When I'm outdoors, (and when I have a lot of room indoors), I go for my 135. Otherwise indoors it's the 50. However, when I need the versatility and not the speed, 24-70.
Most of my shooting before, during, & after the ceremony are with my 28-70 2.8 and my 70-200 2.8. If it is an outdoor wedding, I really like my Tamron 28-300. I shoot a full-frame camera, and if there is plenty of light, it is such a versatile lens.
When I'm outdoors, (and when I have a lot of room indoors), I go for my 135. Otherwise indoors it's the 50. However, when I need the versatility and not the speed, 24-70.
Could you give me a feel for how many more usable shots you would get indoors with the 50 (1.2?) compared to the 24-70 at approximately 50mm? Ballpark.
Could you give me a feel for how many more usable shots you would get indoors with the 50 (1.2?) compared to the 24-70 at approximately 50mm? Ballpark.
Hi, Malte! I don't think I can answer your question. I either use the 50 (1.4) or I use the 24-70. It's whatever fits my lighting/location needs. Also, I don't quite understand what you mean by "usable shots." What's the lighting like? The 50 > 24-70 in lower lighting conditions.
Hi, Malte! I don't think I can answer your question. I either use the 50 (1.4) or I use the 24-70. It's whatever fits my lighting/location needs. Also, I don't quite understand what you mean by "usable shots." What's the lighting like? The 50 > 24-70 in lower lighting conditions.
I'm after a guesstimation of the difference in performance of the 50mm compared to the 24-70@50mm in similar conditions. So by un-usable shots I would mean those that were underexposed as a result of the slower aperture.
I'm after a guesstimation of the difference in performance of the 50mm compared to the 24-70@50mm in similar conditions. So by un-usable shots I would mean those that were underexposed as a result of the slower aperture.
Malte
I don't have an answer to that because if I knew the 24-70 is not performing, I will immediately switch to the 50, thus eliminating chances of "unusable shots." Or I wouldn't use the 24-70 and just immediately go with the 50 once I see what the light looks like. I have not done any experiment, so I can only tell you about my experiences on the job. I carry three of my lenses in a shootsac, or if it's not necessary, I leave off the 50 in my rolling bag.
Hopefully someone will chime in with a better answer :-)
Hopefully someone will chime in with a better answer :-)
Not necessarily a better answer, but here's my $0.02 anyway.
There's no reason to not get really good results with either a 50/1.2 or 24-70/2.8. Heck, for a few years I was getting great reception shots with Nikon's D2H (hardly renowned for low light performance) and the slow f4 Tokina 12-24.
It all comes down to the style and look of images you are after. Obviously with the faster primes you can make better use of the ambient light and get better separation from the background. I've found that since using only f1.4 lenses at receptions, I can go the whole wedding on one set of batteries in my SB800's, couldn't do that in the past using slower lenses.
Of course, one can argue that being able to crank up the sensitivity on modern cameras removes some of the need for faster lenses. I wouldn't dispute this, but using high ISO with fast lenses means even less reliance on flash and more ambient light being used.
This is all totally subjective. I know photographers who use a 24-70 zoom for just about every image in a wedding with fantastic results. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what works for you!
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited July 8, 2010
Everybody always asks the "which ONE lens would you pick to shoot a wedding with", and that question is (no offense) kinda silly because, well, you just don't go into a wedding with just one or two lenses.
What you REALLY mean is, "which ONE lens should I invest the most in?"
And when you put it that way, the answer is pretty simple: Which lens defines your style? THAT is the real question, and one that *WE* can't answer without looking through a hundred, or a thousand, of your images.
I wrote an article about picking the right lens for shooting weddings, you can read it here:
The bottom line is that you find your style, buy the best damn lens money can buy for that style, and then fill in the gaps.
In my experience, most GOOD wedding photographers shoot maybe 75-90% of their images with that one favorite lens. Often a 50, sometimes a 70-200, or sometimes a 35 or 85 prime... Of course a 16-35 or 17-40 can be essential to a photojournalist's style. And lastly, to be honest, the handful of photographers whose main lens is a 24-70, well, often times their work is kinda cookie-cutter. I'm just speaking from the statistics I've seen, not making a personal attack on any one person. (I saw that one person already mentioned the 24-70, don't worry I'm not talking about you, I don't think I've ever seen any of your images...)
Anyways, PERSONALLY, if I had the hypothetical two lens restriction, unfortunately the two lenses I'd love to own are currently non-existent for a Nikon shooter. I'd like a 35mm f/1.4 AFS on a D700, and a Sigma 50-150 2.8 (I wish it had stabilization) on a D300s...
