Primes at a Wedding

D

dancook

Messages
6,778
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
No
Would you use a 35mm 1.4 MF only lens at a wedding? (on a full frame)

Assume you had other options of a 21mm 2.8 MF, 55mm 1.4 MF, 85mm 1.2 AF, 135mm 2.0 AF lenses too.

Since all the lenses I buy tend to be relatively expensive, I don't like having lenses sitting around - and if I want to buy another lens I might need to sell the 35mm 1.4 to fund it. The idea being if I sold the 35mm I might buy a 21mm + 55mm (or there abouts).

I've been thinking about a 50/55mm lens lately for times when I don't have enough room for the 85mm - particular with group shots. The other thing is that when it comes to portraits, the 35mm can get a bit close to the subject and distort them.
 
I leave a 35mm on a camera at weddings all ways. Its my most used focal length. My go to combination is 35/85
 
boyfalldown said:
I leave a 35mm on a camera at weddings all ways. Its my most used focal length. My go to combination is 35/85
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was starting to have doubts - but I can be so fickle.

Need to gain confidence using manual focussing now too then. Just got Magic Lantern - so live view aids will help.
 
dancook said:
Thanks, I was starting to have doubts - but I can be so fickle.

Need to gain confidence using manual focussing now too then. Just got Magic Lantern - so live view aids will help.
Click to expand...

... Well there's a difference between using a 35mm prime and using a 35mm MF prime. I mean, the real crisis you're having here is being able to focus quickly enough to capture all the action. Can you confidently do that? If you plan on shooting a lot of wide-open shots then you going to have to be pretty darn accurate with your manual focusing!
 
yanovitz said:
My combo is 35/85mm sometimes 135 but all AF. Out of curiosity why are you going for MF?
Click to expand...

I like the Carl Zeiss lenses, I've put my CZ 35mm 1.4 up for sale now - if I don't sell it, I'll rent the Sigma 35mm 1.4 for the wedding when I rent a second 5dm3
 
People used to shoot weddings with manual focus before auto focus existed so there's no reason why you can't now.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
People used to shoot weddings with manual focus before auto focus existed so there's no reason why you can't now.
Steve.
Click to expand...

However, there could be a rise in expectations from the client because AF has become the norm?

Like in focus photographs :LOL:
 
Would i use a manual focus only lens at a wedding. No chance. Dont make life hard, the image quality difference will only be visable to you, your frustration may become visible to everyone.
 
dancook said:
No, never shot a wedding before :D
Click to expand...

I would advise you to get a Manual lens and try it out first in a reportage context and see if a) it's doable b) whether it's worth the hassle.

mart77 said:
Would i use a manual focus only lens at a wedding. No chance. Dont make life hard, the image quality difference will only be visable to you, your frustration may become visible to everyone.
Click to expand...

Ditto, even though I do shot primes only I wouldn't do a whole day on MF.
 
Wouldn't go near MF only on a DSLR, not worth the hassle, replacing the focussing screen, etc.

dancook said:
Thanks, I was starting to have doubts - but I can be so fickle.

Need to gain confidence using manual focussing now too then. Just got Magic Lantern - so live view aids will help.
Click to expand...

Shooting handheld stills of moving subjects focussing via Liveview? Good luck. (y)
 
Eddzz!! said:
... Well there's a difference between using a 35mm prime and using a 35mm MF prime. I mean, the real crisis you're having here is being able to focus quickly enough to capture all the action. Can you confidently do that? If you plan on shooting a lot of wide-open shots then you going to have to be pretty darn accurate with your manual focusing!
Click to expand...

I can happily shoot gigs in very low light with manual focus primes wide open (50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2, 135mm f/2.0) and fairly reliably hit focus. As for action, I reckon people are moving about on a stage a lot more than at your average wedding ceremony :)

however...

Jayst84 said:
Wouldn't go near MF only on a DSLR, not worth the hassle, replacing the focussing screen, etc.
Click to expand...

I'll agree, MF on a DSLR (as opposed to shooting with a body built for manual focus) is not a greatly rewarding experience IME. It's possible, but much harder to get right and not as much fun. If you're serious about digital with manual focus lenses, then mirrorless is the way to go - either a camera with an EVF or a Leica.
I went for a Sony A7: I don't think I'd be half as confident shooting things like gigs with my 5D and MF lenses.
 
Musicman said:
I can happily shoot gigs in very low light with manual focus primes wide open (50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2, 135mm f/2.0) and fairly reliably hit focus. As for action, I reckon people are moving about on a stage a lot more than at your average wedding ceremony :)
Click to expand...

Didn't say it was impossible ;)
 
There is no chance I would use any manual focus lens over 24mm for anything but landscapes or macros. Sigma 35mm is probably better than Zeiss, particularly when the latter is out of focus.
 
Musicman said:
I'll agree, MF on a DSLR (as opposed to shooting with a body built for manual focus) is not a greatly rewarding experience IME. It's possible, but much harder to get right and not as much fun. If you're serious about digital with manual focus lenses, then mirrorless is the way to go - either a camera with an EVF or a Leica.
I went for a Sony A7: I don't think I'd be half as confident shooting things like gigs with my 5D and MF lenses.
Click to expand...

I thought of the A7R as an option for a second body and something with EVF I can use with my Carl Zeiss lens, but someone suggested I just get another 5dm3 (hire).

I'll try the MF out tonight, someone's having a leaving party - so we'll be in pubs/bars etc.. low light - people moving.
 
Musicman said:
I can happily shoot gigs in very low light with manual focus primes wide open (50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2, 135mm f/2.0) and fairly reliably hit focus. As for action, I reckon people are moving about on a stage a lot more than at your average wedding ceremony :)

however...



I'll agree, MF on a DSLR (as opposed to shooting with a body built for manual focus) is not a greatly rewarding experience IME. It's possible, but much harder to get right and not as much fun. If you're serious about digital with manual focus lenses, then mirrorless is the way to go - either a camera with an EVF or a Leica.
I went for a Sony A7: I don't think I'd be half as confident shooting things like gigs with my 5D and MF lenses.
Click to expand...

A concert would be much easier in manual focus. They are moving in a predetermined space. You only really have to make bigger compensation for forward and backward movement. At a wedding people can be 3 feet to 30 feet away and moving anywhere. Try manual focussing on a kid running diagonally towards you and hugging its grandmother for a second in low light.

The difference with weddings is that the moment is only happening once, at a concert there are thousands of similar moments happening across the performance. At weddings there are lots of moments that arent being repeated. A concert is remarkably easy in comparison, no offense. but it is. Although they are moving mostly they arent moving as far and their range is limited and their movements are largely repeated.
 
dancook said:
I thought of the A7R as an option for a second body and something with EVF I can use with my Carl Zeiss lens, but someone suggested I just get another 5dm3 (hire).

I'll try the MF out tonight, someone's having a leaving party - so we'll be in pubs/bars etc.. low light - people moving.
Click to expand...

and take/borrow an auto focus lens with you so you can compare on the spot.
 
Phil V said:
For you maybe, but not what the current market demands
Click to expand...

I have questioned this before but I wonder if photographers offer more because it is demanded or if customers accept more because it is offered.

My wedding album has about sixty pictures in it which is plenty as far as I am concerned. I don't see any need for any more but appreciate that some people might want more. Personally, I wouldn't know what to do with them.


Steve.
 
I tried an A7 today, and the zoom on MF is amazing hah.. I loved it - I wish I could do that with the VF on my 5dm3
 
Steve Smith said:
I have questioned this before but I wonder if photographers offer more because it is demanded or if customers accept more because it is offered.

My wedding album has about sixty pictures in it which is plenty as far as I am concerned. I don't see any need for any more but appreciate that some people might want more. Personally, I wouldn't know what to do with them.


Steve.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter, we are where we are. The tide will change at some point, just like the resurrection of vinyl at inflated prices, we'll have artisan photographers shooting 3 rolls of 12 on who'll be 'the latest thing. ;)

What I will say though, is that the current offer to document the day is a vastly superior product to the old 30 group shots and twee couple poses we used to do.
 
There's no way I'd ever use a manual-focus lens at a wedding unless doing it old-stylee with a 'blad on sticks and a shower cap over the film back to stop the light leaking in. What do you perceive the advantage to be over AF lenses?

Ref not seeing the need for more than 60 pictures in an album, a lot of punters may well go along with that - but what matters to most nowadays is how many pictures total they get from their wedding. Whether snappers offer more because the punters demand it or vice versa is surely irrelevant. The fact is that if you're not offering a similar number to the competition, you need a very good USP to compensate for it!

PS 3 rolls of 12 seems wildly extravagant to me. One roll for bride arriving through to leaving for reception plus couple shots, then t'other roll does 6 groups doubled up for blinkers ... ;)
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
There's no way I'd ever use a manual-focus lens at a wedding unless doing it old-stylee with a 'blad on sticks and a shower cap over the film back to stop the light leaking in. What do you perceive the advantage to be over AF lenses?
Click to expand...

Microcontrast and bokeh? :cool: and it's the case I haven't got an AF alternative at 35mm, I'm not trying to make a statement by using MF - I'd love it if Carl Zeiss could put AF on their ZE lenses.

