Zooms & Wide Angles Are No Good....

.....UNLESS you know how to use them.

 

I often see questions or opinions regarding the need for certain zooms or wide

angle (WA) lenses to fill holes/gaps in someones equipment line-up. But as

someone on a recent thread emphasized, (paraphrasing here) you've got to learn

how to deal with that 2.8 DOF on a 70-200. It made me think of the even more

difficult learning curve in effectively using wide angle lenses (say 24mm on

down). I'm still battling the challenge and have a whole slew of 'flat',

undynamic, boring, two dimensional shots to prove it. Having these zooms and

WA lenses does not make the photographer. You've got to know how to use

them. I'd venture to guess that a talented/skilled wedding photographer could

much more effectively cover a wedding with a single 50mm/1.4 - on a full frame

camera - than the hacks like me with all the gear. That might be a reach, but

I wouldn't bet against it. The talent and skill is knowing how to create.

 

Where/how to learn WA? Not quite sure, but good landscape photographers

certainly know how to use them and there are a zillion and one of those types

of pic's on line. And the good ones usually have something prominent in the

immediate foreground. Maybe just a silly observation on my part. And Zooms

you ask....., probably an easier learning curve. Again, learning the vagaries

of that shallow DOF is likely the biggest thing. But don't forget the Minimum

Focus Distance on those type of lenses. I've got plenty of blurry shots from

my Sigma 70-200. Not because of shallow DOF, but because I was only 4 or 5

feet away when I shot instead of the needed minimum of 6ft on the sigma

(usually 5ft on canon,nikon) - amazing what difference a foot makes. Silly

me. My guess is that a B&G might not want to stop walking down the aisle out

of respect to ones Minimum Focus Distance.

 

That's all. I'll stop now

of course gear doesn't make the photographer. but I would rather walk into a wedding with some 2.8 superwide, normal and long zooms than a 50mm 1.4.

 

I remember when I was starting out in photography with Olympus Zuiko prime lenses, I couldn't previsualize an image and select the right focal length. I eventually have 28, 35, 50, and 135mm zuiko lenses, but it took me a few years before I could connect what I wanted an image to look like with a particular focal length.

 

come on now, DOF at 2.8 isn't that bad. try 1.2 - that is difficult to focus sometimes.

 

and if you get blurry shots b/c you are inside the minimum focusing distance, then you really don't know how to use your lenses! it should be pretty obvious when it is OOF.

 

plus, a 70-200 is only appropriate for a processional on a full frame body, IMHO. otherwise too long. 28-70 much better.<div></div>

I use the Nikon kit 18-70 for 90% of my work.

Back in the '70s zooms produced images so inferior to primes that they were not worth the money. I used 24,35 and 85mm lenses. It wasn't until the late '80s when I got a 50mm.

 

But today Zooms are very good. And for their problems, like distortions, there is Photoshop. Small price to pay for the flexibility.

I use a 50 on my 20D and 28-70 on my main 5D. Even with 28 it's sometimes where you have to get right back knowing that you not going to blow this one up! I was always taught 'don't zoom, move'. So most of the time my 5D is around 50 and I walk! I like it though becaue you can play with the DOF on close ups and still be able to get a general shot instantly. I also use a 28 135 when the weather is good.

Funny, I have a 14mm on the way for my 5D... :)

David, color me silly, but what is your question?

David Wegwart, does every thread have to start with a question? Perhaps "post a question" should read "post a question/comment".

Conrad, I was checking out your site the other day and you're the type that would do better with a single 50/1.4 on a full frame than I would with all my kit. Of course you'd prefer to be fully armed, but if pressed into action you'd come out of it with a lot of quality pictures and an overall competent result.

 

Ken, chances are that you already know how to use a 14mm even if you've never shot with one, but perhaps more importantly you probably know when and why to use it.

 

Mr. Wegwart........, I honestly chuckled when I read your response. And the honest answer is that I'm too ignorant to ask an intelligient question; so, I just 'pass go' straight to thinking out loud for good or ill. That aside, I chose to raise a point rather than pose a question. The point partly being that many suggestions from the pro's/more-knowledgeable often leapfrog fundamental issues that lead those less-knowledgeable to think that it's the equipment that makes a pro. The use of equipment by the pro's is often so second nature that they forget the skill actually needed to properly use it. Lighting/Flash is probably the best example, but the use of lenses is very often overlooked. As an amateur, I'm painfully aware how difficult it is to use a 24mm effectively (on full-frame). I've gotten better with it but I certainly remember how difficult it was to get a decent shot. In fact I'm willing to go out on the limb (here I go again) and venture that most amateurs will get decent results 60-70% of the time with a 70-200mm, 40-50% of the time with a 50mm, and no more than 20% of the time with a 24mm - from there forget it, only pure luck will help. Now, those 'keeper' rates are largely guesswork for the sake of arguement but the suggestion is in the trend. I'd love to hear what others thought about those 'keeper' rate percentages.

 

happily amateurish,

David

I'm a pro and shoot upwards of 10,000 frames a month. My "keeper" rate goes down the longer the lens is. I.E. more keepers with a wide and less with a telephoto. It has nothing to do with composition, but with camera shake. Many times I'm pushing the limits of available light, which requires a long shutter speed. The longer the lens, the greater the magnification, the greater the chance of visable camera shake. I get more "keeper" shots shooting a 28mm at 1.4 than I do an 85mm at 1.4 for any given shutter speed.

"In fact I'm willing to go out on the limb (here I go again) and venture that most amateurs will get decent results 60-70% of the time with a 70-200mm, 40-50% of the time with a 50mm, and no more than 20% of the time with a 24mm - from there forget it, only pure luck will help."

 

What most amateurs consider a "keeper" is NOT what most professionals would consider a "keeper".

