Wedding shoots & the 135/f2

gus

Ive got my 1st wedding this week-end (strictly as a guest behind the paid bloke) & plan to give the 135 a workout. I know the 20D has 9 focus points & this SHOULD be easy with good afternoon light (3-5 pm) but i noticed that i missed several at yosemite at f/2.

Just how many of those little focus dots i see in the view finder do you really need on the subject to take some good candids at f/2 ?

Do i need to at least fill half the view finder on say 2 people talking in the distance with them in the centre of the shot ?

Ta Gus

Mongrel

Hey Gus,

In my experience with the 135L and the 20D, f/2 is TOUGH no matter "how many little focus dots" you have on the subject. *Very* narrow depth of field.

I very rarely use more than one focus point, but I do change it's orientation depending on how close I am to the subject. I do this to avoid the mythical 'focus-recompose' focusing errors you may have heard of. I ONLY worry about this when taking a tight headshot using a wide aperture. If I am some distance away, focus and recompose works fine using the center focus point only.

The few weddings I have shot, I've found that very wide apertures like f/2.0 or f/1.8 don't work very well, unless you are shooting a single subject OR are some distance away. At the last wedding I had more pleasing shots stopping down a bit. Now, if you are doing a single subject like the bride or groom or whatever, then you can open up the aperture for subject isolation. On a tight headshot, f/2.0 usually will put one eye in focus while the other is slightly out (depending on which one you put the focus point on), this would be when taking an angled shot. If you are shooting straight on (not really done much), you can get both eyes in focus, BUT the ears will be out-lol. Now, if you don't get that focus point on the eyes, you will have the ears in focus but not the eyes. This is just to explain how narrow you depth of field is at these kinds of apertures.

As far as multiple focus points, the problem becomes which one the camera will give priority to. You may see several light up, but that is not a guarantee that ALL of your subject will be in focus.

Also, be very careful if you are taking group shots, if you don't stop down say to f/5.6 or f/8, you will have the people in front in focus while the people in back are out (or vice versa). Your depth of field will increase as you move away from your subject so you do have some latitude.

I'm sure others can add to or correct the above, but hopefully this will give you something to start with.

BTW-the 135L is a killer lens on the 20D, albeit somewhat specialized, I really enjoy it. Besides that, it's my only 'L'.

Take care,

Anthony

gus

Wow...!! Some good info there to chew on anthony. Thanks for taking the time.

I seriously didnt think that at f/2...the DOF would'nt be THAT shallow....but i have found out that it is. Makes me understand what pro's must know to get low light surf/racing etc with those giant white f/2.8's.

I will read over your info again & see what i can come up with to get some experience (especially about the focus points).

I think i need to get it off f/2 & up around f/8 until ive some more experience with it as i expect good light.

Thanks again

bkriete

In my (totally different) experience while shooting fish (in a tank, not a barrel) I found that it made a huge difference in my percentage of in-focus shots to set my 300D to use only the center focus point. Maybe the 20D makes better "choices" about where it thinks it should be focusing, but I think it's pretty easy to trick a camera in general, especially if you are taking pictures that are aiming for a higher level of artistic creativity than snapshots.

Shay Stephens

The center focus point gives me more success than any of the others. In low light it has a better chance of obtaining focus. When I use the others, the failure rate goes sky high in low light. So I would suggest the center focus point if you are having trouble. I am using f/2.8 lenses by the way.

DoctorIt

that wedding in NYC I had pretty decent luck with (of course much lower light than you will have) - I had borrowed Winger's fast f/2.8 lens, but actually ended up shooting around f/4 or 5.6. I used the center focus point all the time - but I used one shot, so I focused and recomposed a lot. I don't trust that auto-pick point for some reason. At least not on my 10D

wxwax

Shay Stephens wrote:

The center focus point gives me more success than any of the others. In low light it has a better chance of obtaining focus. When I use the others, the failure rate goes sky high in low light. So I would suggest the center focus point if you are having trouble. I am using f/2.8 lenses by the way.

Say it ain't so. Focus and recompose?

IanZ28

I'm a non-dsl guy and have nothing to contribute............but, I read an interesting comment in this thread. And, it's something I have been curious about.

I keep reading about stopping down a lens to get really sharp pictures (due to longer exposures [I think]).

So, all you guys out there with fast glass...........does stopping down a f2.8 lens versus stopping down a f4.0 lens to say (andy's f8) mean you get a faster shutter speed with f2.8 glass than the f4.0 glass (no specific lenses)?

(this may be a stupid question.......but, from what I've been reading for months you get a much sharper image from a stopped down image than a lower #'d-small aperture image).

And now my serious question. Would both these lenses (assume the same focal length) have the same DOF at f8? (two different lenses- for example - L glass at f2.8 and non L-glass at f4 stopped down to aperture f8)

Or more importantly concerning money......what benifit does a low f-lens do you with such a shallow depth of field in these situations?

