What lenses I use...

[mvw photo]

<p>Thought you might all find it interesting what lenses I use on what bodies. So for an upcoming blog post, I had a look through Lightroom metadata for this year.<br>

<strong>EVENTS:</strong><br>

First I picked some recent event shoots: “grip and grins”. The lenses I uses were, out of a total of thousands of images:<br>

<strong>Canon 1D Mark IV (1.3 crop factor):</strong></p>

<ol>

<li><strong>42%</strong> – 24-70 f/2.8 (equiv. 30-90) (by <em>shoots</em>, this is number 2)</li>

<li><strong>39%</strong> – 70-200 f/2.8 (equiv. 90-260) (by <em>shoots</em>, this is number 1)</li>

<li><strong>17%</strong> – 16-35 f/2.8 (equiv. 20-45)</li>

<li><strong>1%</strong> – 35mm f/1.4 (equiv. 45)</li>

<li><strong>1%</strong> - 50mm f/1.4 (equiv. 65)</li>

</ol>

<p><strong>Canon 1Ds Mark III (full frame)</strong></p>

<ol>

<li><strong>51%</strong> – 16-35 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>33%</strong> – 24-70 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>12%</strong> – 35mm f/1.4</li>

<li><strong>2%</strong> – 70-200 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>1%</strong> - 50mm f/1.4</li>

</ol>

<p>That is interesting. On the 1Ds, I use the 35mm f/1.4 lens in too few shoots (a lovely lens!).<br>

<strong>GENERAL: </strong><br>

Now the total, all types of shoots, out of a total of tens of thousands of images::<br>

<strong>Canon 1D Mark IV (1.3 crop factor):</strong></p>

<ol>

<li><strong>49%</strong> – 24-70 f/2.8 (equiv. 30-90)</li>

<li><strong>25%</strong> – 16-35 f/2.8 (equiv. 20-45)</li>

<li><strong>19%</strong> – 70-200 f/2.8 (equiv. 90-260)</li>

<li><strong>3%</strong> – 35mm f/1.4 (equiv. 45)</li>

<li><strong>2%</strong> - 50mm f/1.4 (equiv. 65)</li>

<li><strong>2%</strong> – 100mm macro</li>

</ol>

<p><strong>Canon 1Ds Mark III (full frame)</strong></p>

<ol>

<li><strong>33%</strong> – 24-70 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>27%</strong> – 16-35 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>19%</strong> – 70-200 f/2.8</li>

<li><strong>13%</strong> – 35mm f/1.4</li>

<li><strong>5%</strong> - 50mm f/1.4</li>

<li><strong>3%</strong> – 100mm macro</li>

</ol>

<p>Does your usage vary a lot?</p>

<p>Michael Willems</p>

 

<ol> </ol>

[bobcossar]

<p>This post could be read as pre-dental anesthesia.............</p>

[neilambrose]

"Thought you might all find it interesting...."

 

 

The only thing this post tells me is you have too many lenses and don't know what to do with primes.

[martindomok]

<p>I have 16-35, 24-70 (never use), 70-200, 85 F1.8 and 24 F1.4.<br>

70 percent of all I use wide angle zoom, then since I got 85 started to use that for portraist insetad of 70-200 and for details both 24 anf 85, when I know I will not need 70-200 I leave it at home...</p>

<p> </p>

[mvw photo]

<p>@Robert: sorry if I bored you. In fact I thought it would be interesting. I'd love for other working event photographers to tell me their breakdown for events. Definitely not anesthesia for me (and I suspect many others).</p>

<p>@Neil: pretty much a standard photojournalist's set. In fact I do love my primes - 35mm prime is a favourite. But when I shoot an event I often need a few of the very wide shots. And I want to minimize lens changes, hence the 16-35. As for the 70-200: the only reason I use that so much for the longer shots is the IS. I drag the shutter as much as I can in low light, and IS gives me 2-3 stops of extra ability to do that.</p>

<p>@M M: indeed, I don't like the weight. Shooting an event tonight, and already dreading all the stuff on my shoulders: Two bodies and a bag. Wish the 24-70 had IS.</p>

<p> </p>

[mvw photo]

<p>Oh and from this excellent post of a few years ago by Josh Root, which I just discovered on this site: http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment.adp</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Most professional wedding photographers, however, use a set of three zoom lenses: a wide-angle zoom, a wide-to-tele zoom, and an image-stabilized telephoto zoom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems I'm not the only one. Josh also says:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Many photographers keep their lens kit to the three zoom lenses discussed previously. These lenses would probably cover 80-90% of the photos for any given wedding. It is worth including 2-3 fast prime lenses in your bag as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As do I :-)</p>

<p>Anyway, to each his own. Anyone else want to share?</p>

<p> </p>

[sherijohnson]

<p>I just wanted to let you know I did find this interesting information. I don't keep track of all of that stuff but I can say that most of my images do come from my wide zoom. I shoot with 2 cameras. I have a wide zoom on one and a 70-200 on the other.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>This forum and newbies seem to place way too much about attention on which lens to use and when. IMO, if you don't know which lenses are appropriate to cover a wedding then you have no business charging anyone to shoot it. Conversely, if you've broken down how often you use any given lens to the point of being ready to present standard deviations from your data, then you have too much time on your hands. My guess is that you offer up this study in the spirit of being helpful and stimulating discussion......which is a worthy effort. However, how many lenses and how often they get changed is often a matter of personal taste & preferences.</p>

[mvw photo]

<p>Well David, to each his own.</p>

<p>Sure, not being a beginner (I am a full time photographer and teacher of photography) I can shoot an event with one prime 24mm lens or with one zoom - or with whatever. That said, I offer this (and indeed, hope for useful feedback and discussion) with two things in mind:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>As a pro, surely you too like to see what others do. It is often very interesting to see how others work, and more often than once, that stimulates renewal, change, getting out of the established way of doing things.</li>

<li>Unlike so many on this forum, I do not scoff at "beginners", like it's some bad thing. I am not saying you do, David, but many do. The word "newbie" to me is vaguely offensive. If someone, be they 12 years old or 65, is interested in photography, I welcome that; I encourage it; I help them as much as I can. I am sure you will agree it is a joy to improve your photos and go from snaps to great photographs. </li>

</ol>

<p>And one question that I get very often from people new to photography is "what lens should I use". No better answer than to show how I do it, I think: here's what I do rather than what I say. That gives people a starting point. Who am I to say :"you beginner, are spending way too much time asking this"? People want to know, and they have to put SOMETHING on their camera, and why not help with pointers, rather than saying "you are spending too much time asking"?</p>

<p>All too often, new enthusiasts think, for example, that "longer is better". "I bought a Rebel, now I need to buy a zoom lens". ("Zoom" means "telephoto" to beginners). A list like this is one way of showing that no, longer is not better: it's just another tool, and for many situations, wider is a great choice; or prime.</p>

<p>Too much time on my hands... well, I did this for a blog post, and yes, the blog takes an hour a day. But I think it's for me to judge how to spend that time, no?</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Michael</p>

<p> </p>

[mvw photo]

<p>@Sheri: thanks!</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=948698">Michael Willems</a> , Aug 24, 2010; 07:06 a.m.<br>

Oh and from this excellent post of a few years ago by Josh Root, which I just discovered on this site: <a rel="nofollow" href="../learn/wedding/equipment.adp">http://www.photo.net/learn/wedding/equipment.adp</a><br>

Most professional wedding photographers, however, use a set of three zoom lenses: a wide-angle zoom, a wide-to-tele zoom, and an image-stabilized telephoto zoom.<br>

Seems I'm not the only one. Josh also says:<br>

Many photographers keep their lens kit to the three zoom lenses discussed previously. These lenses would probably cover 80-90% of the photos for any given wedding. It is worth including 2-3 fast prime lenses in your bag as well.<br>

As do I :-)<br>

Anyway, to each his own. Anyone else want to share?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Josh may say there are 3 zooms in most photographers wedding kits. I however, have not seen that to be the case in my 20 years as a wedding photographer. I find that while I have the zooms, I use the primes the most. Primarily in the 35mm and 50mm and 85mm range....and to a lesser extent, the 24mm side. </p>

<p>If one is wanting a shallow DOF for a lot of shots (check out the work of Jose Villa, Jonathan Canlas, The Brothers Wright, Leah Mccormick, Leo Patrone, Riccis Valaderes, etc) then a zoom isn't going to do it.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I love zooms and find them handy. But as you'll find that many of the best in the industry don't follow the "3 zoom rule", using primes instead, one has to ask why. </p>

<p>PS, I'm part of a group of local photographers that cover a few cities....and the "zoom rule" isn't there.</p>