 

Professional "keepers" are usually a much smaller percentage-depending on the circumstances, obviously.

 

Part of being a "Pro" is knowing the difference.

 

However, it hasn't much of anything at all to with what lens (or camera or flash or anything) is being used.

 

Its a matter of expectations (among other reasons).

 

These are just my opinions, and worth all the electrons use to express them.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I read and re-read your OP and then wanted to contribute, but felt silly not really understanding if you wanted an answer.

 

So, are you saying that the less experienced photog. cannot effectively use a WA (wider than say 28mm) and get keeper shots?

 

I know what you mean, but I think that may simply be that they lack confidence. Meaning that when you have that confidence, you are far more willing to 'step in' or 'get in close'. One famous person was once quoted as saying "if your subject doesn't fill the frame, you're not close enough". Not the exact quote I dare say, but you get the point.

 

Personally, I don't feel the need to 'fill' the frame, but I am happy to stand virtually toe to toe with my subject to get the shot. This is esp. true when the dancing starts. I am even know to 'move' a little to mix in. So, with that in mind keep working on the WA lenses, they are my most used when compared to the 70-200.

 

Some ideas for the use of WA. Get in close (already said that one), get up high, get down low, change perspective, use sun for flare, play the distortion game (big head small feet, etc.) and so forth.

 

Have fun with it too, this is a less serious lens selection thant the tele's. IMO.

 

Best, D.

Greg, cool answer. Makes total sense. Admittedly, my thesis had a bias toward the difficulty of composition without any consideration given to focus or camera shake. Obviously, your real-world experience speaks volumes about one of the challenges faced by wedding photogs. But to continue my thought...... I think most amateurs, handed a 70-200mm for the first time, will unconsciously fill the frame better than they ever would with a 24mm. Hence my 'keeper rate' assumption/speculation. They take one look at that head shot with a bit of bokeh from the 200mm and they think it's time to hang out their shingle. The results from the 24mm are likely much more mixed compositionally. They won't be able to put a finger on it but there just won't be any drama or anything dynamic about the shots.

 

Keep in mind I'm addressing the problem faced by those who aren't already out there shooting weddings, but thinking about it. Having the gear is only part of the equation. You've got to know how to use it. And from my experience getting good results from the Wides (again, from a composition standpoint) is more difficult.

 

Eric, the issue of 'keeper's should probably have its own thread. Personally I'm brutal on myself. If I get 1 or 2 keepers per roll of 36 (yes I'm still shooting neg. 35mm) I'm tickled. Often it's less than that. But than again I've found it has more to do with shooting environment. A good setting with good light will yield many keepers. Bad light and that number shrinks quickly. Bad light AND bad setting/subject......well, I'd be better off just trying to extract the silver from the film for anything of value.

D.Wegwart, I think the point you bring up about being "happy to stand virtually toe to toe with your subject" is actually the type feedback or advice that the unknowing need. In fact, I'd bet that it's a skill underappreciated by those wanting to "make the jump". Personally I don't know if I could do it. I don't like to impose. Can you imagine what future I'd have.

I think wide-angles are far more difficult than telephoto's. Telephotos you simply point at your subject, worry about aperture, shoot, and the telephoto isolates your subject, fills the entire frame with said subject, and anything competing with the subject is usually not included or blurred. Telephoto's are very easy, except for camera shake being more prevalent as mentioned.

 

A wide angle brings more difficulty. Almost everything is in focus. Take for example, a picture of the bride & groom at the head table. A telephoto you can go to the table and snap off a photo of just the bride & groom filling the frame eliminating everything else. A wide angle you'll get their dinner plates, the beer bottles, the people on the left & right, the trash, doesn't work as easy. Wide angles outside you get the power lines in focus, cars, trash, signs, etc. The secret with wide-angles is most often to have a single subject and have all the background elements supporting that subject. Most try to get this, and that in there, and also that, and this, thinking a photo with a bunch of things compounds the interest of the photo. Or, they combine elements where the subject has nothing to do with the background. Instead, take seperate picture of each item and try to isolate the subject. The big thing in the front is usually the subject since, there usually needs to be one, and wide-angles emphasize distance it's hard to have a subject not in the front be the subject. Once you know what your subject is, you need to work on having the background support the subject, not compete or clash with it. If you can tell a story with a wide-angle photo you've usually got a winner. Find a toy you like, stick it on the ground in front of a playground with kids playing, snap a photo during the golden hour with them slightly blurry and you've got yourself a winner wide-angle photo because the background supports the subject, and your photograph tells a story. Put that toy in your lawn and take a photo of it with your neighbors house or your car as the background there IS no story. That's the secret with wide-angles... think I want to take a picture with this rock as my subject... now how can I tell a story with it, what things will add or subtract from my subject. And, one important thing is light is always a great story... work on making sure you have the light.

Interesting discussion. I said that my "keeper" rate is higher with a wide angle (less noticable camera shake), but I failed to mention I use the tele maybe 4 times as much as the super-wide. Reason is, as mentioned above, that there are less times the shot will look interesting with a real wide angle lens. You have many more elements that enter the composition of the picture. Most of the time it is something you don't want, like a big exit sign, or a table, even a window, something to throw off the composition.

 

When faced with that, the answer is simple. Don't take the picture. That's why I seldom use a very wide lens. A shot or two to establish where you are (like showing the interiorof the room the bride is getting ready in) is nice, or the outside of the church, etc.

 

I do use a 28mm or 35mm (on film camera) quite a bit, becuse it is easy to compose a shot of two people talking, or the cake and the B&G, a full length vertical of the couple dancing, that kind of thing. But super wide, don't use very often.

Think in layers of subject matter before clicking and the wide zoom can come alive.