DoctorIt

IanZ28 wrote:

I'm a non-dsl guy and have nothing to contribute............but, I read an interesting comment in this thread. And, it's something I have been curious about.

I keep reading about stopping down a lens to get really sharp pictures (due to longer exposures [I think]).

So, all you guys out there with fast glass...........does stopping down a f2.8 lens versus stopping down a f4.0 lens to say (andy's f8) mean you get a faster shutter speed with f2.8 glass than the f4.0 glass (no specific lenses)?

(this may be a stupid question.......but, from what I've been reading for months you get a much sharper image from a stopped down image than a lower #'d-small aperture image).

And now my serious question. Would both these lenses (assume the same focal length) have the same DOF at f8? (two different lenses- for example - L glass at f2.8 and non L-glass at f4 stopped down to aperture f8)

Or more importantly concerning money......what benifit does a low f-lens do you with such a shallow depth of field in these situations?

your understand is close... let me see if I can clarify:

we pay big bucks for a fast lens (low f/ number), because it means the lens can focus much faster as focus always happens with the lens wide open. when its wide open setting is very wide open, then it can get all sorts of light and focus quickly. of course, faster glass usually means better quality glass for color sharpness etc, that kind of comes along with the $$$.

your question about DOF - it only depends on focal length and aperture. So theoretically, yes, if you had a Xmm f/2.8 lens and a Xmm f/4 lens, but they were both stopped to f/8 the DOF would be the same.

bkriete

I think there are several reasons for the fast glass:

1) As Erik noted, big wide open apertures (e.g., 2.8 or 1.8 or 1.4) allow faster focusing because the camera has more light available to figure out where stuff is.

2) A bigger aperture allows more light through the viewfinder, making the viewfinder brighter and allowing easier composition and manual focusing.

3) A bigger aperture means you can shoot using less light. A lens with a max aperture of 1.4 is able to shoot in much dimmer conditions than one with an aperture of 5.6.

The idea of stopping down a lens to gain picture quality exists because there are compromises made to gain faster apertures. These compromises may take the form of reduced sharpness, chromatic aberration, and light fall off at the corners (vignetting).

A lens that is extremely well-designed and constructed to very tight tolerances will have good picture quality at its max aperture (for example, Canon's 50mm/1.4). Stopping it down to 1.8 will slightly improve that, 2.8 will improve it even more, 4.0 still more.

If we have a theoretical 50mm lens with a maximum aperture of 4.0 to begin with, it is already being used at the limits of its design constraints when shooting at 4.0. Stopping it down from 4.0 to 5.6 or 8 will show the same type of improvement as stopping our 1.4 lens to 4.0, but it will still be slower in the sense of capturing less light. At 4.0 both lenses will be capturing the same amount of light at the moment the picture is captured, but the Canon 1.4 will probably take a better picture because it's not "trying as hard."

Shutter speed and DOF at a given aperture will be identical between lenses, assuming similar manufacturing tolerances, focal length, etc.

I tend to think in automotive metaphors a lot, so I would compare the idea of max aperture to the rev limiter in your car's engine. Will my engine run at 6000 RPM? Sure, I could probably even make it to work before it blew up. But a Formula One V10 is barely idling at 6000 RPM; you could drive it all day at that low an engine speed. The crankshaft in both vehicles will be spinning at the same 6000 RPM, but it's working one of them much harder than the other.

gus

Ok...thats the 135mm


This elcheapo 50mm f/1.8 prime (andy you mongrel..)

What ISO do you wedding guys pull the pin at ? (your maximum before you stop with indoor night shooting under ballroom type lighting)

To get that hand held speed at 50mm would you use 800 & maybe even 1600 ISO ?

Remembering i wont be facing a legal challange for grainy shots that are softened up with noise ninja.
Gus

Shay Stephens

With the 20D, my favorite and most used settings are f/2.8 (or less depending on lens) 1/60th of a second (stops most motion) and ISO 800 (clean even after bumping up a stop in post). I supplement with flash as needed.

I usally use the ISO to adjust the exposure as needed indoors. The mythical "ISO priority" mode that camera manufacturers need to implement post haste.

Now in crazy dark settings I am comfortable using ISO 1600 but the exposure really needs to be more spot on for best results.

When it comes to noise reduction, the only thing I worry about is chroma noise, which I take care of via the RAW converter in Photoshop. I don't touch the luminance noise, because it makes the photos look too plastic-y. Film had grain at high ISO, and by golly, so can digital in my book.

And for the record, I have the 50mm f/1.8 "plastic fanastic", and love it.

Humungus wrote:

Ok...thats the 135mm


This elcheapo 50mm f/1.8 prime (andy you mongrel..)

What ISO do you wedding guys pull the pin at ? (your maximum before you stop with indoor night shooting under ballroom type lighting)

To get that hand held speed at 50mm would you use 800 & maybe even 1600 ISO ?

