Prime lens for Wedding Procession? If so, which ones?

<p>Hello,<br /><br />I am just wondering what the majority of you use for the procession (wedding party entrance). I've always have used a 17-50mm 2.8. On a crop it allows me to quickly switch from a wide to medium telephoto with no issues. The lens I currently use though isn't as sharp as the primes I use the rest of the day. I know I've seen comments from photographers who only use primes and I was just wondering how it worked for them?<br /><br />Also I have a habit of only shoot portrait orientation as everyone walks down. In your own opinion, is this wrong?<br /><br />Also anyone who can share a prime only procession would be great!<br /><br />Thanks everyone for your help.</p>

<p>I don't use primes for their sharpness as zoom lenses are very sharp nowadays. I use primes for the shallow DOF and their low light performance. So the primes I use are 35 f1.4, 85 f1.2 and 135 f2.0.</p>

<p>If you are going to shoot w/ primes for the procession, you would be best advised to shoot with two cameras (which will get you in a boatload of trouble if you aren't coordinated in their use). Maybe mount a 35 on one and an 85 on the other? It's up to you of course, but I've done that before, and I was never as happy with the loss of compositional options as I was with increased absolute IQ (especially given how small that improvement was. The shallow DOF can give dramatic effects, but it can also backfire if you aren't working rapidly enough (especially for the processional.</p>

<p>As far as the portrait vs. landscape? You're not wrong, most processional stuff is portrait... I usually only go landscape when I'm trying to add a sense of scale by going really wide. meh but that's me. There really is no wrong answer, as long as the images are exposed and focused (the potential flaw with shooting shallow DOF during a procession). I always like to mix it up a bit though... and that's a lot harder to do when you can't zoom.</p>

<p>When I shot weddings I used mainly primes, but I usually used a zoom for that part. It happens pretty quickly and zooms allowed me to get a nice range of shots without zooming with my feet. <br>

Location and lighting often dictates lens selection, you don't know until you see the spot.</p>

<p>Kennedy,<br>

There are lots of things to think about here. I am quite sure there is no one right answer.</p>

<ol>

<li>For years I shot primes only, but I recently went full-frame (Sony A99) and the last wedding I did, although I have a kit full of very good primes, I decided to use an excellent 24-70 f/2.8 zoom (roughly equivalent to 17-50 on an APS-C body). The other body I was carrying had an 85mm prime, for a little more reach. It was an outdoor wedding and I was able to get pretty close to the action.</li>

<li>Part of the reason I decided in favor of the 24-70 zoom is that I wasn't sure how things were going to work out — where I'd be able to stand, etc. If the wedding had been in a church, and if there'd been a rehearsal the night before and I knew exactly what was going to happen, I might have used a faster prime instead — say, a 50 f/1.4 (roughly = 35mm on APS-C).</li>

<li>During the procession, you don't usually have much time to shoot. With me, it takes maybe 2 seconds. Shooting primes I would try to place myself <em>just in the right </em>place. If I made a mistake, well, I didn't have time to "zoom with my feet" so I'd take whatever shot I had and that would be it. With a zoom I have a little bit of quick last-second flexibility.</li>

<li>I generally take my photos at the very back of the church, just as the subjects are entering, so I'm close. I'm <em>not</em> standing up at the altar. Thus, a "normal" focal length is called for and I would try to use it at a distance from the subjects that allowed me to capture the subjects head to toe. When I was shooting APS-C I'm pretty sure that 35mm was my favorite focal length here, but I think I used 28 and even 50 at time.</li>

<li>Shooting events with primes, I would <em>always</em> work with two cameras, each of which had a different focal length lens. Actually I was working with two cameras last weekend even though one of them was a zoom. I like working with two cameras, but there are hazards (for example, choking risk!), it's a lot to carry around. But with two primes ready to go I have some options. And with two cameras hanging off me, I have a backup <em>right there</em> in case of camera failure. I've had cameras fail on me, although not while I'm actually shooting an event. </li>

