What if.... A Question about shooting a wedding with just one standard lens.

Ok, I must confess I am enjoying a very large glass of wine after sorting a

vast amount of images from my last wedding.

 

I just had a very strange thought... what if the ony lens you could use for 90%

of a wedding was a standard lens say a 50mm (for 35mm or equiv.)?

 

Back 'In the day' I would cover a wedding with my trusty Bronica SQA (which I

still posess) usually using 8 to 10 rolls of 120 film and 1-2 rolls of 35mm

film for candid shots. I would add this was nearly 20 years ago, I would

concede wedding coverage has changed over time, as have client expectations.

 

My question is....... would you (having the masses of gear that you have)

contemplate covering a wedding with just a standard lens? It can be done, it

has been done.... your thoughts please.

 

:)

I've done it long ago. I wouldn't do it now unless I had to. Why would you want to unless you had to? Two focal lengths maybe--35mm & 85 or 90mm. Not a 50mm.

This is totally hypothetical.... would make a great challenge though :)

I would love to just to drop all the weight of my D200's, 17-55 and 70-200mm (2.8's mind you). In fact, I would trade all that gear to use a Contax G2 or Lecia M7. If only!

Actually I'm going to do just that in July. Not as the official Photographer but as a guest because I"m in the wedding party. I'll be using a voightlander RF and 40mm 1.4 TriX. Just wanted to see if I can do it.

 

I'll post some.

I love to take one fixed length lens and go out and shoot for a day, but not at a wedding, my feet make pretty good multi length zooms, but at a wedding I prefer to be able to make a photograph from anywhere I am, in case its tough to move w/o disturbing someone. J

Why not? We did it before. I commonly shoot weddings with one short to medium tele. Don't underestimate your creativity & adaptability, when needed.

 

Russ

:-) I don't have to buy any other lens. Moving forward and back can get tiring though. I even got tired moving using nikon 17-55. Wish I have the nikon 70-200.

interesting. I should try it with much my pentax ME super and manual focus 50mm 2.0.

 

Not as the paid photog of course. Too bad film is so expensive these days.

Give the bride and groom a very large glass of that wine and no one will notice.

I have done it that way once, but only because my other body stopped.

 

I don't like to change lenses during shooting too much (maybe once per shoot per cam or so), so it would suit me fine. I think I would have to use a 35mm equiv. though.

I did my first dozen weddings with a 50mm on 35mm SLR, 80mm on 6x6 SLR, and 150mm on 4x5. Eventually I added a 28mm for the 35mm SLR, a 150mm for the 6x6, and a 90mm for the 4x5. I continued to shoot weddings with that selection of lenses until I went digital 4 years ago, which was really the first time I started using zooms.

 

There are so many non-camera related challenges to shooting a wedding that focal length just doesn't concern me. If I have zoom lenses to work with great. If I only had "normal" primes, that would be fine too. The challenge is in getting the light and the people to come together right.

Two years ago, I did some shots at the wedding of a friend of mine (as a guest, not the official photographer) with only a 50 mm and a 100 mm prime, on a 35mm film body. My wide-angle zoom was in repair at that moment, and I thought I would really miss it. It was actually the best I had done at any wedding. <p>Now, if I had to choose one lense, I think it would be the 50 mm, but then on a 1,5x crop sensor.

Thinking back, I shot weddings with two camera bodies and two lenses 35mm and 135mm, both fastish f2.8. When I first got a Bronica ETRS I could only afford the standard 75mm lens! I shot about a dozen weddings with that before I could buy another lens!

 

Now another thing I would suggest for this challenge, what about shooting with just a waist level finder? Or better still drag out that old twin lens reflex that you kept in case it was worth something one day.

 

About 18 months ago I was a guest at a wedding of some friends, (recycled teenagers getting married in their 60's after losing both their original partners). They had hired a pro, (less said the better), to photograph the day, so I just shot a roll at the ceremony and another at the reception. Obviously some muscle memory kicked in, because I got an album of 24 decent shots from the day which I gave to the couple as a gift. A week or so later I got a call saying could they get some more prints as most people preferred my shots???

 

Now partly I think that it was the quality of the images, given the 645 negative, plus I was using fill flash as the day was overcast, so my photos had a bit of zing. But for the formal shots I always switch to the WLF, and I think it is the different point of view that gives that 'authentic' look. I have had comments from parents that they look like they think Wedding Pictures should. Try it and see, just get down on one knee and take a few images and see what the reaction is.