Remembering i wont be facing a legal challange for grainy shots that are softened up with noise ninja.
Gus

gus

Shay Stephens wrote:

With the 20D, my favorite and most used settings are f/2.8 (or less depending on lens) 1/60th of a second (stops most motion) and ISO 800 (clean even after bumping up a stop in post). I supplement with flash as needed.

I usally use the ISO to adjust the exposure as needed indoors. The mythical "ISO priority" mode that camera manufacturers need to implement post haste.

Now in crazy dark settings I am comfortable using ISO 1600 but the exposure really needs to be more spot on for best results.

When it comes to noise reduction, the only thing I worry about is chroma noise, which I take care of via the RAW converter in Photoshop. I don't touch the luminance noise, because it makes the photos look too plastic-y. Film had grain at high ISO, and by golly, so can digital in my book.

And for the record, I have the 50mm f/1.8 "plastic fanastic", and love it.

Thanks heaps shay...i will certainly now run her up to iso 800...i was worried about the grain but as you pointed out...it was there before & it isnt a huge worry. I will try your PS pointers also.

Ta Gus

gus

WOW...what a mess !!

Got to the church early & started shooting at 135 for portraits at 100 yards type stuff. All went well until we moved inside & all those little 'pocket digi's' were dead silent & the 20D sounded like a crack of thunder during the ceremony so i put the 135 back on & went way way up the back....

"...something wrong with this damned camera " Things acting up & nothing was how it normally re-acts...im doing this & that & did get some nice shots away but i was so confused.

Got to the reception & was shooting the hell out of it (bride & groom are very close friends & asked me to go 'hell for leather' all night as there was no pro photographer at the reception. 30 mins or so later still fighting the camera...when big 'ol dumb Gus's eye catches the knob on the camera..its set on M...i ALWAYS shoot AV. I was too stupid to realize it at the time. I always bump this dial onto M....i should have known.

So things are now really kicking along...50/f1.8 & im flyin'....really crappy light but a nice ambience. Someone came up to me & did the old .."im buying a digital soon..should i get the highest pixels" question that we all get so so often. I stopped & did my 30 second "..it aint the pixels speech" when big dumb 'ol Gus's eye catches the LCD...there is a large 'L' in it.:bash Some woman started talking to me about the camera a week ago at a fair & i remember showing her how to change image size & i took it of RAW...& didnt (somehow) put it back on.

Slap myself & swing her to RAW & check in on AV again & we are now 3/4 the way through the night. Was all lost ? ..nar i recon i have some nice Jpegs of the service & as for the reception..? well the only thing worth shooting is into the last quarter anyway when the music goes up & the ties get wrapped around the head for a sweat band.


* NB - you can all have it guys. It was the hardest thing i have ever tried to do. My shots are always on MY conditions but this is on another set of rules.

I will certainly do it again but i take my hat off to anyone whom can make a living out of it.

Gus

gus

Phew...looks like i had it set on RAW+L ( at least i think so...all opening RAW no worries & there is 2 shots to each pic).

So at least now i have the options of RAW to correct my darker in church shots.

Gus

Shay Stephens

Wow, that must be a relief huh. Looking forward to seeing some photos when you get them prepped.

Now here is a little example of what I was talking about in my previous post. Yesterday (sat) I shot an outdoor wedding at the Lyndhurst Castle in NY. Only problem is we had rain and the clouds were very dark and thick. So the getting ready shots, in a room with wrap around windows was dark enough to need ISO 800, the ceremony was around ISO 200 to 400, and the reception in a big tent would not do with anything less than ISO 1600, and that is including 3 off camera flash units. I can't even imagine the results if I had stuck to only using ISO 100...well maybe I can, can you say motion blur? hehehe

I will post some samples in a few days, but I am confident that even at ISO 1600, they will look good and the noise will not be terrible. One of the beauties of the 20D there

Humungus wrote:

Phew...looks like i had it set on RAW+L ( at least i think so...all opening RAW no worries & there is 2 shots to each pic).

So at least now i have the options of RAW to correct my darker in church shots.

Gus

gus

Thanks shay...silly question but wouldnt the iso be set by the flash unit or is a dark movement shot (drunken dancing in very poor light) I got good results with onboard flash & iso 1600 but didnt lower the iso to experiment.

Gus

Daniel Chui

Humungus wrote:

Ive got my 1st wedding this week-end (strictly as a guest behind the paid bloke) & plan to give the 135 a workout. I know the 20D has 9 focus points & this SHOULD be easy with good afternoon light (3-5 pm) but i noticed that i missed several at yosemite at f/2.

Just how many of those little focus dots i see in the view finder do you really need on the subject to take some good candids at f/2 ?

Do i need to at least fill half the view finder on say 2 people talking in the distance with them in the centre of the shot ?

Ta Gus

I agree with Mongrel - F2 or those really wide apertures are hard to work with... the excessively shallow DOF leaves very room for error in your autofocus. Have you considered shooting F4.0? I shot a whole wedding at F4.0 yesterday, and I was a lot more confident in my AF knowing I had a little bit more DOF to work with!

Good luck!

- Chui