[mvw photo]

<p>Dave: yes, I do love the 35/1.4 especially. I'll use it tonight. I do not, however, just shoot weddings: my events are often cocktail receptions (like tonight's event in Toronto, an event by a large software company) where an ultra-wide wide overview is often wanted. And I like to minimize lens changes: the big reason for zooms, of course.</p>

<p>Anyway, this is the discussion I am hoping for. Some wedding photogs say zooms, others say "I've never seen that done". As an engineer, I like quantititive analysis: so, any more like to weigh in?</p>

<p> </p>

[dmcgphoto]

<p>Okay, forgive the snarky comments to follow..<br>

As a photographer, I previsualize the image, I know if I want wide or fast, low light or high contrast noonday sun. I capture the moment or the scene based on my idea of how I want my audience or client to see the scene.<br>

So my breakdown is as follows:<br>

Camera in my hand-who cares what body it is<br>

Emotional-tears of joy(candid)-----25%<br>

Emotional-laughter(candid)----35%<br>

Silly expressions----10%<br>

Giant Landscape artistic scene ---5%<br>

Formals, properly lit and arranged--5%<br>

architecture and environment--5%<br>

Perfectly lit and constructed portraits-15%<br>

**broken up into B/G**10% Groups and other portraits 5%<br>

As a "photographist" other people concern themselves with these kinds of minutea, is it interesting? David DuChemin has a really interesting take, actually it's more of a rant, on photographers who list their equipment over their images.<br>

If you take great pictures, who cares about the gear? It's just a tool, go be the artist, not the accountant.<br>

So, is it interesting? Not to me, but that doesn't mean it isn't to you. Maybe even others, but all to often I see this line of thinking going before the image, I'm positive that's not how you think, but why think it at all.<br>

So the next time someone asks you "what lens should I use" why not move the conversation away from the hardware and towards the image and what they want to do.</p>

<p> </p>

[mvw photo]

<p>Daniel,</p>

<p>Love your breakdown.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So the next time someone asks you "what lens should I use" why not move the conversation away from the hardware and towards the image and what they want to do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, because they have to put <em>something</em> on their camera! When someone goes to shoot a family birthday party, of course it's about the expressions - and on a Lion Safari it's about the animals - and in a night club it's about the people lifting their T-shirts -whatever, but if I just shrug and say "whatever" to the lens question, I am doing them no favour. "A lens with one of those low F-numbers" would be more helpful, or " a wide lens", or "a long l;ens", and so on.</p>

<p>I go through this with students all the time. Yes, it's about the art - but if the image is technically bad, surely no art will result.</p>

<p> </p>

[fotografz]

<p>Well, all the snarky and condescending remarks aside: I think the mantra that "it's the shooter not the gear" has been beaten to death and beyond. We all get it already : -) <br>

 <br>

<strong>An exercise like this isn't a bad way to determine</strong> for sure if you have money wrapped up in gear that isn't being used ... or to spur you on to exploring use of a loved lens that tends to lay fallow for most of a shoot. What you think you do, and what you actually do is often at odds until you actually look at the real world data. <br>

 <br>

In my Photo.net Wedding Gear article, I advocated doing a similar thing with ISO exif info to see if you really used super high ISOs ... or simply succumbed to marketing hype and bragging rights.  In my case, I found I never used what I paid for while paying a price for it in resolution, so I made a course correction in my gear bag and never regretted it since. Plus it got me off the high ISO merry-go-round.<br>

 <br>

In the aggregate I'd agree that the number one lens used by wedding photographers would be a 24-70 or some close spec mid-range zoom. Zooms are about all I use on a DSLR any more ... and the 24-70 is by far the most used.  For me, fast primes are the domain of my rangefinder ... and only a few of those at any given time, or job.        </p>

[neilambrose]

<p>I'm kind of with Daniel.... I don't usually find it interesting discussing gear, and it surprises me that so many people prefer to talk about equipment, and so few about motivation, process or result.</p>

<p>But, it's clear that the intent of the original post is positive and it's generally better to share information than withhold it. So, these are my preferences:</p>

<p>70% - 75/f2; 28/f2<br>

30% - 35/1.4; 50/f1.<br>

Occasionally medium format 80/f2.8.</p>

<p>In terms of working process, I find the fewer focal lengths I use the harder I have to work and the more I need to pre-visualise. Less equipment definitely means better images, at least for me. I'm very happy using just two paired focal lengths. I shot my last wedding with two rangefinders and two lenses, getting right back to basics. It was my best work to date, I think.</p>