I don't do wedding photography right now, but I am planning on shooting my wife's cousin's wedding next Labor day sort of as a favor as the 'backup' photographer as they like my work and I am doing it for the cost of film. I am not planning on going the single lens route, but I probably will be using either 2 or 3 lenses. Deffinitely a 50mm f/1.4 and most likely I will also be using a 28mm f/1.8 and maybe an 85mm f/2. I may change my mind and try to acquire a 35mm f/1.9 or f/2 instead of the 28mm lens. This would be either on a single OM-1n or possibly 2 bodies so I can shoot B&W and color film.

 

It should be interesting as they have a traditional Hindu ceremony on a Friday and the Christian ceremony on Sunday to cover both sides of the family.

I know you are being hypothetical, but it's pretty redundant! Why not cycle to the venue? Why not go bare foot, or even in bear feet? Why not get everyone to stand against the same wall all day? Why bother with Flash? In fact why bother with a lens at all and just use a pinhole? Because we are creatives, and endeavour to create!

 

This is 2008 not 1968. My creative drive and ambition is now matched by modernity...and thank God for that. Why on earth would you want to 'limit' yourself to a 50mm lens?...unless you worked for magnum, or were in Vietnam covering the war and were scared of changing your lens in fear of missing a shot...or a shot missing you!

 

The only reason I could see why someone would not want to utilise the creative potential of a 200mm, or an 85mm 1.4 or a fish eye, or wireless flash etc etc...is laziness. It wouldn't be a challenge to use a 50mil all day, it would be suicide.

 

Why not go the whole hog and shoot with an instamatic throw away camera? Could you imagine the brides face haha :) now that would be an achievement.

 

Personally I don't think it can be done in 2008>, and nor would I risk my reputation in trying to find out.

Hey Martin C, what are bear feet? Is that like a rabbit's foot?

 

All the modern equipment on the world doesn't make you better. Maybe using zooms and the ability to use P mode on your camera makes you lazy. Maybe having the camera do all the work for you makes you lazy. I do enjoy my modern equiptment as much as the next guy (or girl) but great photography can be created with old technology as well.

 

So, I was thinking of taking up the violin. Should I get a new and modern violin or some old thing called a Stradivarius?

Tim, why not just use a few sticks on a hollow log and have your second just bang rocks together ... sweet and natural music!

 

I'll bet more of today's brides prefer the digital to the "natural".

William,

 

Don't get me wrong, I will show up to a wedding with all my gear but I think the Martin's comments were a bit off the mark.

It's certainly an interesting discussion Tim.

 

I'm actually hoping I can shoot a wedding as second photographer before the heavy part of the season arrives; I'd like to pull back a bit and simplify but I'm sure I could not simplify if I were shooting as the main photographer because it wouldn't match the style I currently show on my website. I couldn't possibly contemplate doing what Robert mentions: the bridal couple has hired me based on a certain style and to change that style would be harmful, imo.

 

So, the original question is not a choice many wedding photographers could make in the real world but it's an interesting thought to wonder about.

 

Possibly wedding photography will go full circle and get back to the style of one lens capturing the beauty of the day. These things do cycle so I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Martin,

 

I think restricting yourself to one lens can sometimes induce more creativity. At least that has been my experience and is usually why it is suggested as a possible cure for the creative doldrums. Same thing with toy cameras, pinholes, cell phone cameras, etc. Wide-angle zooms, fisheyes, and dedicated flash units are great tools but don't guarantee creativity.

 

I think the idea above of doing it as a second shooter is intriguing.

I once did about 95% of a wedding with a 35/1.4. It was liberating, and they loved their photos.

ian that sounds wonderful

 

35mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.2-4 would be great for 99% but what about the church ceremony especially in a big church where you can't move much or get too close in case you upset the vicar. here in spain its quite tricky in catholic altars and i think 85mm would be the minimum really and maybe even longer for closeups.

 

personally i use mainly canon L 50mm f1.2 but also 24mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.2, but have a x2 multiplier just in case which is not too heavy or big to carry and doesn't lose too much light or quality on an 85 f1.2

 

ps

 

a little lomo lca is light and easy to carry for some fun extra shots and with auto light and zone focusing you don't need to think too much .

Nikon 85mm f1.8

Picasso said "Limitation of means unleashes creativity."

 

Check out a photographer who limits his means for that very reason, and does it very successfully:

http://www.georgeweirphotography.com/blog/?cat=3