Reach of zoom vs. speed of prime

[kim long- cincinnati, ohio]

I'm shooting an upcoming wedding in a typical old Catholic church- my first in

this dark of a setting, and under any kind of really limiting policies (not that

I think they're unreasonable- I'm aware they are par for the course and that

I've just been fortunate to have covered weddings with so few limitations thus

far). <br><br>I'm trying to decide which lenses I want to use based on the

following parameters: no flash except during the processional and recessional,

and I'm obliged to remain behind the line of the last row of congregants at all

times. Like I said, it's your standard old Catholic church with stained glass.

Not a cave, but definitely dark. Not an enormous aisle, not a grand Cathedral,

but certainly larger than a chapel. Instead of wearing both my bodies, I'm

thinking of having one of them mounted on a tripod in the choir loft. My Nikon

17-55 2.8 is just about a must, I believe, because I really want those interior

wide angle shots, so really it comes down to choosing that second lens. The

speed of either of my primes would certainly come in handy given the lighting

(and flash limitations) I'll be working with. However, given the "stay behind

the last row of congregants" rule, I'm torn, because the reach of the 70-200 2.8

VR would also be very desirable. <br><br>I did a search of the forums and didn't

see an exact discussion on this, but I'll bet it <i>has</i> been hashed out

before, so please don't throw tomatoes at me. I apologize if I missed it. What

do you vote for? Speed of the primes or reach of the zoom? Or, is it reasonable

to attempt to switch between, say, the 17-55 2.8 and one of my primes at

strategic points during the ceremony (my gut is telling me not to)?

[kim long- cincinnati, ohio]

Lest I come off sounding frightfully in over my head, I should add that this is <i>not</i> my first time covering an event of any kind in dark, no-flash conditions, but my first church wedding in such conditions. ;-)

[kim long- cincinnati, ohio]

D'oh! It would help if I mentioned the primes, wouldn't it? 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 (leaning toward the later, obviously, since reach is in question). Both Nikon, in case that wasn't clear.

[ned1]

I did a similar wedding using the 70-200 VR on a monopod. Works most of the time, but once things start moving the motion blur can be a problem.

 

What's the highest ISO your camera can shoot with safely? Do you have a meter reading for the church? If you can shoot at 1/60 the blur can be managed.

[kim long- cincinnati, ohio]

The D200 has not disappointed me as high as ISO 1600. I will be able to meter and strategize (and, well, practice) at the rehearsal the day prior to the ceremony. The bride, groom, and wedding coordinator have welcomed my attendance there, so that should help.

[35mmdelux]

28mm/2.8, 45mm/2.8, 85mm/1.4 all manual primes. Consider 2 cameras - one w/ fast low light film (1600iso) and the other w/ slower film and for flash.

 

good luck - Paul

[bruce_rubenstein]

Where do you put the fast film into a D200?

[david_schilling___chicago_]

To be honest with you, it doesn't really matter which lenses you use as long as you understand how to use the lens and use it within the lens capabilities.

[kim long- cincinnati, ohio]

David, you're right, of course, and that's reassuring to mind. I'm comfortable and confident with my gear. I guess I am just debating whether the extra reach (and of the long zoom is worth sacrificing the f stop of, say, my 85mm (or vice versa)... but I don't think I'll exactly be kicking myself either way, if that makes sense.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Kim, Exactly, what's an f stop or two between friends? :-)

[wedding-photography-denver]

I have the 70-200 and would not manage half of what I do without something at least 200mm. I had a 300is for a while but it was too big.

 

If you can get a 135 prime or the 70-200vr, I would. OTOH, I have managed with the 85 before.

[kim long- cincinnati, ohio]

Oh, I lurrve my 70-200 VR. I do end up soliciting neck rubs from my husband after using it for long periods.

[picturesque]

I agree with David--as long as you have a plan and know what to do with whatever lenses you use, you'll do well. One factor is--how long is the aisle and how far back are you likely to be? Another factor--can you move, as long as you stay behind the last seated guest? Some churches require you stay stationary. If the aisle is long, I would go with 70-200 on a tripod, especially if you aren't allowed to move. Then have the second body with the wide zoom or primes, moving or not. I have done that, and haven't had any problems changing lenses. The key is knowing when you're going to need what. If you've covered enough weddings, you know the sequence. Since you're going to the rehearsal, you'll know the sequence. If the aisle isn't that long, I personally would use the primes, even if on a tripod. I don't know what the big aversion to tripod use is, at weddings... Since I've shot lots of weddings with medium format gear and prime lenses, including having to put a tele converter on and off, I don't consider it a huge negative to have to use a tripod and would rather do that than up my ISO. I don't go past ISO 800 on my Canon 20D, which is supposed to be pretty good with high ISO. Also don't have much problem with motion. Wedding ceremonies aren't exactly fast moving. Just wait for the "quiet" moments. And, if you have a plan, you don't miss anything and are in the right spot every time. About the only glitch would be if something completely unexpected happens, such as the officiant forgetting the candle lighting and sending the couple down the aisle too early. Even if such a thing happens and especially if you are behind the guests and can't move, re-creations can make up what is impossible to get during the actual ceremony. These need not look fake--the "glow" is still there and you can still get those expressions but with total control over framing and lighting. Another factor is your comfort level--you seem to be somewhat nervous about this. If you know yourself and whether you can pull off what you need to pull off, you will know the answer to your own question.

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

I would use the 70-200 but bring the 85 as an option. Since you don't know where the last row of the congregants will be, you've got to have the extra reach IMO.

[Gary Naka]

Sounds like what I did. I was the relative with the camera, and shot 2nd camera to the pro. He was in the front of the church, and I was in the back behind the last row, same place you will be.

 

From the back of the church to the front I used my 70-210/f4. I needed the reach of the 210mm to get the tighter shots of the B&G at the alter. And I dearly wished I had brought my tripod as a few of the shots were at 1/15 sec, and my lens is NOT a VR lens. Bring a tripod, when the wedding is going on, no one will be around you so the tripod won't be tripping hazard.

 

Bring the primes anyway, as there may be cases where you want them. You can leave them in the case to pull out if you want them.

 

gud luk, Gary

[robbie_caswell]

You might be unhappy with the 85mm, as it may be too short. Even the 135 may not be long enough.

 

I had a 200mm F/2 AIS and it was incredible.

 

If the plan is to buy the 135mmm or even one of the longer zooms mentioned I would certainly consider the 200. About the same cost. Buy used, you can sell it for what you paid and explore the more practical zooms.

 

I just picked up a KEH bargain grade 300mm f/2.8 AIS for around $700 and it is SWEET! Regretting the day I sold my 200 especially since beginning weddings.

[aaron_lee___minneapolis__m]

I think you'll be very happy using your 17-55 and 70-200. Make to turn off VR if you mount your 70-200 VR on a tripod! You will want the reach of the 200 for going down the isle.

 

My D200 is no where near the high ISO performance of even my Rebel XT. I'd try to keep 'er below 1600 if possible. Usually there isn't much movement during a catholic ceremony, so subject blur isn't usually a problem.

 

Aaron Lee

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Just to clarify....I always have a tripod for the long shots of the ceremony. If you understand your lens, you can get by with slower glass. The shot below was captured at 1/25th sec, f/5.6, 200mm with 400ISO. Lens is a Canon 80-200 EF 4.5/5.6