Wedding photography with 50mm lens.

<p>A friend of mine has asked me to photograph her wedding. I am not a professional, but I've been told I take nice photos. Recently my equipment was stolen. I have a Nikon DX frame (1.5x mag factor) DSLR and a 50mm. 1.4 AF prime lens. No flash other than the built in camera flash for some fill.<br>

Do you think it is possible to cover an outdoor wedding (afternoon) with a 50mm lens. The wedding will be be fairly small (~10-20 guests). I would step back to get group shots since I dont have a wide angle lens. Obviously the super wide angle shots will not be possible.<br>

Thoughts? Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>There's stepping back, and there's stepping back for group shots with a 50mm lens on a DX body. You could find yourself needing to be over 30 feet away. The real issue then is going to be your ability to communicate with your subjects without shouting at them. Especially if there's music playing, etc. <br /><br />If you're working outdoors in passable light, you could greatly improve your options by just getting your hands on any of the 18-50/70/105 kit lenses. Perhaps $100 or so, at most? One of those would seem like very cheap insurance against the limitations of having only a 50mm lens for social shooting on a DX body.<br /><br />Any chance of picking up an SB-600, or at least renting one? Your pop-up strobe is only barely serviceable for fill. Which camera body do you have available? Sorry to hear about the theft of your gear.</p>

<p>Let me start with the basic warnings. (1) Don't do this. It looks easy but it's not, and not only is it harder to get good results that you can imagine, it's also rather stressful. (2) You shouldn't even think about shooting a wedding if you don't have a backup camera. (3) If you expect to have to take any flash photos, be aware that the results you'll get with your on-camera flash are simply not going to be very appealing. </p>

<p>OK, got that out of my system. You are free to ignore all three warnings. If it's a very tiny wedding, if the bride and groom know that you aren't a pro and simply can't afford somebody with experience, if they really truly are willing to be happy with whatever you come up with, then go for it. </p>

<p>*</p>

<p>Now, to your question. The basic answer is, yes, you can shoot a wedding with a 50mm lens.</p>

<p>Your 50mm lens is fast (f/1.4). Sounds like the wedding will be outdoors in good light, and if that's true, perhaps the speed won't matter as far as light is concerned, but the wide aperture will help you get narrow depth of field if you want it. So far so good.</p>

<p>However, be aware that, on your camera, a 50mm lens is a near telephoto lens. You should practice a little with it and see what you think. If you are outside and have sufficient room to maneuver, it might be just fine. Just be aware that, to take a group photo, you may have to step back 25-30 ft. You won't just be missing the "super wide angle shots," you'll be missing ANY wide angle shots. A shot of the entire congregation will be possible if you can step away. If you want to take shots inside the dressing room, well, that may be difficult without something more normal. (In the dressing room, or for that matter any time I'm closer to the subjects, I prefer to go with a 28 or even a 21.)</p>

<p>I shoot almost exclusively with prime lenses myself, but I take a range of lenses with me to a wedding, picking at least three or four from the lenses I have (21, 28, 35, 40, 50, 70, 105...). And I take a couple of zooms just in case. If I had to shoot a wedding using just one prime, I'd probably prefer to use my 40 rather than my 50, even though the 40 only goes to f/2.8, while my 50 goes to f/1.4 like yours. (My Pentax cameras have the same "crop factor" as your Nikon: 1.5x.) But I could do it with the 50 in a pinch.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>Actually, I'll be using a Fuji Finepix S3 Pro. I have access to a manual focus 35mm 1.4 and a manual focus 85mm lens.<br>

I do have an old Tamron 20-40mm f2.7-3.5 AF which has never given me tack sharp images...so I'm leaving that at home.</p>

<p>Thanks for your advice.<br /></p>

<p>Phineas,</p>

<p>Why did you all of a sudden switch equipment. You didn't specify this other equipment in the OP. What happened to the 50mm lens and Nikon DX body?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, I'll be using a Fuji Finepix S3 Pro. I have access to a manual focus 35mm 1.4 and a manual focus 85mm lens. I do have an old Tamron 20-40mm f2.7-3.5 AF which has never given me tack sharp images...so I'm leaving that at home.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Like Ryan, I'm a little confused by the change in info here. You didn't mention this stuff in your original post, and now you're not mentioning the Nikon + 50mm. When you mentioned the Nikon, were you simply thinking about the Fuji's sensor size (which I gather = the Nikon's) and the fact that the Fuji uses a Nikon lens mount? </p>