</ol>

<p>Anyway, my basic advice would be: Work with your 17-50 f/2.8 a bit more. I don't know of any bad lenses with those specs. I certainly don't know of every lens that's out there, so of course it's possible yours is mediocre; but fixed aperture lenses tend to be well made. Possibly yours is slightly misaligned (back focus, front focus)? Or perhaps there's some slight problem in the way you're shooting? I'd try some tests at, say, f/3.5 or f/4, and <em>focus manually</em>, and see what you get. My best is, if you don't shoot wide open and if you focus manually and carefully, you can get sharper results than you realized.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>17 to 50 is a wide to normal. For processional work you don't need any wider than 24 and that is pretty wide. The 17 is going to give you distortion problems and you will be tempted to zoom out wider than you need. I would go with a 24 to 105 zoom which is a good workhorse lens for weddings. No one will say why didn't you use a prime lens? You got one chance to get the procession so why constrain yourself with a prime lens. Once they are at the alter or under the huppah you can then play with primes and be as creative as you want. I love primes just as much as the next guy and there are many times to use them effectively but my experience would say the procession is not one of those times.</p>

<p>[Full-disclosure: I've yet to shoot my first wedding as a primary.]</p>

<p>I was planning to shoot the processional using two FX bodies, with 85mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 primes. I tried this set-up last night. I shot the first frames with the 85mm in portrait orientation, switched to the second body, and shot several more at 35mm in landscape orientation. It seems I was able to switch bodies quickly enough.</p>

<p>My reasoning (rightly or wrongly) is, I figured that the two-shot processionals would be preferred by most in portrait orientation, while the 35mm full-length shots would play better as an environment shot. However, when framing a full-length, two-shot with the 35mm (landscape), the couple would close in pretty fast (hopefully I can back-peddle for a few feet), so I began to consider using my 24mm f/1.4 instead--just to give me a bit more breathing room. Actually, I think 28mm would be the better focal length for shooting full-length shots in this application, since the 35mm allows you little margin for error, and the 24mm is a bit too wide.</p>

<p>Now, although I'm planning to cover most of the wedding with primarily just these two primes: 85mm, 35mm-- it's the processional/recessional, and the ceremony itself, where I am considering zooms instead. I have a 24-120mm f4.0 VR I was planning as an alternative to the primes for the processionals. I know it's slow, but I was going to iris down to f/4.0-f/5.6 anyway (presuming I'm flash-fired at this point) for the precessional for a bit more depth-of-field. Even though I'm down at f/4.0, I was still planning to drag the shutter a bit to expose for the ambient--so the VR does come in handy for that.</p>

For the procession I shoot with two full frame bodies. One has the 85L and the other will have the 16-35L. I'll start by

using the 85 when they're far away and I can fit them in the frame and continue shooting with with it as I get more close

up type shots. These will all pretty much be vertical pictures. If there are any kids in the wedding I'll shoot with the 85

and when they're close I'll switch to the body with the 16-35. When the bride comes down I'll shoot the same as the kids

except I might shoot a couple horizontal images as the bride first steps into the main area. All of these images are shot

using continuous focus.

<p>Ken said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For the procession I shoot with two full frame bodies. One has the 85L and the other will have the 16-35L.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for posting that, since coupling an 85mm and a shorter zoom was another option I was considering for the processional (although, I was hoping to get away with shooting just two primes for most of the day--the 85mm/35mm combo). The Nikon versions which fall in this range are the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4.0 VR, or the faster Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>You need to see the venue and the setting before you can pick your lenses. This is going it <strong>completely backwards</strong> IMO.<br>

I have used everything from a 24/1.4 to a 70-200 2.8 IS for this part of the day. Sometimes you will need flash, sometimes not. Sometimes you can bounce, sometimes you can't. Wedding photography actually requires a lot of skill and being able to make extremely quick decisions on the day. You <strong>have to</strong> get the shot, there is no other option. Making preprogrammed lens choices based on what people on the internet think is a recipe for failure IMO.</p>

<p>Ian said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wedding photography actually requires a lot of skill and being able to make extremely quick decisions on the day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly, the final decision will be confirmed on the day, under actual conditions (estimated, on the rehearsal/location scout). This will only take a moment to make this decision once the location has been scouted, or actual conditions are seen.<br /> <br /> But for beginning wedding shooters like me, I have no other option than to plan "backwards." I have very specific lens choices in mind for every other set-up--it's the procession and ceremony I'm still considering, since it's such a must-get shot, and the conditions, so highly variable. Exploring plan 'A' plan 'B' and plan 'C' beforehand seems a prudent approach.</p>

<p>That said, I know that a short zoom (17-35mm), or short to mid-tele zoom (24-70mm/24-120mm) will offer the shooter the most latitude, and the most usable "walking" time, for capturing head-to-toe couples' shots during the processional. Though, you're right, whether I have primes or zooms mounted on my bodies won't finally be determined until I see the location.</p>

<p>By the way, I found everyone's replies in this thread very helpful. Thank you!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am just wondering what the majority of you use for the procession (wedding party entrance).</p>

</blockquote>

<p> For the last several years, I would generally use a Zoom: specifically an EF16 to 35/2.8 on an APS-C body.<br>

I carried two cameras most of the day and always for the Processional and Recessional: the second camera was a 5D or 5DMkII – generally, for the Processional and Recessional, the 5D would have a 35/1.4 Prime on it.<br>

Both cameras would be loaded with a 580.<br>

The reason that I would ALWAYS carried two cameras for the Processional and Recessional, is that these are two phases of the day which is very difficult to recreate if one camera/flash /lens, fails. </p>

<p>***</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know I've seen comments from photographers who only use primes and I was just wondering how it worked for them?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I used to – but with the quality of Zoom Lenses today (recently), I found using a zoom much easier - since about the mid 1990’s.<br>

USUALLY, the only times I’d swap back to a Prime (for the main working lens) is if the Church did NOT allow Flash (unusual in my area for the Processional, but I have come across it) and I needed the extra Aperture Speed.<br>

In these cases, I would choose a slightly wider Prime, for safety (obviously there’d be a point where one cannot back up any further) – a 35/1.4 of a “Full Frame” body would be my usual choice in this case and I’d probably have a fast 50mm Prime on the other camera and make that other camera another FF camera. You could use a fast 24 on an APS-C body, but I didn’t buy a 24/1.4 until around 2007 (I think). </p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br />Also I have a habit of only shoot portrait orientation as everyone walks down. In your own opinion, is this wrong?<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO yes.<br>

It is wrong, because of the words: “habit” and “only” – what you wrote implies that your thinking and your approach is limited and also prescribed.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>I agree with what Ian wrote: It’s not a good idea to make pre-programmed lens choices . . . and it’s also not a good idea to have “habits” which limit your thinking.</p>

<p>To expand on this point: I’ve mentioned above that I would <strong><em>generally</em></strong> use a 16 to 35 on an APS-C and have a fast 35 on a Full Frame - the two cameras I’d carry for the Processional. So therefore I would (<em><strong>usually</strong></em>) have no Telephoto Lens mounted on either camera, during the Processional.<br>

And you mentioned that you have an habit of shooting only Portrait Orientation . . .<br>

In the recent “Wedding Emotions Competition”, <a href="/photo/16542743&size=lg">this image captured my eye</a> . . . My guess is that Eric had a 24 to 70/2.8 loaded on the 5D. He pulled the shot at FL = 70mm and shot in Landscape Orientation – bloody good shot, IMO. The point is you have to adapt to the situation and have the gear there and make choices on the day. </p>

<p>WW </p>

<p>On thing needs to be addressed here is the style in which people shoot as well as what are the lighting condition or location the ceremony. Some are all giving opinions but not really giving the circumstances surrounding why they choose to use the lens. For example, I shoot 99% of my weddings in hotels and about 15% in an actual church or synagog. What does that mean? It means that my ceremonies have very low light levels and all lit by tungsten lighting. I have to light the room with flash and then use an on camera flash. I have no need for 1.2, 1.4, 2.8 lenses for the actual procession. Now i do have all those prime lenses and i use them after i do the bread and butter shots. I prefere to use the 24 to 105 f4 because #1 i shoot at f8 and #2 I like to recompose (zoom in) at various points during the procession. Using two cameras with primes is not an option for me. Now if I was the second shooter then heck ya I would do it to compliment the flash shots.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of the input everyone.<br /><br />In this case i was concerned mainly beczuse the church i was shooting in was very dark. I was shooting down from the front of the ailse and in this case i also decided to go with two bodies. My setup for the precession was 7D with Sigma 35mm 1.4 and a 40D with tamron 17-50 2.8<br /><br /><br /><br />For this situation the 2.8 just isn't grabbing enough light especially for moving subjects. The 35 prime was the right call in this case. I know i need to upgrade my second body but i honestly don't know what I would have done with out it today. I'm glad to see that this also is in line with everyone's suggestions.<br /><br />So if i stumbled upon a some money and bought a FF body and i found my self in this situation again. For a FF & crop either with the 35mm what would be you next choice of lens?<br /><br />(I also own 100mm F2 and a 70-200 F4 IS)</p>

<p>Hi Kenny i would like to see those procession pictures with the 35mm with no flash. Were you hired to do this? Were you the only photographer? The studios i work for would die if i shot that available light at 1600iso or higher or even wide open. lol </p>

<p><strong><em>IF</em></strong> you only had those four lenses and those two bodies <strong><em>AND</em></strong> you could<strong><em> NOT</em></strong> use flash, then the logical technical choice would be to go for the fastest/widest lens on the body with the best High-ISO capacity. In the case you outlined, that would have been the 35/1.4 and the 7D.</p>

<p>As I mentioned, I would have liked a wider lens (a 24mm) on a 7D: but using a 35mm lens on a 7D the same logic applies apropos shooting a bit wider than normally I would choose. Shooting a bit wider and then cropping in PP allows one to leverage and squeeze a tad more DoF out of each shot, when shooting at very large apertures.</p>

<p>Another consideration is to be aware that “front on” shots, (as opposed to side on shots), will allow the leverage of using of the SLOWEST Shutter Speed whilst recording the least amount of obvious SUBJECT MOVEMENT in that Shot.</p>

<p>In any case when shooting the Processional (or Recessional) using only Available Light, the Timing of the Shot is critical: and the key body parts to watch are: the head; the hands and the feet – it is usually fortunate if the Bride and Bridesmaids have long Gowns.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>It is unfortunate and also very challenging if it is absolutely necessary to shoot the Processional in a Dark Church with only Available Light.</p>

<p>In these cases I have always attempted negotiation with “the boss” – which is the Officiating Priest / Rector / Minister: and usually (mostly always), I have gotten my way – but I stress it is essential to negotiate with “the boss” and not a Church Warden, Curate, or Church Layperson.</p>

<p>A portion of providing an effective Wedding Photography Product is good People Management and Preparedness. The ‘heads up’ for a “No-Flash Processional” would have most usually been fleshed out at my initial meeting with the Bride & Groom.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Michael said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[One] thing needs to be addressed here is the style in which people shoot as well as what are the lighting condition or location the ceremony. Some are all giving opinions but not really giving the circumstances surrounding why they choose to use the lens . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point, and a very informative post!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I [prefer] to use the 24 to 105 f4 because #1 i shoot at f8 and #2 I like to recompose (zoom in) at various points during the procession . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's good to hear since I was thinking of using my Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0 VR (flash-fired w/Quantum Turbo) for the procession instead of the two primes. I was planning to iris at f/4.0- f/5.6 to also try to expose for some ambient by dragging the shutter.</p>

<p>Ralph I always light the ceremony (background) with an additional flashes so there is no need to drag. I also don't drag the shutter as a rule during the bread and butter shots as not to have any ghosting or movement. Once the main shots are done then yes i do experiment with dragging the shutter. In the past i have had too many pictures ruined because of dragging the shutter. I now set my shutter to 100 sec minimum. Now...if i am using only an on camera flash and i want the background brighter..I simply increase the ISO in the same manner as dragging the shutter, all the while my 100 sec shutter speed stays constant and sharp pictures assured. </p>

