28-70 (ish) as main lens - really?

[kaiyen]

Hi all,

 

I've seen a few posts where folks have mentioned that a 28-70 ish lens is their

main lens for weddings, on _cropped_digital_, and that it almost never leaves

their primary body.

 

Personally, I find this amazing. Maybe I just like working closer to my

subjects, but 28mm on a APS-C sensor seems so looooong to me. I often find

myself dissatisfied with the 18mm on the short end of my current "main" lens.

Wish it were a tad bit wider.

 

Certainly and at the least, the light from my diffused flash is softer the

closer I am. And working tight ceremony spaces is easier with wider lenses.

 

Not sure what my question is, though I'm pretty sure I had one at one point.

I'm just surprised.

 

allan

[pete_s.]

Allan,

 

I think it depends on you shooting style (and camera).

 

28-70 on 1.3 crop (Canon) is about 36mm - 91mm

28-70 on 1.5 crop (Nikon) is about 42mm - 105mm

28-70m on 1.6 crop (Canon) is about 45mm - 112mm

 

That range on a crop camera is a perfect portraiture range. From 10ft you can shoot full length or heads and shoulders.

 

Personally I think the 17-55 is not wide enough and not enough tele. If you combine 28-70 with a second lens/body with an ultra wide like 10-22 or 12-24 you have a nice combo.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

Couldn't say I understand it myself but I suppose it depends on shooting style, I can see a zoom of that focal length coupled with a 12-24mm (or whatever) on a 2 body setup, I often shoot commercial with a 17-40L and 70-200L on two FF bodies though I can't see it for wedding work where I use the UW sparingly given what it does to faces!

[kaiyen]

I will admit that I use the 70 end of my (lowly, I know) 18-70 quite a bit. Maybe a 28-70 ish isn't so bad. Hm.

 

Decisions decisions...I leave the 18-70 on one body almost the entire time, but I wonder how much of that is at 70. If it's a lot, then I should consider a 28-70 (probably the Tamron 28-75 because of cost).

 

allan

[scott_gardner1]

I too like wide angle lenses but understand why some people can use zooms that start at 28mm with 'cropcams'.

 

Some people are sensitive to the distortion inherent to wide angle lenses, especially at a 'beauty' event like a wedding. It's much tougher to stretch people even at edge of a frame when your max focal length is ~42mm. If you don't have it, you won't use it.

 

FWIW . . .

[david_schilling___chicago_]

I find 17-50 on my D30 works just about perfect most of the day and agree that 28 on the low end doesn't give me near enuff wide angle.

[conraderb]

I used to use the 24-70 and the 16-35 together all the time. now both sit in my bag (actually, sold the 16-35) and the 17-55 is on my camera all the time.

 

I shoot with two 1.6 crop bodies and to tell you to the truth, I miss the 55-70 range on a 1.6 crop. it is great for portraits and shots of two people. the 85mm 1.8 I use it just a bit too tight sometimes :-(

 

conrad

[gaetano catelli]

24-70 works fine for me.

[jmichaelc]

I thought i was the only one that still implements the D30 sometimes David (although rarely) :)

 

This comment struck me as odd:

 

"Certainly and at the least, the light from my diffused flash is softer the closer I am"

 

Thats funny, i find it just the opposite. The further away i am, while at the same time light my intended subject via diffused light (bounce etc.).....the softer the light is. The closer i am to my subject, the more harsh it is due to the fact the intensity of light is stronger, reglardless of how you have it diffused.

 

I couldn't imagine having one range but i know there are people who work this way. My eye's sees from as wide as i can go, which currently is 13mm on a MII, all the way to 260mm. If i had a 400mm i'd find a composition to use it!

 

If someone put a gun to my head and said "You must shoot within a limited range", well i guess i'd have to go with the 24-70. I couldn't imagine not having those nice creamy shots that 100-200mm @ 2.0 and 2.8 produces or those wild ultrawide shots that a 10mm produces. What a dull wedding that would be. Go ahead and shoot me!

[iskandar_azaman___kuala_lu]

Considering a lot of the manual shooters in the past shot at 35mm, 50mm and 85mm,i don't think there'd be much problem using a 24-70mm on a 1.6 Crop camera. I've used it and that's the lens that stays on most of the time. However, i do like certain wide angle shots so that's when the 10-22 comes out.