The reasons why are long, but yeah. Bottom line - I'm not a fan of massively heavy gear, I like to keep a low profile. :-)
Take care, and good luck lens shopping! And of course, don't go into a wedding with just one or two lenses, hehe...
=Matt=
Comments
Houston Portrait Photographer
Children's Illustrator
With these I can do everything I want and my collection of zooms is gathering dust these days.
Cheers!
David
www.uniqueday.com
Don't worry. I can fix you in photoshop.
Could you give me a feel for how many more usable shots you would get indoors with the 50 (1.2?) compared to the 24-70 at approximately 50mm? Ballpark.
Thanks!
Malte
Hi, Malte! I don't think I can answer your question. I either use the 50 (1.4) or I use the 24-70. It's whatever fits my lighting/location needs. Also, I don't quite understand what you mean by "usable shots." What's the lighting like? The 50 > 24-70 in lower lighting conditions.
Houston Portrait Photographer
Children's Illustrator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOoGjtSy7xY&feature=player_embedded
I'm after a guesstimation of the difference in performance of the 50mm compared to the 24-70@50mm in similar conditions. So by un-usable shots I would mean those that were underexposed as a result of the slower aperture.
Malte
I don't have an answer to that because if I knew the 24-70 is not performing, I will immediately switch to the 50, thus eliminating chances of "unusable shots." Or I wouldn't use the 24-70 and just immediately go with the 50 once I see what the light looks like. I have not done any experiment, so I can only tell you about my experiences on the job. I carry three of my lenses in a shootsac, or if it's not necessary, I leave off the 50 in my rolling bag.
Hopefully someone will chime in with a better answer :-)
Houston Portrait Photographer
Children's Illustrator
Not necessarily a better answer, but here's my $0.02 anyway.
There's no reason to not get really good results with either a 50/1.2 or 24-70/2.8. Heck, for a few years I was getting great reception shots with Nikon's D2H (hardly renowned for low light performance) and the slow f4 Tokina 12-24.
It all comes down to the style and look of images you are after. Obviously with the faster primes you can make better use of the ambient light and get better separation from the background. I've found that since using only f1.4 lenses at receptions, I can go the whole wedding on one set of batteries in my SB800's, couldn't do that in the past using slower lenses.
Of course, one can argue that being able to crank up the sensitivity on modern cameras removes some of the need for faster lenses. I wouldn't dispute this, but using high ISO with fast lenses means even less reliance on flash and more ambient light being used.
This is all totally subjective. I know photographers who use a 24-70 zoom for just about every image in a wedding with fantastic results. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what works for you!
Cheers!
David
www.uniqueday.com
Agree!
www.tednghiem.com
Ha ha! That was AWESOME!
Malte
What you REALLY mean is, "which ONE lens should I invest the most in?"
And when you put it that way, the answer is pretty simple: Which lens defines your style? THAT is the real question, and one that *WE* can't answer without looking through a hundred, or a thousand, of your images.
I wrote an article about picking the right lens for shooting weddings, you can read it here:
http://photos.matthewsaville.com/photos/random.mg?AlbumID=9942069&AlbumKey=hRThD&Size=Thumb&rand=1097
The bottom line is that you find your style, buy the best damn lens money can buy for that style, and then fill in the gaps.
In my experience, most GOOD wedding photographers shoot maybe 75-90% of their images with that one favorite lens. Often a 50, sometimes a 70-200, or sometimes a 35 or 85 prime... Of course a 16-35 or 17-40 can be essential to a photojournalist's style. And lastly, to be honest, the handful of photographers whose main lens is a 24-70, well, often times their work is kinda cookie-cutter. I'm just speaking from the statistics I've seen, not making a personal attack on any one person. (I saw that one person already mentioned the 24-70, don't worry I'm not talking about you, I don't think I've ever seen any of your images...)
Anyways, PERSONALLY, if I had the hypothetical two lens restriction, unfortunately the two lenses I'd love to own are currently non-existent for a Nikon shooter. I'd like a 35mm f/1.4 AFS on a D700, and a Sigma 50-150 2.8 (I wish it had stabilization) on a D300s...
The reasons why are long, but yeah. Bottom line - I'm not a fan of massively heavy gear, I like to keep a low profile. :-)
Take care, and good luck lens shopping! And of course, don't go into a wedding with just one or two lenses, hehe...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum