Zooms vs primes for weddings
Desmond
Registered Users Posts: 187 Major grins
Ok , I'm not trying to step on any toes , I'm trying to learn and in the process I am going to give my amateur opinion on why I like to use the Nikon 18-200VR in favour of primes . [ the only prime I have is the 50mm 1.8 ] . Go ahead and feel free to point me in the right direction if my reasoning is wrong but here goes :
1.) A zoom is quicker to work with than changing primes though primes do give better quality .
2.) A zoom has a much wider range for a trade-off on that quality but will the customer look at the picture and say " no good , it wasn't taken with a prime !" ?
My question is "How much better quality for the trade-off of missing a lot of candids " and "is it worth missing a lot of wedding memories for the quality difference you are going to get ?".
If possible maybe someone could post a comparison shot , say taken with the 18-200 at 50mm and the prime at 50mmm [ maybe I should try it :dunno ] and point out the difference [ if it is not obvious ] .
Ok , I can understand using primes when you have time to pose the formals and maybe for the group shots with the camera on a tripod , but for the ceremony and doing some " walkabout " shots with the bridal party why not a zoom ?
My main purpose here is to determine whether my philosophy makes sense here : I would rather get every shot at 85% quality than half the shots at 99% quality considering that I don't imagine more than 2% of customers could tell the difference between a picture taken with a zoom and one taken with a prime , and I know for a fact they would rather have all the shots than know that I missed some priceless memories because I had the wrong lens on .
1.) A zoom is quicker to work with than changing primes though primes do give better quality .
2.) A zoom has a much wider range for a trade-off on that quality but will the customer look at the picture and say " no good , it wasn't taken with a prime !" ?
My question is "How much better quality for the trade-off of missing a lot of candids " and "is it worth missing a lot of wedding memories for the quality difference you are going to get ?".
If possible maybe someone could post a comparison shot , say taken with the 18-200 at 50mm and the prime at 50mmm [ maybe I should try it :dunno ] and point out the difference [ if it is not obvious ] .
Ok , I can understand using primes when you have time to pose the formals and maybe for the group shots with the camera on a tripod , but for the ceremony and doing some " walkabout " shots with the bridal party why not a zoom ?
My main purpose here is to determine whether my philosophy makes sense here : I would rather get every shot at 85% quality than half the shots at 99% quality considering that I don't imagine more than 2% of customers could tell the difference between a picture taken with a zoom and one taken with a prime , and I know for a fact they would rather have all the shots than know that I missed some priceless memories because I had the wrong lens on .
Nikon D80 , D50 , SB600 , SB800 , Nikon 18-200VR , Tamron 28-75 di 2.8 , Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 , Nikon 50mm 1.8 . Tamron 17-50 f2.8 , Nikon 70-200 VR f2.8 .
0
Comments
The subject (for me) has nothing what so ever to do with viewing angles. Its about seeing something thats going on in the distance & you needing to be lightning fast in reaction & needing a fast focusing lens that needs no thought about viewing angles to clutter your mind.
[I dont shoot weddings for money but only for friends from behind the hired photographer making sure im never in their way so my ideas are probably not what you are looking for]
When i take a photo at a wedding i dont want the 6 people standing/talking or congratulating the bride/groom. I want the tears & the emotion up close. I try & look through the clutter & try & see whats going on the faces & catch that shot.
You only get a split second to secure most photos that your minds eye is seeing & i just raise the camera & let it go.
I'm not qualified to speak about wedding in the presense of Grand Master Shay and many other esteemed pros, yet one thing I can say for sure: if your idea of zoom for wedding is 18-200, you're waaaaaaay off course, amigo.:-)
Such x10+ zoom lenses are usually of a rather poor quality and slow at best. I think 24-105L f/4 IS USM should be your slowest lens for this kind of work, and I personally would use it for the outdoors occasions only.
If I were to shoot a wedding now I'd pick 24-70L f/2.8 USM (even though it's not IS) and 70-200L f/2.8 IS USM (well, I'd also have something wider in my gear bag just in case). Having these two would give me enough versatility, next-to-prime quality, and I would not need to get through the crowd each time to get a shot.
Having said that - the rest really depends on the shooting habits. Some prefer primes, some prefer zooms.
FWIW
I'm not a pro but I just shot a wedding on Monday with the 18-200mm VR and a 50mm prime, so perhaps I can give you an idea. The agenda was: shots at grooms house in morning, wedding ceremony in a church with low white ceiling, formal shoot outdoors in sunny weather, and reception in chinese restaurant with red ceiling. I also used an SB-800 flash (on my D50).
The 18-200mm was flexible, which means I took over 80% of my shots with it. However it is out of its element in low-light situations (in my opinion) even with flash (situations like the chinese restaurant). I like to get some ambient light in my shots, and hence use a lower shutter speed and wider aperture and in those conditions the image quality from the 18-200mm was not very high on the edges of the frame. Also I found it to have bad qualities in speckled light (under a tree).
I used the 50mm for outdoors in heavy shade for the formal photo session, close-ups of various objects, and some candids at the reception. The focal length was a bit too long in some cases, but the wide aperture was brilliant for all lighting conditons.
Basically, by the end of the day I had a new appreciation for why wedding photographers tend to choose the 17-55 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 on two bodies. That said, the other photographer there used a 35mm film camera with 35mm prime (f/2.0) for essentially the whole day.
So my current thinking is: live with changing lenses. But if I was to use one lens all day I would want something faster, like a wide prime (35mm? 28mm) or a fast zoom (f/2.8 or faster).
Anyway, I hope my ramblings help a little.
But then again the difference between f2.8 and f5.6 can also be the difference between iso200 and iso 800 when you are pressed for light, though it may not be good to shoot iso 800 too often it can make a shot useable rather than blurred .
Is there anyone out there who uses the 17-55 2.8 Nikon lens for weddings ? A while ago a sports photographer told me it is an extremely sharp lens . If it is that good then it could be an arguement for a small zoom rather than primes .
btw , I also have the Tamron 28-75 2.8 di if anyone has any comments on that .