 

If i had to choose just one lens for a 1.6 crop camera i'd go with a 17-55. But a 24-70 is definitely do-able though a bit limiting. With a full frame now i don't think i need anything other than a 24-70. But i still bring the heavy 70-200ISL around 'cos i already paid for it and i need to use it to justify the purchase.:)

[robbie_caswell]

The 28-70 on my D200 was a versatile tool. Only largish group formals became a problem.

 

Of course if your tastes are wider, then that's a whole 'nother discussion.

[William Michael]

>>> I often find myself dissatisfied with the 18mm on the short end of my current "main" lens. (on APS-C body) I wish it were a tad bit wider. <<<

 

and

 

 

>>> [. . .] I can't see it for wedding work where I use the UW sparingly given what it does to faces! [ . . .] <<<

 

 

I totally agree with Mr Rubinstein.

 

At Weddings we discourage our Assistants using any wider than 28mm Full Frame and 28mm is used sparingly (equiv 18mm APS-C sensor).

 

Especially so for group shots and or shots of children, not only the faces (as mentioned), but at a Summer Weddings / short sleave dresses, the distortion of arms and shoulders can be a print sale killer.

 

This link provides an expansion:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00LQra

 

WW

[jimstrutz]

If 28-70 is such a nice thing to use on a crop camera, why aren't 45-110 lenses selling like hotcakes for full frame cameras. Canon's missing out I guess. :) Actually, no, they used to sell a 50-200 that literally sold like lead balloons. I know, I know, some people actually did like the things, but...

 

I think you all are deluding yourselves. 45mm is not wide enough for a general purpose lens at a wedding. Coupled with a wide zoom on a second camera could work though. Yeah, I know, It's just my personal opinion, but there seems to be a certain logic flaw when this is carried over to full frame cameras.

 

One thing I think might be influencing people is the small viewfinder of crop frame cameras. It makes a slight telephoto effect almost seem natural. But that is delusional. :)

[ni_gentry]

>>> 28-70 (ish) as main lens - really?

<p>

 

That question is kind of like asking... "Honda Accord... main car - really?" <p>

It completely depends on how you use the thing and what results you want to achieve. Why

do people always worry about the "right" gear or what other people are using? It just doesn't

matter.

[kaiyen]

Ni,

 

Give me a break - I wasn't suggesting that the gear matters. I don't believe there is "right" gear. I am merely asking a question about how people utilize a lens of that zoom range with a crop camera.

 

sheesh.

 

allan

[ni_gentry]

Allan,

<p>

Some people don't shoot wide angle. Some do. What other people do is less important

than what <i>you</i> prefer. <p>

<i>Decisions decisions...I leave the 18-70 on one body almost the entire time, but I

wonder how much of that is at 70. If it's a lot, then I should consider a 28-70 (probably

the Tamron 28-75 because of cost).</i>

<p>

You should be able to look back at your own images and favorite images from others and

guestimate pretty closely what focal length was used. That's how you can find out how

people utilize a lens of that zoom range. Then decide what focal length appeals to you

and use that for your next lens "decision". If you can't answer those questions, then you

don't need to be thinking about a new lens... you need to be shooting a lot more.

[savagesax]

Allan, interesting topic! I think everyone has a favorite lens. Mine is actually a fish eye! A Canon 15mm. I only take a few shots with it at weddings, but I love it! Next favorite is the 16-35mm. Don't use that a lot either, maybe 30 shots during the wedding reception. The rest of the time I have on the 24-105 IS. It's the best all purpose lens for me to get most of the shots. I've added 2 other lenses the last few weeks, the 100 macro, great for ring shots and the 100-400, haven't used it yet. Also have the 70-200 2.8IS, which is wonderful to blow out backgrounds.

 

I guess it depends what you want to do with the lenses. If your style is getting up close take advantage of it. Lots of photographers shoot that way! I think it is a cool looking style.

[rtrace]

"I am merely asking a question about how people utilize a lens of that zoom range with a crop camera."

 

How? In good hands very well, and in bad hands not so well. Same for any lens and focal length. What's so hard to understand really? I'm confused. I've seen a wedding almost shot entirely with a 50mm f/1.2 and it looks better than most shot with all sorts of focal lengths.

