I will have my 20/2.8 and hopefully my 16/2.8 and 24/2.8 by then as well.

Originally posted by David

I think of it like a war zone...you've got to have plenty of ammunition and you can't always be fiddling with this or that. Once you see the target, shoot!

So I think I should be ready for the war, mean wedding.

 

[GitS]

i think the key is to keep your wide angle coverage ready all the time, 16-35, 20, or 24 - 28mm too narrow wide for most "table shots" esp thos with large aunties....hahaha! if you need to pick out a detail, you can always run nearer -

i find that being caught too wide is always better than being caught too long....

then you need something in the mid range for isolating stuff, 50, 85, 100 or 24-70 (28-70) etc...it therefore best to have two cams. if u are the main photog, always bring a spare body even if you are not going to use it.

lastly, for church, you might want a tele, 100, 135, 200, or the kickass 70-200, (plus a converter if you have IS or a tripod) if you are going to shoot from a distance.

so a stripped down 24, 50, (100, 200) is adequate and LIGHT!
but if you have cash, a 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 will also do the job, with the zooms doing the zooimg for you rather than your legs...and i guarantee you bigger shoulder muscles at the end of the day....plus you get admiring glances from the bridesmaids (wah! sooo long!)and envious looks from the guys (penis envy definitely)!

 

[Paladin]

Originally posted by ckiang
Actually, that's caused by those 'buay zi tong' people who dun want to shift from their seats, causing an unnecessarily W I D E group shot with the couple standing behind him like the twin towers. Ugly.

Regards
CK

Which reminds me of a time when I was covering for a wedding dinner with my 28mm. There was this one table shot that I took and later realised this woman in red (typical) that was smilling away when I took the shot was not in the pic.....;p

 

[Jed]

I think if there's one thing you take from this thread, let it be that there's no best set of lenses to cover a wedding with. Like there's no best set way to cover a wedding, creatively speaking either. You need to develop your own style of shooting, your own signature, and then choose lenses that will help you achieve that style the best. Or have your lenses first and then develop your style within those constraints.

There are some things I do that some people have mentioned they hardly see people doing.

For example they don't consider primes to be widely used by professionals. Maybe not but this is one professional who would die without his 85mm.

Someone mentioned he doesn't see professionals switching lenses very often. I do. During the walk down the aisle I will take a widey and a tele. Once I get a proper second camera I won't have to switch lenses, but I do it without problem.

Someone expressed surprise at not being able to use flash in a church. I express surprise that anyone would want to use flash in a church in the first place.

My wedding gadget bag is always full and very heavy. Some never leave the car, but are there as an option. What always comes along at that aforementioned 85mm, a 17-35, and an 80-200. I've now added a 50 and I'd be surprised if I didn't carry that along permanently as well. Other notables that can seriously prove their worth are a macro, a fisheye. I'd love to add a 28/1.4 the moment I find one at a reasonable price too.

But that's my choices anyway, for the way I shoot. Primarily my workhorses are those first three lenses.

 

[james m]

Originally posted by Jed

I'd love to add a 28/1.4 the moment I find one at a reasonable price too.

Jed, if you can find 2 a reasonable price let me know. I got a price on a new one here in Australia today ...............

AUD$3,700

so on that note, is the 28/2.8D as bad as every one says?