<p>Anyway, couple comments on the new info.</p>

<p>The Fuji Finepix S3 Pro, from what I can tell, is a 6MP camera. That's okay, if a bit small by today's standards.</p>

<p>The two lenses you mention now—35 f/14 and 85—make a fairly nice pair of primes for shooting a wedding. But there are two problems. </p>

<p>I'm not really sure now, but I'm guessing you still have just 1 body. That's a problem. I shoot with a least 2 bodies, and I'd have the 35 on one body and the 85 on the other (if I were shooting with those 2 lenses). That way I could simply switch bodies as I needed. But you will have to make a decision about what lens to use for a while and kind of stick with it. Changing lenses too frequently is a time waster and also risks getting dust into the camera. So the first problem is, if you do have just 1 body, having 2 prime lenses, even good ones, isn't going to be as useful as having just 1 zoom.</p>

<p>The other problem is the manual focus. Now, perhaps this isn't a problem. If you have used these lenses a lot and you happen to be good at fast manual focus, then you have my admiration, indeed, I'm a bit jealous, because I myself am not good at this any more. I manual focus only when I'm shooting portraits or macro or something else where I'm not rushed or pressured. Otherwise I rely on autofocus. I tried using manual focus a while ago shooting sports, and the results were awful. It's certainly POSSIBLE to do this with manual focus lenses. But if you aren't already an ace at manual focus, then either (a) PRACTICE as much as you can before the wedding, and/or (b) take your time when shooting, accept that you'll miss a lot of shots, but take the trouble to confirm the focus before you click the shutter.</p>

<p>As for the Tamron 20-40, that's a pretty good focal range for this job, not as good as, say, 18-55, but not bad. And if it's an outdoor wedding, that aperture range (f/2.7 -3.5) isn't bad either. I think "tack sharp" is overrated. Look back through the history of photography: few of the greatest photos in history are really "tack sharp." Now, if the lens sucks, it sucks. And I too prefer high-quality lenses—that's one of the reasons I use only primes. But I would not hesitate to use a pretty good zoom lens instead of a really good prime, if the zoom allowed me to get the shots I needed to get, and the prime didn't. So you have a choice to make there.</p>

<p>As I said, good luck.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>I second the multiple bodies comment as well as the 6mp limitation of the Fuji camera. I would suggest a couple of things:</p>

<p>1) If you still have the Nikon and 50mm lense, USE IT! You can still use the Fuji camera on the side, but the Nikon will produce better results (newer technology, better focus, more MP, etc).</p>

<p>2) Ask the people paying for the photos how large they would like to be able to print. A 6mp camera just will not print as well as the Nikon. 6 mp isn't bad, but it does not look as good as when it is printed really large. If they just want 5x7's then it should work fine.</p>

<p>Ryan,</p>

<p>I agree with your followup completely. But I'm not sure he actually has a Nikon at all. He just said he had a "Nikon DX frame" DSLR. He didn't specify a model. The Fuji uses a Nikon F-mount (or so I understand from the page on the Fuji at Amazon.com). I suspect he was simply saying that he had a Nikon-mount camera with the Nikon DX 24x16mm sensor format.</p>

<p>Although if I'm right about the camera, then I'm not sure what happened to the 50mm lens...</p>

<p>Will </p>

<p>My father used to do weddings with a Rolleiflex and a Rolleicord - both with standard focal length lenses. So yes, it's nice to have options but it can be done with just one focal length.... or three... or however many lenses the o.p. has now.</p>

<p>You can cover a wedding well with any gear, if you are skilled. Not having a wide angle and flash will just make it less convenient, and may have consequences re the final set of images. Whether those consequences mean much to you or the couple is not something we as professional wedding photographers can decide for you.</p>

