primes on wedding photography?

[packman]

so does anyone use prime/s on weddings? given only 1 body (which in my case is a 300D), which would you use more? 20, 24, etc...or zoom is still the best option? i'm really contemplating on either the 17 - 40 or the 24 and 28...although i intend to use it more when i go backpacking, i'm not discounting the idea of doing weddings as a mean of extra income.

 

thanks again in advance for your help guys/ gals! :)

[beauh44]

Hi Dino, Primes will give you the sharpest pics, but you'll be walking back and forth a lot to frame your subjects with them. During the ceremony, that could get a little awkward. I know I'd feel better about things like grabbing candids and the ability to stay out of the way that a good zoom lens would bring. I suspect having a wedding photographer who's up close and personal while framing a shot could get a little annoying to some during a possibly stressful time. And you might want an inexpensive backup body as well. Just my .02 cent's worth! Best wishes . .

[kevin m.]

You're asking for trouble shooting a wedding with only one body. If you have any professional aspirations, two bodies is really essential (even if the spare body is a Canonet.) A nice setup is wide angle on one, longer lens on the other. A flash for both bodies and a spare one in your bag. New, or freshly charged, spare batteries for everything. If this sounds excessive, think how you'd feel with the bridal party waiting for their pictures to be taken while you explain to them that your flash crapped out and you don't have another one. Weddings happen fast, and you won't have much time to fix things, even if you're able. A little preparation allows you to concentrate on getting good pics rather than panicing about your gear.

[catchlight]

<p>Dino, I prefer to use at least one zoom for weddings, because your range of movement can be quite limited in the wedding venue, and there's no time for lens changes, especially during the ceremony. <p>The Canon 17-40mm f/4L might be an excellent choice for your 300D, especially outdoors or in interior settings where you could use flash. <p>

That said, I can't imagine covering a wedding with only one body. A second body, digital or film, with a 70-200mm zoom or an 85mm f/1.8 or 100mm f/2 prime would give you good coverage. <p>Stuff happens, and a malfunction of your 300D could ruin your reputation, and perhaps even result in a lawsuit. Brides want stunning photos, not excuses. <p>Extra CF cards, batteries, and a second strobe are essential, too.<p><div></div>

[packman]

hmmm...i was expecting these answers :) ...btw, do you think the 18-55 will do or is it too "cheap a lens" for such an event?

[jim_larson1]

NO!

 

The 18-55 is everything you expect from a $100 lens. Maybe as good as a $150 lens.

 

The "L" zooms, however, are *clearly* in a better category. The Canon primes are similar in optical quality to the "L" zooms.

 

If you can't afford the $700 17-40/4L, then the Canon primes are the way to go. I do ok (amature work) with a combination of 24/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8. I do *not* miss the zoom => well, maybe a little. But I like the fast primes. :)

[gayardon]

i'm poor so money is an issue . i do not have a digital slr yet but that doesn't stop my mind from thinking on how to use it to save some money... a d30 has half the resolution of a 300d and can produce 8x10 officially. considering that most wedding fotos are 8x10 then u have half the resolution to waste. what about taking the advantage of a sharp wide lens like 20mm and use that only. you have to option of either moving closer or if u cannot or are in hurry crop later on the computer to "enlarge" the sugject...... would it work or would it be considered a waste of resolution?

[victor_yushenko]

I shot some events (birthday parties and such) with my new 70-200 2.8 IS recently. Portraits coming out just great with this lens. I especially like the long reach of this lens. With long lens you have an option of shoting people who are unaware and act natural.

To your question I found zoom extremely usefull for proper framing. When I saw a great expresion there was never enough time to change lenses, but I got some nice shots with good framing by zooming quickly. In my view long focal length also makes it easier to capture feeling of the moment, isolate. Say a birthday cake was just brought out. With long lens I could only get cake and a birthday child in frame, yet because there is so few items, attention is drawn to the child face. With wide lens you can inculde more people, some exited some bored. If you can afford having wide and long zooms are great. If you can only afford one lens 70-200 is a great choice IMHO. Then later you can get 17-40.

[michael_flaherty]

While I think the 300D is an exceptional value for the money, I would never even consider using it for a paid wedding shoot (way too slow and limiting). For that you should have a pro body (1D, preferably). I'd also have to have a backup body of at least 10D quality - preferably another 1D body. And I wouldn't use prime lenses, either. They're too limiting when you're up against fast action situations in weddings. Get a couple of good "L" zooms. Maybe the 16-35 and 28-70.

 

Of course, I understand there are people out there who have successfully used 300D's and less to shoot paid weddings - but I doubt you'll find many highly successful wedding photographers using less than a pro body - and for any number of good reasons. If you're going to do a thing, do it right.

[eigtball]

Doesn't anyone use film for weddings anymore? I am going to one as a photographer. Its a pretty informal wedding, and I am not charging anything more than the cost of film, and developing. Its because its for a friend of mind. I take nice shots, and I am a pretty sneaky.

 

I am using my Elan 7E as my main body with my AE-1P as my backup. I have my 28-105 3.5-4.5 on it. The AE-1P has my 80-200 zoom on it for those long distance shots. Its an outdoor afternoon wedding (this summer after mine) and I am still deciding on what film to use?

 

I figure with weddings you need a good zoom lens, just to make sure you have all the shots possible. Primes are nice, but you would have to swap lenses alot. 'L' Lenses are nice, but they are expensive, and if you are shooting with a 300D, then you most likely don't have the money for that class of lens. I wouldn't shoot a wedding with anything less then a 10D, or even a 1Ds in digital, just for quality. Film, you just need a fast RELIABLE camera. If you insist on using the 300D then get a good zoom lens (28 WA, and at least a 100mm TELE for portraits). And have a GOOD 70-200 zoom lens. Mine for the AE-1P is a fast lens. Can't remember off hand, but it cost a pretty penny new, although I paid pocket lint prices for it on ebay second hand (mint condition).

 

Hope that helps.

 

Cheers,

[greg_tan]

I have only been in photography for only a little over a year and have had the pleasure (displeasure?) of shooting 3 weddings in rapid succession for relatives (in one case back to back weddings in Vegas). I use an Elan 7 and have managed to use just 2 lenses: 28 2.8 and 50 1.4. My results have astonished even my picky wife. She is doing the wedding albums and 8x10 enlargements have come out crystal clear. The ETTL from a 420 ex really works. I used to use a non ETTL flash and geez what a difference. The biggest pain of the whole thing was switching lenses all the time. I'm getting another body now, one for the 50 and one for the 28. I guess a zoom would be convenient but I can't imagine getting the quality enlargements from the zooms that I am getting from the primes. Shooting at f4, the 50 mm lens is incredible. I'm also going to purchase an 85 1.8, but honestly have not really needed one for the weddings I did. By the way, I can't believe the extreme cost of wedding albums. You guys know a good place to buy?

[packman]

sweeet! thanks very much for your replies! i actually am set to buy the 70-200 4L by March...then the 17-40 4L (already made up my mind) and 550 EX 3 mos after...i plan to upgrade the 300D body as well by next year. it is my first time to go digital and af so i want to be sure that i am indeed "into photography" before i do the BIG spending ;)

 

thanks again...stay sweeet!

[leonard_richmond7]

"The "L" zooms (and primes), however, are *clearly* in a better category."<br>

<br>

Pictures speak louder than words. Check out test shots comparing the 17-40L, 50 f/1.4, and 18-55 at wide open zoom apertures (f/4 for the 50) by visiting the post at

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7168405" >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7168405</a><br>

You might be VERY surprised.<br>

<br>

If you get tired of waiting for the slow fullsize picture downloads from Imagestation, you can cut to the chase. My analysis of the comparison shots (studio, tripod, same subject matter) is at

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7185801" >http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=7185801</a><br>

<br>

Or even briefer:<br>

<br>

<b>17-40 vs. 18-55:</b><br>

17/18mm: 18-55 slightly sharper center & edges, less CA.<br>

40/42mm: a tie<br>

<br>

<b>50 vs. 18-55:</b><br>

Center: 18-55 is more contrasty and slightly sharper <br>

Edges: a tie, except for slight light falloff of 18-55 (it's wide open, the 50 is stopped down 3 stops, hence no light falloff)<br>

<br>

Don't believe it? Look for yourself. Save the images and bring up the pairs in Photoshop simultaneously (tiling the window), viewing at 100% (or even 200%).<br>

<br>

The 18-55 vs 17-40 shots are all the same exposure. But the EXIF data (and the pictures) show that the guy mismatched the exposures for the 50 vs 18-55 shots. The 18-55 55mm f/5.6 shot is 1/3 stop under all the other shots. To accurately compare those 2 you'll need to lighten the 18-55 shot or darken the 50 shot to match them. (Why can't people just get it right?) If you do it right, the blackest square (top left corner of the color chart) and the whitest square (bottom right corner) will be the same by the Photoshop eyedropper. Of course, if you just leave the 2 shots alone, the correctly exposed one (50) looks much better, but that's the fault of the photographer for not matching the exposures, not the fault of the lens.<br>

<br>

I was surprised at the results, though they do reinforce similar conclusions from many pictures posted a couple of weeks ago in another thread in the Canon EOS 300-D forum at that same site 2 weeks ago.

[david_boily]

If you are planning to do this often, I would start with a good quality zoom. I shoot weddings with a 10D, 550EX and most of my shots are using the 28-80 f2.8. I also have a 70-200mm 2.8 and highly recommend you have this at all times. More than once the minister has told me to keep my distance (not during the ceremony) while others told me no flash. The 70-200mm 2.8 saved my butt more than once. I recently added a 20-35mm for a little more range, but rarely use it. With the 1.6 crop factor, you will find that a 28-80 allows you to get the shots you want without being too intrusive. Primes will be razor sharp, but all the back and forth with be annoying. With a good zoom, you can take many pictures from the exact same spot and frame them completely differently. The Bride & Groom will appreciate the multiple pictures and you will be much more discreet.

 

A 50mm 1.8 prime might come in handy during the reception if you want to try to take pics with no flash but that'a about it. The extra shapness of primes is great and all, but at least with a zoom, you will be able to fill the frame more and eventually crop less, thus getting better enlargements.

 

Have a backup EVERYTHING, lots of batteries and memory.

 

Good luck.

[igsman]

No doubt about it, a good zoom, or better yer a couple of bodies with two zooms complementing each other is the best thing since film. The last thing you want to have is the wedding photographer fumbling in his gear bag, trying to unscrew the cap from the back of his second prime, holding the other one in his left hand, and finally, frantically mounting the damn lens on while the bride & groom have just finished exchanging vows, or have just walked back down the aisle after being announced as man & wife. It's a lot like joggling. Without a lot of experience, you will fall flat on your face and miss a lot of good photo opportunities, while all this can be easily avoided with a 28-135mm or/and a 70-200mm zoom.

 

By the way, have an old loaded point-n-shoot in your camera bag. You never know if you might need it.