[mvw photo]

<p>Marc: thank you. I agree, no point at all in putting people down or in telling them what, and how, to think or what to write about. Photo.net used to be devoid of that sort of thing. More positively, it's exactly as you say: these exercises are useful. I did a similar analysis of actual focal lengths I used (from EXIF data), by the way.</p>

<p>And yes, it is a wake-up call: for me, it shows that I am not using my 35mm prime as much as I'd like. I think I'll shoot tonight's event with it. And on the 1.3 crop camera, the 24-70 or perhaps 70-200.</p>

<p> </p>

[mvw photo]

<p>Neil: that's useful, thanks. The 35/1.4 for me tonight.<br>

Now let me obsess a bit about camera straps, while I prepare for the shoot.. :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Neil,</p>

<p>Is the 50 f/1 the old Canon, or is it the Leica? As far as zooms go, I do like like them....I've been walking on them my whole life ;-)</p>

[philipward]

<p>Forgive me but any "newbie" or begginer hoping to glean some helpfull advice from this thread will be totally confused by the snipping.My advice to them is to pick somebodies work you admire,find out how they work and ignore the rest.So no gear list from me.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Dave - that's very funny. I like it, and may borrow it shamelessly.<br>

The f1 is the Leica version - the most recent with the built-in hood, if you care about the subtleties.</p>

[picturesque]

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> Michael--I've removed the image you posted that didn't appear in the thread. It was too large. Images need to be 700 pixels wide and 100 Kbytes or less. Also, in this forum, they should be wedding related. You may re-post your image in the right size, and don't forget the caption, but I'd prefer a wedding related one. Thanks!</p>

[fotografz]

<p><em><strong>" ... it surprises me that so many people prefer to talk about equipment, and so few about motivation, process or result."</strong></em></p>

<p>Why would that be surprising Neil? This is a question based forum.<br>

There are more beginners here than some other wedding forums, and it's not unusual for less experienced folks to be struggling with gear ... more than more experienced people may. Thus, <em>questions</em> on how to use fill flash will probably outweigh ones about finding the light and judging the quality of light ... or how to get zoned in on the real wedding happening around you. </p>

<p>I also wish there was more interest in the creative process of wedding photography, and when those discussions happen they sometimes make for a good read. But it's pretty rare.</p>

<p>Per a request, I posted a bunch of images in my Friday the 13th, "Superstition ad" to show what I did when I suddenly lost my lighting person and with her, all the plans I had made. A basic demonstration how you have to be instantly flexible, stay motivated, and deliver a different approach when another evaporates. (Unspoken was that I went from using a MF Digital 4 lens kit and Strobes, to a rangefinder, available light, and one lens). </p>

<p>The thread died then and there. Huge waste of time. Not one question. No further curiosity. No reaction. No inquiry as to the client's reaction. Maybe I should have talked more about my gear and showed lens charts ... LOL! </p>

[mvw photo]

<p>Guys, equipment is important. Yeah yeah, it's what you do with it - but you've got to know how to use it, and use the right stuff, in the first place. My post was posted in</p>

<p><a href="../community/index">Community</a> > <a href="../community/forums">Forums</a> > <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/">Wedding and social event photography</a> > <a href="?category=Equipment%3a+Camera%2fFlash%2fBrackets%2fLenses+etc%2e">Equipment: Camera/Flash/Brackets/Lenses etc.</a></p>

<p>Tell Canon and Nikon that equipment isn't important. :-) As for the pros versus beginners debate: the moment you stop listening, you become an old hand who no longer hears what others do. I particularly like to hear what young photographers do - sometimes unintuitive to me, and often works.</p>

<p>Anyway, rather than debate whether I should be asking the question I am asking (in the forum that is clearly intended for it), anyone want to give me more input into what they use? I'll check back later: off to shoot my evening event shortly.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p> </p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>Why would that be surprising Neil? This is a question based forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not surprising at all. Questions are good, and I try to spend a fair bit of time answering them, probably for much the same reasons you do.</p>

<p>But I guess I notice the questions are always about the camera, not what you do with it. Which is the exact opposite of how I learned photography. When I was learning my questions were always about the vision and decision process, not about the gear. And those are still my questions. When I talk to a great photographer I'm interested in what's in their head, not their camera bag.</p>