 

Concentrate on what you like, not what others do.

 

Bogdan

[www.withheart.ca]

Hee hee this is a fun post. I actually just shot a whole wedding with a 28-70mm. For me I chose this lens since I tend to take less wide angle shots but like lugging or paying for the 70-200mm. In fact my favorite lens is the 50 mm 1.2. I love that lens. However from time to time I found that I missed shots that I wanted because I couldn't zoom out. My second shooter loves wide angle and so I tend to task him to take those shots. As for formals, when I have the space I also enjoy using a 50 mm or 85 mm if I can get away with it. Looks so purrrty.

 

One thing I enjoy doing is putting a lens on my camera and using it like it is the only lens I have. It encourages you to use the lens in ways you might not have otherwise thought of and is kinda fun!

 

Well happy posting!

[tam_vu]

17-55 on main body, and 80-200 on second one.

[kaiyen]

<p><i>Concentrate on what you like, not what others do.</i>

 

<p>Oh...so...wait...I should think about what I do? And not others? Ohh...so that's how I should learn! Why didn't such an obvious idea occur to me?

 

<p>Oh wait. It did :-).

 

<p>I think that people who assume that I'm asking a <u>gear</u> question...well, you aren't making a ridiculous assumption. I think it just took me a while to get to the question, really.

 

<p>Fact: the closer you are with a diffused light source, the more diffuse it is. The farther away you are, more it is like a point source, and the more harsh it is.

 

<p>So yes, I tend to find myself closer in. That's my style, and I'll accept that. So I have in fact already concentrated on what I like, what I do, and how I shoot. That means I need what is likely a DX lens that starts around 17mm (that seems to be the "it" starting FL for the pro 2.8's).

 

<p>The next question is whether I need to get out to 70mm. The truth is that when I need to get that long, I could just as easily put the 28-105 on my other body and work between the two. No, that lens is not great, and perhaps a 17-55 and 28-75 would be a nice combination. But the 28-105 I have has a 1:3.7 or so macro option on it, and 105 is longer than 75 by a noticeable margin.

 

<p>However...and this is the question, really - 28 is a bit too long for me. So perhaps I might ask - what techniques and approaches do "you" (general you, not specific you) use that makes a 28 on the wide end work for you? Michelle - you said that you shot a whole wedding with the 28-70, yet you found yourself wanting to zoom back just a bit further sometimes. So what made you decide to shoot with the 28-70? Is it just because you have the option of the 2nd shooter?

 

<p>Maybe...you find that 28 is better because you find working your way around tables difficult, and the flexibility/limitation of being longer is a good thing? Maybe you don't like to be as close, and like to be a bit more "stealthy" and, again, the longer lens helps? Maybe you just like the look of the longer lens - the bokeh, the whatever?

 

<p>That's all I'm asking. I know that I need to shoot what it is that I want to shoot. And I already know what lenses I want to get, based on my style. I never said I didn't. I am just surprised at the few posts I've seen lately about folks shooting with 28-70's as their primary lenses.

 

<p>that's all. honest. I swear. <br>

allan

[jmichaelc]

"Fact: the closer you are with a diffused light source, the more diffuse it is. The farther away you are, more it is like a point source, and the more harsh it is. "

 

I disagree....yes the further away it is, the more it will look like a point source but the radiant beams are more spread out therefore, by the time it hits your subject, it is more diffused. Try it sometime. Take a 15mm, stand 5' from your subject and bounce off the ceiling. Now, take a 100mm stand 20' from your subject, bounce of the ceiling and see which is more diffused and soft.

[jmichaelc]

Allen. In all honesty, yes, one could potentially shoot an entire wedding with a 50mm as outlined above. However, in some situations, it would leave you with less than satisfactory results. Instead of going that rought, i agree with you, the wider zoom would cover more bases than lets say a 28-75. It would be a more safe zone to have the wider capability. More times than most, you will NEED the wide end more than you would NEED the long end. However, my biggest recommendation for someone who plans on shooting weddings would be to have your bases covered all the way to 200mm. In other words, at bare minimum, obtain decent glass preferably 2.8's, that cover 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200. Bases are then covered and you will never be in a situation where your having to do less than satisfactory work.