Shooting beyond 85mm on a DX?

[acute]

<p>I don't understand the concept of using longer telephoto lenses at weddings. Why would anyone need to go beyond, say, 85mm on a DX body? Some say that you might be shooting from a considerable distance. But why would the photographer be restricted to shoot from such a distance where a 200mm tele might be required? After all, the distance reduces sharpness drastically, even with the best of glass. Are there any examples out there of wedding shots where someone needed to go beyond 85mm?</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Not a wedding shooter but flexibility of a zoom would be one reason, same as a PJ...</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Some churches are very long and restrict where a photographer can stand. Like maybe at the back on the balcony. So you are over a 100 feet from the alter, so you set up your tripod and 200mm or maybe longer and shoot from there.</p>

 

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>By Chicago standards, this isn't a large Catholic church. This image was taken from a tripod with a zoom lens set at 100mm. If I wanted a tight closeup of just the priest and the B/G, I would have to go to 200mm or do a significant crop of this full frame image at 100mm taken by my crop camera, Canon 30d.</p><div></div>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>And here's an image from a crop camera with a focal length of 200. On tripod, f/5.6, 1/25 sec. at 400 ISO at a church that was about same size as the church in the image above.</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong><em>“But why would the photographer be restricted to shoot from such a distance where a 200mm tele might be required?" </em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Because some Churches only allow the Photographer to shoot from the back of the Church, once the Ceremony begins – and even if that is not a restriction, the shot is usually a nice one anyway . . . as David has shown.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong><em>“Are there any examples out there of wedding shots where someone needed to go beyond 85mm?”</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Just having a closer look at David’s first picture and let’s assume the Priest is about 6ft tall (about 2m), in fact let’s assume all men are 6ft tall – that makes things easy. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So that means, at the Priest – if he the Plane of Sharp Focus – the Vertical Field of View (FoV-V) is about 9ft. (about 3m) and David used a 100mm lens on a 30D, so David was about 60ft away from the Priest (about 20m).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now the other little rule of thumb is to count the “Church Pews” – they are about 3ft apart, (about 1m) </p>

<p > </p>

<p >So . . . for the long shot from the rear, when you are reconnoitring the Church just count the Pews to the end . . . and know that using APS-C Camera for the Horizontal shot (like David’s), from the rear of the Church, you need about 100mm for 20 pews; 150mm for 30 Pews; and 200mm for 40 Pews.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And, just like David wrote, if you want to go in close for the HALF SHOT of the B&G, then . . . for 20Pews (60ft, or 20m) you need about 20mm; for 30 Pews (90 ft or 30m) you need a 300mm lens; and for 40Pews (120ft or 40m) you need a 400mm lens.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >(note that the reader at the Lectern is the HALF SHOT – just pretend the B&G are profile facing each other and the Priest behind – David was about 60ft to pull that with a 200mm lens on a 30D – as he wrote – about the same sized Church as the other picture . . . Crikey David – seems like you’ve done this stuff once or twice before!) </p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“After all, the distance reduces sharpness drastically, even with the best of glass.”</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p >Can you please explain where you are going with this comment –</p>

<p > </p>

<p > I have to say that the 70 to 200/f2.8L zoom EVEN WITH a X2.0MkII tele-converter the image is pretty sharp to 14 x 11, even 16 x 20: <a href="../photo/10291553&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10291553&size=lg</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p > . . . and the naked 70 to 200 zoom at 200mm is astonishingly sharp: <a href="../photo/9913555&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9913555&size=lg</a> & and in low light, pushing ISO3200 out of an old 20D: <a href="../photo/10738830&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10738830&size=lg</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p > and the 135L, 300L and 400L are all razor sharp – even wide open in low light: <a href="../photo/10442934&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442934&size=lg</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p ><em>“. . . for the long shot from the rear, when you are reconnoitering the Church just count the Pews to the end . . . and know that using APS-C Camera for the Horizontal shot (like David’s), from the rear of the Church, you need about 100mm for 20 pews……” -WW</em></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p >Crikey!!! Just for fun I looked at some other shots from the wedding in the initial image, 20 pews it was :-) Looks like you have your photography and your math down pat. And, thanks for the nice comments on the images.</p>

[acute]

<p>Personally, I woudn't pay a photographer for shooting my wedding from far away with a 400mm telephoto lens. And I have never heard of that being done before. Even if the wedding was in one of the largest churches in the world, I would expect, as a photographer, to have some decent access to shoot the wedding. If I was told to stay that far away I would just cancel the assignment. But like I say, I've never heard of such extreme restrictions before.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Hmmm...you can do, of course, whatever you want, but every so often, if you shoot weddings long enough, you will run across a church that has extreme restrictions. I've been stuck at the back of a church without being allowed to move. You either use a long telephoto or you only get photos where the action at the altar is tiny. I've rented a 300mm f2.8 before. If you expect that the official photographer will always have decent access, you would be wrong. If you won't pay a photographer to shoot from far away, I'm guessing you would be cancelling your wedding at that church, because the photographer would have to follow the church's rules. He or she can try and negotiate access, but if unsuccessful, he would have to abide by the rules or face being barred from that church in the future.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Well, I've used a 300mm at a Wedding, too, and it doesn't have to be in all that big a Church.<br>

<br>

What follows is a Typical Extract from "Church Rules" as written in some of the more "Formal" or "High" Anglican Churches where I work: <br>

+++ </p>

<p ><em>"PHOTOGRAPHY</em> </p>

<p ><em>Photography (without Flash) and Video (without video lights) are permitted during the service, as long as they are discrete, considering the service and the guests. Seats are reserved for photographers 5 rows from the back.</em><em> </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em>Photographers and Video operators to speak with Verger before the Wedding."</em></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p ><em>+++ </em></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p ><em> </em></p>

<p >And, as I mentioned the long shot from the back of the Church is a good one, anyway.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Frankly I cannot afford to cancel assignments - that's what puts food on my table.</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><em>*** </em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >You have not answered my question, about “reducing sharpness” - Please?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW<br>

<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[john_deerfield]

<p>We shoot all the time beyond 85mm DX. And the occasion does arise where we need to shoot 200mm or more. As a matter of fact, it it's an outdoor wedding, I love shooting 300mm just to blur the background on some shots. Actually, I am surprised this is an issue/question: use the tool that gets the job done. </p>

<p>The "worst" I ever had was a ceremony were the priest did not let vendors into the sanctuary! We had to stand outside the doors and shoot into the sanctuary. Luckily, everything pretty much took place right in that center view, but I wouldn't have wanted to shoot that @ 85mm DX!</p>

[acute]

<p>Thanks everyone for interesting comments and for the attached photographs.</p>

<p>WW: I'm not sure I understand your question. Ideally, one wants to get closer for detail: that's all I meant to say.</p>

[savagesax]

I've had to use a 400mm on very rare occasions. The 70-200mm lens gets used whenever you have to stand in the back of the church or temples.

 

If you have the time to do bridal portraits in an open area the 70-200 is a really fun lens to use when you want to limit your depth of field.

 

Can you do a wedding without a zoom or a telephoto lens? Most of the time the answer is yes. I think I may use the fish eye more than long lenses. I normally take about 10 to 15 shots with the fish eye.

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"Ideally, one wants to get closer for detail: that's all I meant to say."</strong></em><br>

<br>

OK, now I understand. I too like working close if I am allowed. <br>

<br>

The way I read your statement in your original question was that you thought telephoto lenses were not sharp (enough) to capture good detail.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think we are talking about <strong ><em >perspective</em></strong> and <strong ><em >the intimacy of a close perspective</em></strong> when working close with a shorter FL lens, rather than sharpness of a telephoto lens or “technical detail” it can capture.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[rob_piontek]

<p>For candids of guests long zooms are great.</p>