Longest lens

AndrewSt

AndrewSt

Messages
1,261
Edit My Images
No
What is the longest lens any of you wedding/portrait photographers use?

I currently use primes, 35/85 combo which is fine in the most part. Sometimes struggling in large venues, depending upon restrictions.

Obvious addition would be a 70-200, probably either a Tamron or Nikon F2.8, possibly the F4.

Fir Nikons the prime option would most likely be a 105 (not much different to the 85), 135 although an old lens now.

The new 300 F4 looks amazing but I think too long to be of any practical use at a wedding.
 
A 70-200 2.8 has been a typical staple for years, I'd guess most people have one. Though how much use it gets will depend more on style and personality.
 
It's the size and weight that puts me off. Love the lightness of the primes but I have to admit that sometimes they are not long enough.
 
135mm, I have used it with a 1.4tc to give me just under 200mm at 2.8.
I have shot portraits on a beach before with a 300mm.
 
70-200 f2.8 covers my present options, although if I had the 600mm with a x2 convertor, I could shoot the weddings from home...
 
I am not a wedding photographer.,
I do shoot classical music concerts that are mostly indoors.

Was using a bunch of fast primes (f2 or faster) on two DLR bodies however I now use a pair of Olympus E-M5MarkII bodies (Micro 4/3) with a 24-80 (in 35mm FOV terms) on one body and an 80-300 f2.8 (in 35mm FOV terms) on the other body.
It makes for a very versatile, and managable, combination.
 
Last edited:
Wil probably add a 70-200 to my bag eventually. The Tamron F2.8 is quite a bit cheaper, might have a look at trying one out first.
 
Great example of compression.

I have a Nikkor 200mm f2 but if yo don't like the idea of the weight of a 70-200 then you best give it a miss.
 
AndrewSt said:
It's the size and weight that puts me off. Love the lightness of the primes but I have to admit that sometimes they are not long enough.
Click to expand...

+1

I took the plunge recently and bought a 70-200 f.28, but returned it after one day. The picture quality was great but it just felt awkward and unwieldy. I guess that's something that many people get used to over time, but it just didn't feel right to me. I'd definitely recommend trying before you buy, if at all possible.
 
FinePrintDandy said:
+1

I took the plunge recently and bought a 70-200 f.28, but returned it after one day. The picture quality was great but it just felt awkward and unwieldy. I guess that's something that many people get used to over time, but it just didn't feel right to me. I'd definitely recommend trying before you buy, if at all possible.
Click to expand...
Yes after a day it would still feel heavy. It takes a bit of time to get used to it. Also better to wear it on something like a black rapid strap - it's too heavy for a neck strap (and better to have strap on the lens not body).

I can shoot for hours with one and I'm under 5'2 and less 8st. I shoot two bodies at once but often have a prime on the other. Sometimes I do find it heavy by the speeches.

I didn't get a D4 though as thought it would be too heavy so it's a case of finding what weight you're comfortable working with.
 
Last edited:
AndrewSt said:
Wil probably add a 70-200 to my bag eventually. The Tamron F2.8 is quite a bit cheaper, might have a look at trying one out first.
Click to expand...

I use two Tamrons Andrew, the 24-70 2.8 VC & 70-200 2.8 VC. The 70-200 is heavy but if you use a decent strap/holster system it shouldn't be an issue.

I used to use 35/85 prime combo but I found that I was hankering for extra reach and didn't fancy the thought of having to swap out the 85 for a 135 every time I thought I'd need it.
 
danny_bhoy said:
I use two Tamrons Andrew, the 24-70 2.8 VC & 70-200 2.8 VC. The 70-200 is heavy but if you use a decent strap/holster system it shouldn't be an issue.

I used to use 35/85 prime combo but I found that I was hankering for extra reach and didn't fancy the thought of having to swap out the 85 for a 135 every time I thought I'd need it.
Click to expand...
How do you find the 70-200? It is considerably cheaper than the canon/Nikon version and cheaper than the Nikon f4.
 
AndrewSt said:
How do you find the 70-200? It is considerably cheaper than the canon/Nikon version and cheaper than the Nikon f4.
Click to expand...

The Tamron 70-200, although I've only used it for two weddings so far, is awesome. The VC is really effective and it's nice and sharp at 2.8. Really solid build as well.

I believe it's less than half the price of the Canon alternative. If you decide to get one I'll PM you the link to the place where I got mine - quite a bit cheaper than other places.
 
I would also agree with the 70-200mm, I also have the 35mm & 85mm combo, but the Nikon 70-200mm is hard to beat..
 
I'd love the space for a 300mm prime, but use my 80-200 for 75% of my portrait work.
 
The Tamron is great if you get a good copy. Panamoz stopped selling it, however, because the QC was poor.
 
The 70-200/4 is cheaper, lighter, and doesn't have the focus breathing issue the current f/2.8 has... it's better for headshots. For tight images, the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is negligible in terms of DOF/OOF.

But, it's not quite as suited for indoor/low light when you're really against it.
I've considered selling my f/2.8 for the f/4... I would probably buy the f/4 instead if I didn't already have the other.
 
Last edited:
AndrewSt said:
Love the lightness of the primes but I have to admit that sometimes they are not long enough.
Click to expand...

Then get closer :)

Dunno how many years we shot weddings with a 16-35 on one body and a 70-200 on the other, but it was somewhere between 3 and 6. TBH, the main reasons we did that were because (a) it was received wisdom that those two lenses were essential for wedding fauxtojournmalism, and (b) we knew no better.

It then finally dawned on us that (a) we rarely used the long 'un at much over 120mm, (b) it was a major PITA schlepping it around for 8 hours a day and (c) it unsettled a fair number of guests when we used it during receptions. It therefore seemed that the only possible justification for carrying on with a 70-200 was the odd grab shot of something interesting a fair way away and/or the compression effect when used for the posed portraits. So we did the obvious: at one wedding I shot some of the couple shots at the long end of the 70-200, then repeated them with an 85/1.8 wide open. I don't remember how many couples we showed those pictures to at meetings, but I do remember being surprised how few were in the least bothered about the compression!

I therefore got rid of mine, my pictures got better, and I never missed any of those "interesting shots" of something happening a fair way away, simply because I wasn't looking for them. Ann kept hers in her bag (as opposed to still being permanently on her second body) primarily for those occasions when we were limited to shooting from the back of the church during the ceremony.
 
Last edited:
I don't own a 70-200. I haven't for years. Certainly not since I've worked full time. It's just too big & makes people uncomfortable. 135 is the longest I own
 
I take the 300mm f/2.8 to every wedding I have shot and never used it just sites in the car 70-200 has always been enough
 
AndrewSt said:
What is the longest lens any of you wedding/portrait photographers use?

I currently use primes, 35/85 combo which is fine in the most part. Sometimes struggling in large venues, depending upon restrictions.

Obvious addition would be a 70-200, probably either a Tamron or Nikon F2.8, possibly the F4.

Fir Nikons the prime option would most likely be a 105 (not much different to the 85), 135 although an old lens now.

The new 300 F4 looks amazing but I think too long to be of any practical use at a wedding.
Click to expand...

I do portraits but not weddings. I bought a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 on a whim..and I'm using it much more than I expected to, even at the long end - though my studio is biggish. I'm contemplating selling the 85mm. An f4 would do the job just as well but the Tamron f2.8 is a comparable price to the Nikon f4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top