wedding photogs using 28-200

[asimh]

Ok, so i have read much on here discouraging the use of such

megazooms. Well, i was at my brother's wedding this past weekend, and

started talking to the photogs (they were hired by sister-in-law's

family who had seen their results for a previous wedding in the

family) and they were BOTH using 28-200 (canon) lenses. In fact

(although i forgot to ask this) i did NOT see them switching lenses to

primes or anything (i was trying to keep a close eye on them to see

how they did things). Does this mean that the neg hype isn't all that

bad, or that these people aren't that good, or maybe these people know

the lens limitations and work around.

[brett_bainbridge]

"Does this mean that the neg hype isn't all that bad, or that these people aren't that good, or maybe these people know the lens limitations and work around."

 

Probably either answer b or c. Granted you can spend tons of money on hyperzooms that aren't as bad as they typically are (see the Canon 35-350L monster for evidence) but they are never as good as smaller-ranged zooms or primes.

 

So either

 

a) they understand this and are working around the inherent issues with such lenses because their shooting style works this way (entirely possible)

 

b) they have found that most wedding photography customers wouldn't know good photography if it came up and bit them on the rear and thus it isn't worth spending money to fix an optical problem their customer is unlikely to notice (more likely)

 

c) they have no clue or just don't care (all too often the case)

 

Without knowing the photographer, their style of shooting, or the exact equipment they were using it's hard to say.

 

Hyperzooms have bad reputations for a good reason, but depending upon your intended usage and your requirements they're not as bad as people say. There are plenty of ways to work around or minimize their poor characteristics. For some purposes and shooting styles though, they're simply horrendous.

[brett_bainbridge]

I should say before I get flamed back to the stone age that ultimately it's the photographer who makes the image, and the gear is only a tool - the best photographer will produce great images with the worst equipment, and the best equipment on the planet won't make an amateurish approach look good.

 

That said, the photographer's choice of equipment *can* be telling as to their skill level or at the very least their understanding of the technical side. But in and of itself it doesn't mean anything. A good photographer can work with a 15-30000mm zoom on an APS or disk format and still produce moving images despite the equipment.

 

Convenience and efficiency is extremely important to busy wedding photographers, and it may just be what makes sense for them.

 

Have I waffled enough to completely invalidate anything I might have said? Good, because there's no easy answer to draw from watching a photographer at work - the important stuff is what ends up on paper at the end of the process.

[asimh]

well thanks to both for your answers. i will definitely look at the results closely...but it might not be for a while and i might only be seeing the ones they purchase.

[hal_bissinger]

What makes you think that just because these guys use this lens that it validates its quality? Just because you get paid for something doesn't make you knowledgeable nor does it mean you produce a top quality product. I guarantee you the reason they use them is that it is a cheap and easy way out and the client won't know the difference anyway. So why spend $$$ for top quality glass.

[maury_cohen]

I found the 28-200 an excellent lens for wedding candids. This was back in 1990 and I would guess the quality back then was even a bit lower, but I found the slight lack of sharpness actually perfect for flattering the frequent "mature" aunts, uncles and grandparents that attend such events. These candids were typically not blown up beyond 5x7 and the wide to long zoom provides awesome versatility. The only drawback was the lack of speed.

[tuan_tran]

I agree that the photographer is what makes a good picture and not the equipment but only to a certain extent and under certain conditions. Try getting narrow DOF with a 28-200. Pretty hard. Try getting church shots without a flash with a 28-200. Doable but the result might not be optimum. Try blowing up 8x10, 11x14, etc. for some shots. You never know which shots will be asked by the client to be blown up that large. Some clients may not see the difference but if you get a couple who do, you might lose future businesses.

 

As a professional, we should be using the proper tools for the work we do. In my mind, using only a 28-200 for a wedding is not the proper tool.

[spencer_hahn]

Hal--

 

For personal fulfillment and satisfaction? I know I personally wouldn't be satisfied with results from bad lenses. That's why I buy the best lenses I possibly can and borrow/rent better ones when the job is big.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

One aspect of all this is that people just don't care about technical stuff when they are looking at emotive subjects.It doesn't have to be real sharp or framed right,depth of field may not artistically suit the image and the background may be cluttered but as long as the facial/body expressions capture an emotive moment *for the viewer*

then everything else goes out the window.And while i too am a 'lens quality tech head',i must go along with this.If the pic looks good to the customer then all is well with the world

[yakim_peled1]

Ask yourself why most pros do not use such lenses. Sure, they can afford whatever they like, but if they choose to go for the cheaper equipment, their profit would grow. It's common economic sense. So, why most of them don't follow this route ?

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[maury_cohen]

To add to my earlier post...

I used the 28-200 only for candids, relying on a Bronica ETRSi for the formal shots. I wouldn't rely on the 28-200 as an "only" lens, or 35mm for that matter, however, one's shooting style determines the appropriate gear.