I did spend a whole night photographing using manual focus and live view with focus peaking, I was pretty happy with it - and possibly an option for the evening when AF doesn't work so well anyway.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/sets/72157642729053605/
 
dancook said:
Microcontrast and bokeh? :cool:
Click to expand...

Erm ... so are your punters photographers? Whatever, each to their own :)

dancook said:
I did spend a whole night photographing using manual focus and live view with focus peaking, I was pretty happy with it
http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/sets/72157642729053605/
Click to expand...

That's a very nice set of grab 'n' grins if you don't mind me saying, and nicely processed too, but I can see some punters wondering why some of the people in some of the pictures are "a bit fuzzy". IMO it never pays to over-estimate the visual literacy of your average punter ...
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
Erm ... so are your punters photographers? Whatever, each to their own :)
Click to expand...

Yea yea.. I bought the lens for me :) not for Weddings. I will probably rent the Sigma 35mm 1.4 when the time comes.

Serendipitous Sid said:
That's a very nice set of grab 'n' grins if you don't mind me saying, and nicely processed too, but I can see some punters wondering why some of the people in some of the pictures are "a bit fuzzy". IMO it never pays to over-estimate the visual literacy of your average punter ...
Click to expand...

These shots were to practice low light flash photography, I had high isos and wide apertures for ambient light. If the photo was not OOF I think the 'fuzzyness' could be due to NR and small focal planes.

Do you think the settings I used were ok? or should I have been doing something else with them? less ambient? slower shutter speed? more dof?
 
Last edited:
To add some context, the bride and groom are friends.

the bride was maid of honour at a wedding where I was a guest, and that bride asked me to bring my camera.

It was a little while ago, and with a 5dm2 - so I have more experience and ISO room now :)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/sets/72157634274331485/

Based on my general photography, and these photos - they wanted me to do shoot their wedding.
 
dancook said:
Do you think the settings I used were ok? or should I have been doing something else with them? less ambient? slower shutter speed? more dof?
Click to expand...

I reckon they're as spot on as you've any right to expect, and a lot better than many of the shots you see from social gatherings published in local rags and indeed in some national mags. However, if they were the snaps from a wedding reception, I'd expect some wittering from some punters about the fact that in some shots, all the people (or at least the main subjects) are not in focus. You know why that is and so do I, but the punter might not "get" it. IMO you're safer doing two things when shooting in low light like that - try to shoot small groups of 2-3 people "broadside" so that you've a fighting chance of getting them all reasonably sharp, but where that's not possible, always focus on the nearest face.

That's still a good set of snaps, though :)
 
dancook said:
To add some context, the bride and groom are friends.

the bride was maid of honour at a wedding where I was a guest, and that bride asked me to bring my camera.

It was a little while ago, and with a 5dm2 - so I have more experience and ISO room now :)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/62198876@N02/sets/72157634274331485/

Based on my general photography, and these photos - they wanted me to do shoot their wedding.
Click to expand...

Beware the steep slippery slope! I got into wedding photography simply because the mother of a girl I did some headshots of wouldn't take no for an answer when she kept nagging me to photograph her wedding, and it all went downhill PDQ from there. A year later I was doing weddings only, which I did for the next 10 years ...

Ref that set of your wedding snaps, I reckon that most of the people shots are lovely but the scene-setters, cake etc are basically crap. Check out somebody like Kerry Morgan or James Davidson for some inspiration on that front!
 
Serendipitous Sid said:
Beware the steep slippery slope! I got into wedding photography simply because the mother of a girl I did some headshots of wouldn't take no for an answer when she kept nagging me to photograph her wedding, and it all went downhill PDQ from there. A year later I was doing weddings only, which I did for the next 10 years ...

Ref that set of your wedding snaps, I reckon that most of the people shots are lovely but the scene-setters, cake etc are basically crap. Check out somebody like Kerry Morgan or James Davidson for some inspiration on that front!
Click to expand...

I was not the photographer for that wedding, and it was all natural light and my processing was a bit erratic :). In my recent research I've seen some ideas for using flash on the cake, with a kicker light - but I will keep looking at ideas - cheers.

I have got another Wedding, in July - however the stress is a lot less - their wedding is very informal, and they just want me to take my camera and take a few photos. They said I don't need to take photos all night if I don't want to, they'd be happy to rely on people's mobile phones and compact cameras :D I won't be able to resist though, that's my favourite bit!

If the one in October goes well, I would definitely consider moving into Weddings.
 
Phil V said:
What I will say though, is that the current offer to document the day is a vastly superior product to the old 30 group shots and twee couple poses we used to do.
Click to expand...

Do you ever get customers asking for the old, more formal style instead of the documentary style?

Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top