<p>For instance, you may be lucky and there will be lots of nice, even shade all around. If so, you will be able to get lovely images without needing flash or anything else. The bride may not care about large group shots, there might not be any music playing, and you have the 20-30 feet you'll need for a full length shot of up to 4-6 people (in that nice, even shade). You may have lots of time to get your shots. None of your gear breaks. If all of this happens, you will not need anything else beyond what you have there.</p>

<p>Part of the reason wedding photographers have a variety of tools, and back ups, is because they must be prepared for anything--and more often than not, the conditions we face are adverse--if not completely adverse, at least partially adverse (at a time). So up to you whether you want to take the chance that everything will work in your favor, and it might, or might not.</p>

<p>Steve Smith--yes, Rolleis were used all the time for weddings, but the normal lens could be easily used for group shots (maybe a subject distance of about 10-12 feet). A normal lens on a Rollei is 80mm, on a 35mm full frame, it is 50mm. The 50mm on Phineas' camera (cropped sensor) is equivalent to an 80mm telephoto on a full frame. It is mildly difficult to use such a focal length for group shots.</p>

<p>One more thing to add...if you aren't a professional, I would be hesitant to shoot a wedding with a manual focus lens. If you don't know exactly what you are doing, you can lose a LOT of shots. Just wait until you have to deal with a bride that is upset with her wedding shots (hope you never have to)!</p>

<p>Sorry for the confusion.<br>

I have a Nikon mount Fuji Finepix S3 Pro with 50mm AF 1.4 Nikkor lens.<br>

I do have access to MANUAL focus 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 lens Nikkor lenses.<br>

I have an old Tamron 20-40 AF lens.<br>

I thrive on limitations and thought I could pull it off with a 50mm lens.</p>

<p>Its quite curious that on the one hand some say that even a 6 MP is good enough for decent enlargements (which pros did a few years ago) on the other hand suddenly according to Ryan it should be fine if making 5x7s. </p>

<p>I don't know about Nikon manual focus lenses on the Finepix, but if you can use the 35mm on it, you could indeed shoot the whole wedding with it. The question would be, would the manual aspect slow you down and if so, would it matter.</p>

<p>6 megapixels is fine for wedding images. I wouldn't want to crop a lot if the image is to be enlarged beyond 8x10 though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a Nikon mount Fuji Finepix S3 Pro with 50mm AF 1.4 Nikkor lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I suspected. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />I do have access to MANUAL focus 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 lens Nikkor lenses. I have an old Tamron 20-40 AF lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, I take it, just one camera body?</p>

<p>Rethink all the warnings above. Then, if you feel brave (or reckless) enough to proceed, I'd say, put the 50mm on the camera and plan to use it mainly, but take the other lenses with you just in case. The 35mm is a more "normal" field of view lens on your camera, but personally, I would value autofocus more than the difference in focal length. That's just me, and others might very reasonably disagree.</p>

<p>And I'd really rethink that Tamron zoom, as well. Is it this lens?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photodo.com/lens/Tamron-SP-AF-2040mm-f2735-Aspherical-IF-471/ratings">Tamron SP AF 20-40mm f/2.7-3.5 Aspherical (IF)<br /></a></p>

<p>If so, the ratings on that web page make it look like an acceptable lens. This is really a Hobson's choice, but as an academic exercise (which is all it is for me), if I could use only one lens for a wedding and the choice was 20-40 zoom vs fast 50 prime, well, it would be a tough decision. I'd probably go with the zoom, if it was (as you said) an outdoor wedding, and I wasn't going to be hurt by the fact that the zoom isn't terribly fast. On the other hand, if light was going to be low, I'd prefer the much faster 50mm lens. (NOTE: If light is low, then the manual focus 35mm isn't so appealing, because manual focus in low light is hard!) The other consideration is, how close will you be? If you use the zoom, you are probably going to be shooting mostly in the 30-40mm range, perhaps often at 40. </p>

<p>Will</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Its quite curious that on the one hand some say that even a 6 MP is good enough for decent enlargements (which pros did a few years ago) on the other hand suddenly according to Ryan it should be fine if making 5x7s.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Standards change. These days, even compact cameras now have 10MP or more. But 6MP is fine for most purposes, if you can take decent pictures. Certainly fine for 4"x6", 5"x7", and possibly even 8"x10". (Can't recall if I've ever printed an 8"x10" from one of my 6MP cameras. I think I must have though.) The resolution of your camera is the least of your problems. :-)</p>

<p>Do be aware that, if you are doing 6MP captures, you have fewer pixels to spare, so you should try to frame your photos efficiently. The #3 camera in my bag is a 6MP camera and it can take nice photos (if I do my job right). </p>

<p>Will </p>

<p>5x7 was more of an exaggeration than anything else. Of course, you can make a decent large print...but we are talking about a wedding (a one time event that the bride can't ever get reshot). The point was that if you take a newer digital camera and make a 16x20 or 20x30 print and an older 6mp camera with the same sized print, you can see a noticeable difference in quality. I know a lot of photographers that didn't switch to digital until the D200 and some until the D3. They chose to shoot with film because they liked the enlargements better.</p>

<p>By the way, I was referring more to practical photography...in which you have to crop shots to get exactly what you want. It is very difficult to frame every shot just the way you want it in the moment. For example, when the bride and groom are at the alter...it is nice to be able to have some pixels to spare so you don't have to be in their face with your camera.</p>

<p>Also, it isn't "suddenly according to Ryan." A lot of pro photographers that are light years ahead of me have shared their opinions. I didn't just "all of a sudden" come up with my opinion. In fact, I know pros that didn't even switch to digital until the D3 (for full-frame).</p>

<p>Phineas,</p>

<p>Just wanted to let you know that my intention was not to insult your equipment. I shoot with 2 D80's. If I could, I would shoot with 2 D3's. I just can't afford it.</p>

<p>To put it in perspective, I won't shoot a wedding with what I have. It is too important to most brides, and I don't want to ruin a lovely woman's most important day. That bride is on display, and if you can't do her justice, then don't shoot the wedding. Both you and her may regret it.</p>

<p>That is just my opinion on wedding photography. I love shooting my wife and daughter to experiment and am slowly getting better. I would just hate to experiment during a wedding. If you do the wedding, then I wish you all the best. I just wanted to give you a fair warning before proceeding. It could save you some frustration and disappointment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I thrive on limitations and thought I could pull it off with a 50mm lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>WHAT? May I be blunt? Go thrive at your own wedding. Don't you dare turn in poor pictures of someones very special day just because you think it is a lark. You need all the help you can get. You should say no and get them to hire a photog or at least prevail upon a friend who takes the wedding seriously. </p>

<p>May I propose that you rent equipment? If you can't do that borrow some. Don't even think about shooting a wedding without a flash. And don't even think about shooting a wedding without a back-up camera. And while you are renting get a good zoom to use. Even an 18-70 would be better than what you propose to do. They are cheap enough you could probably get one on ebay and resell it after the wedding. If there is a college near you maybe you can get a student with a good camera and lenses to work with you. </p>

<p>Tell me Phineas; do you have the skill to handle the bride in white and the groom in black, outdoors on a sunny day in the afternoon? That is the kind of situation that makes me cringe I can tell you and I am 100% certain that I know how to do it. Fortunately your S3 has pretty good dynamic range. Do you know what that means to you? <br>

You will do it because you really don't think that this is that big a deal. At least for you it isn't. This may only be a 20 person wedding but I bet I can get an Amen from my fellow wedding shooters here when I say that I do not consider a small wedding as any less worthy of 110% effort on my part. You are walking into a minefield. The only difference is that if you step in it someone else gets blown up. </p>

<p>I've said enough. I have a real pointed point of view when I see someone playing fast and loose with a friend's wedding. <br>

I hope you do a wonderful job for the B&G's sake. </p>

<p>Tough one, but I would do it if I had to.</p>

<p>Consider asking if they would mind getting you a kit lens for $100 to improve the coverage?</p>

<p>Normally I don't agree to the pro's shouting out loud "don't do it without tons of equipment and years of experience!", since all of this has to grow somewhere and I had to start at some point as well. I don't even care about the one lense solution: sometimes it's better to have just one fast prime lens, and a good one too, if you know the lens well enough. What bothers me however is the one body. I don't shoot on a pro level, i.e. I don't earn my living with photography, shoot weddings only if time allows it, maybe 2 or 3 times a year, and got started with used film bodies and fast prime lenses. BUT: even on my very first wedding, with an old worn-out Leica R4 and 50mm / 90mm primes, I got me a second identical body as backup. With the 90 on the black body and the 50 on the chrome one, not only was I fast in switching lenses, but I always had a backup hanging round my neck in case one body failed (it never did) or film would end at the wrong moment (it always did, Murphy's law). So, while I would not worry too much about the lens, I would certainly try and get a second identical body and eventually a flash. With just one body and no backup, I don't know if I would do it.</p>

<p>Sure, just zoom with your feet.</p>

<p>As someone who recently was in a similar situation (granted I had two bodies, but what I felt where inadequate lenses), here is my suggestion: if your friend does not want to hire a pro for budget reasons (which I suspect is the case), ask if he/she could spare the money to rent camera and lenses for you. You can probably get another body, a 24-70 and a 70-200 for a week, maybe even two SB-600, for $400. Then, use the beginning of the week to practice, practice, practice.....</p>

<p>It may seem weird to ask, and cameras/lenses don't make for good photography per se (a lesson learned many times) but I think he/she may understand that the likelihood of decent pictures would be better... or, you could rent yourself and consider it a pricey wedding present.</p>

<p>Thanks all for your suggestions...especially the second body reminder (I DID have a Finepix S5 Pro with a 35mm 1.4 AF lens...until it was stolen)...i realize i need to do something about that.<br>

The fact that I stated 10-20 was stated to given an indication of field of view necessary.</p>

<p> </p>

I'd be terrified of being the official shooter at a wedding (I don't need the stress, and I want the happy couple to be talking to me afterwards). However, I've had reasonable luck with photos at a friend's wedding, acting as a (surreptitious) back-up to the official photographer; here's some very amateur advice, to offset that of those who know what they're talking about.<br>

<br>

Outdoors, I did pretty well with a 135 f/2.8 manual focus on a D700. That makes me suspect that your 85 would be useful on a crop body. Not so much for staged photos, but you can get decent candids without being right in the face of guests, and the lens is good enough for bokeh - I'd hope the 85 would do the same for you. Admittedly, I took a *lot* of photos, and picked the ones that weren't blurry (or where I'd had a talent failure) for a heavy photoshop session; if in doubt, take plenty of flash cards.<br>

<br>

I needed a 50 f/1.4 AF indoors for the wedding dance, especially when they turned the lights down part way through, but to be honest it wasn't long enough on a full-frame sensor - I'd have been better with a crop camera, except that I was relying on high-ish ISO.<br>

<br>

So I got *some* decent shots with the equivalent of your lenses - but I wasn't trying to replicate the official photographer's shots, so I didn't try to be in-your-face or get big group photos. I concur that something wider than 50mm would be wise - but the 35mm should be fine. There are a lot of wedding photographers doing staged photos with field cameras, so the time it takes to focus a 35mm lens shouldn't be an issue (so long as your S3 gives you focus confirmation - I doubt the finder screen will tell you much about the focal plane at f/1.4). A tripod might be a good idea, if only so that people take you seriously and so that you can run between the shooting position and the people you're trying to stage without people wandering off, thinking you're done.<br>

<br>

Finally, if you can't splash out on an off-camera flash, I'd at least pick up a reflector or two. The small ones will fit in a pocket, and if you're outdoors they'll be almost as useful as a flash. Of course, you'll be stuffed if it rains and everyone bolts for a dark room, but there are worse things than a lot of window-light shots.<br>

<br>

If this is a favour, could you ask around other friends? There are a *lot* of Nikon shooters out there - someone might have a 300 f/2.8 and a 24 f/1.4 to lend you. Someone might at least have an N75 in a cupboard that could act as a back-up body.<br>

<br>

Best of luck. For what it's worth, for a non-picky recipient, a cheap digital photo frame pre-loaded with all the wedding photos makes a nice gift and won't show up how blurry your photos are. :-)