You can indeed shoot an entire event with just a 35mm, but...

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by Karim Ghantous, May 29, 2021.

  1. No matter what lens you choose, the best, the worse, the cheapest, the most expensive, they are indistinguishable from one another on the printed page or on the Internet.
  2. That's true if all you consider is the number of pixels in the image. However scaling a high resolution image to PNET size tends to preserve details at the pixel level that aren't there if you start with a low resolution image.
  3. Strongly disagree, unless you shoot everything at f16.
    Karim Ghantous and Sanford like this.
  4. There is a reason a 24-70mm, or 24-100mm is the most popular zoom, because it gives you the flexibility to shoot any social gathering very easily and it covers all the focal lengths one might reasonably need. A 35 or 28mm in general is good for photographing groups of people, whereas a 50 mm or longer makes picking individuals out easier and with a more natural/flattering perspective.
    Karim Ghantous likes this.
  5. It depends on the event, but often I find that I only need 1 or 2 lenses. At a busy wedding I can easily get by with a 24-105mm. I might switch to a longer lens at the reception to capture some close-ups, but that's about it. Other events such as indoor/outdoor parties I can "not so easily" get by with only a 50 mm lens. My feet become the Zoom lens. Of course on a cropped-camera, 35 mm becomes my 50mm lens. The beauty about the normal lens (50 mm), is that you avoid distortions and you can always crop if you need to.
    Karim Ghantous likes this.
  6. I have the Canon 135/4.0, which isn't shown, but so close to 3.5.

    Somewhat recently (a few years ago) I got a Canon 50/1.4 in LTM from Goodwill, along with a Canon P.
    I believe the first 1.4 lens I ever had.
  7. I don't take chances. I use two cameras during the service, with a 24-70 on one and 70-200 on the other. During the reception and dinner I swap the 70-200 for a 16-35. I'm not using a Leica (Rollei or Hasselblad) so I'm not restricted to primes.
  8. I've always thought of primes as liberating.
  9. Wedding photography is a job with certain expectations from the clients, only peripherally for personal satisfaction.
    AJG and Karim Ghantous like this.
  10. My first client (whom I was using as a practice run, and thus did not charge) gave me too much freedom. By that I mean that when I said, maybe show me this space or show me that space, he said, "Nah, mate, you'll be fine, don't worry too much about it." Well, that was almost a disaster. If you need to see the inside of the church to know where to place remote cameras or take light readings or whatever, you need to have the bride & groom ready to give you access.

    My point here is that you need at least some direction, or demands, from the clients. If you don't have that, you're almost like a castaway.
  11. I use to do that with 2 bodies with flashes and carrying a battery pack. I got the pictures I needed but man I felt like a beast-o'-burden.
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2021
    robert_bowring likes this.
  12. AJG


    One of the biggest challenges of shooting weddings is that by definition you have amateurs for clients. When working with an ad agency or the design department of a large company you are usually dealing with someone with at least some experience and a reasonably clear idea of what they need and want from the photographer. When I did shoot weddings I made sure I spent a lot of time with clients in advance, worked out a shot list of group and other photos and checked out venues carefully if I hadn't shot there before. I also made sure that I spoke directly with whoever was performing the ceremony to know what their policies were with regard to photography, flash usage, where the photographer would be allowed to be, etc. I learned very early not to trust the bride/groom on this when I used flash during a ceremony only to find out later that the minister who officiated was not happy. Ed Ingold is right--shooting weddings is a job and not, for the most part, a creative opportunity for the photographer. This isn't to say that there aren't some great people pictures to be had, only that the pro is there to make sure that certain important pictures are made and that they are technically excellent.
  13. I agree, to a certain point. Primes are actually limiting, but force you to use your imagination in order to use them effectively. My experience using primes, often a single prime, gives me insight in focal length selection to achieve the desired effect, especially under time pressure at a wedding or event. The experience can be translated into which zoom or two to select for a particular phase of that event.

    Travel photography adds another dimension to your choices. A prime or set of primes is much easier to carry on straps. However when traveling with others speed can be more important. While I dislike carrying a heavy 24-70/2.8, it proved to be the best choice in that situation. A notable exception occurs when you shoot into the light. The 24-70 incurred heavy veiling flare which was almost completely absent in Zeiss Batis lenses. Flare I don't mind, as it can have a dramatic effect. Veiling flare is rarely a useful element.

    Use of a zoom held a great advantage when capturing the moment of this image in the Smokie Mountains of Tennessee (Newfound Gap).

    glen_h likes this.

Share This Page