<p>Michael said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph I always light the ceremony (background) with an additional flashes so there is no need to drag. I also don't drag the shutter as a rule during the bread and butter shots as not to have any ghosting or movement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah! Yes, excellent advice! I was always planning to rig background flashes for the reception, but didn't think to do it at the ceremony for the processional. Thanks for sharing your insight, and detailing your technique--much appreciated!</p>

<p>A couple of observations<br>

1. Today zooms are for all practical purposes in this environment are as sharp as prime lens. I typically use my 24-70 f2.8 Nikkor. I would add that I sort of believe that the higher ISO requirements in this environment already compromise sharpness.<br>

2. Depth of field and sharpness of a prime at 1.4 or 1.8 are forboding particularly with moving subjects With primes at 1.4 or 1.8 you had better be tact on!!. <br>

3. My recommendation is to add bounced flash to help out a bit.</p>

<p>The trick to good processionals is not to get to tricky with them. Keep it as simple as possible, and concentrate on capturing the right moment(s). Content trumps getting overly creative, or more complicated with these type shots. They are MUST haves, so I do not tempt fate. </p>

<p>24-70 zoom. <strong>Always.</strong> It allows more than one shot of each processional subject as they advance toward you.</p>

 

<p>I've never once <strong>not</strong> been able to use flash for the processionals and recessionals, so I use on-camera flash. <strong>Always</strong>. It avoids raccoon eyed Brides in poorer downward directional ambient.</p>

<p>Portrait or landscape orientation is often determined by what is in the background. However, with the resolution of todays cameras and the high ISO performance, I almost <strong>always</strong> shoot landscape to include the guests on either side including adoring parents and star struck little girls, etc. Then I can crop to portrait if I wish.</p>

<p> </p>

<p >Michael said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p >. . . shutter speed stays constant and sharp pictures assured.</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Yup! I try to keep mine at 1/160th or above. I like your approach, since it's pretty fail-proof for these one-time, must-get shots. I think I'm ditching the primes for the processional/recessional, and mounting my flash-fired Nikkor 24-120mm f/4.0 VR instead--much safer. I'll fire my bracket-mounted SB-800 as the primary, and if practical, supplement the environment with PocketWizard-triggered ancillary strobes (directed primarily as backlight/rims for the attendees). Thanks again for your advice!</p>

<p>Marc said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Content trumps getting overly creative . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup . . . I'm quickly realizing this is no time get artsy. Good exposure, and sharp focus is all most will care about for these shots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Portrait or landscape orientation is often determined by what is in the background.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's how I initially thought to approach it. If the wide shot looks good in landscape (sometimes it won't), I'm more inclined to shoot landscape for the full-length wide shots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, with the resolution of todays cameras and the high ISO performance, I almost <strong>always</strong> shoot landscape to include the guests on either side including adoring parents and star struck little girls, etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that was my thinking as well . . . of course, if the ceiling happens to look incredibly good in the frame, I'll shoot a vertical. My plan was to nail the "requisite" verticals on the tele shots, then shoot the majority of wides in landscape so that I can also include the guests. Reading your post now makes me more confident in that approach.<br /> <br /> Thanks again, Marc, for your very helpful comments!</p>

<p>Whoa! Cool bikini chicks, Steven!</p>

 

<p>I agree with Michael - I use either the 18-55 EF-S or the 17-85EF-S lens on either my 40D or my 7D. I don't go 'wider' than 24 to avoid distortion problems. I too would go with a 24 to 105 (or 135) zoom which is a good workhorse lens for weddings.<br>

You usually get one chance to get the procession - why limit yourself with a single focal length prime lens?.<br>

Once at the alter or under the canopy - you can then play with primes and be as creative as you want. I love primes as much as anyone - and there are many times to use them effectively - and in my experience - I think the procession is not one of those times.<br>

Good luck and happy shooting!<br>

Derek</p>