Shooting primes

Joshua James

Joshua James

Messages
745
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a 'fun' wedding coming up - its a short affair in a venue I know inside out so I am going to have my first crack at shooting the whole wedding with primes. I've always preferred prime lenses and have often thought about going down that route for weddings - just not had the opportunity to try it prior to now.

Anyone else shooting with just primes? tips? I am going to have 35mm on one body and 85mm on another, probably even have the 50mm on a third body in the bag for swapping about.
 
i shoot predominantly 35 + 85, i keep a 24mm as well too. job done.
 
This is precisely my plan when I start shooting weddings again (which I'm trying to do now). 35mm on one body and 85mm on the other. Perhaps packing something wider and longer in the bag. Will look forward to seeing your results.
 
I know a lot of photographer's who use primes most of the time. I've tried it and whilst I love the sharpness, I miss the flexibility of a zoom.

Prime shooters does seem to be a growing bunch though
 
Not that I've ever shot a wedding or ever would but one thing that would worry me would be group shots and being able to get them all in if shooting with primes, especially with an APS-C camera.

I think I'd want a wide lens in my bag just in case I couldn't back up enough to get everyome in.
 
I've got a 24 mm in the bag too :) Wide enough for most groups, certainly for this wedding which has only about 50 guests and tonnes of space to shoot them in.
 
I'm no wedding photographer, but I have covered a few for friends and family. I found I was using the 24-70 95% of the time. Even though I had the much loved 70-200 VRII, an 85 and 50 on hand.

Now I have mostly primes, if I was to do another anytime soon I'd go with my 35mm and 85 and 150mm for macro and further back candids. A long lens can give you that lovely compressed look with nice shallow DOF people tend to love in a candid and allows you that little bit more space to not be in the mix of the group all the time.

I definitely think a 35 and 85 can work, but more so on FX. I'd look more to that 24 and a 50mm on DX and have the 85 in bag.
 
Last edited:
Always

24/35/50/85

Have done for about 3 years now.

24/35 on 2 bodies for around 85% of the day. 50 for speeches and first dance if needed. 85 for B&G shots.
 
Last edited:
I've been tempted to go down this route - albeit not wedding photography.

I currently have the 35/85 1.4 Nikons and I'm now thinking about getting rid of my 24-70 and 70-200 to get the 200/2.

I would be fortunate enough though to have a backup 70-200 should I ever need the flexibility plus keep the 14-24 for the wide end.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Nowadays the zoom lenses are just as sharp as primes.
Click to expand...

High end zooms maybe. Primes are often cheaper, especially if you're not swayed by 1.4 options.

Ive sold my 24-70 because the 35sigma I bought is just more fun and easier to use and its sharper.
 
For me it's not about sharpness, it's about the gorgeous cinematic look that a shallow DoF gives.

As an illustration... A set from a recent Grease themed celebration / fundraiser, all shot with either the 50mm f1.4 or 135mm f2.
http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Blog/2013-06-15-Priddy-Grease/30143027_vpzMhP

When covering festivals, I'll admit to being slightly lazy.
If I've got the 24-105 on one of the bodies then I hardly use the primes even if I'm carrying them.
The resultant shots are OK, but don't have the magic.
By only using primes it makes me think much harder about what I take and I get better shots.

But I may be taking this too far - I'm seriously thinking of covering a festival next weekend with just a 300mm f4 and an 8-15 fisheye.
It won't matter what I take, those shots will really stand out in the festival gallery :)
 
Last edited:
I'm just back from Turkey, I wanted to do some shooting, but it was a family Hol, so didn't want to over do it. I almost left the D800 behind to save weight, but brought it with just the 85mm. I was glad I did, because I got some good shots of stuff in the distance I wouldn't have got with just the Fuji, which I brought also, obviously. Basically I had 35 on crop and 85 on FX and between them I got all the shots I wanted. I missed a bit more zoom, but with the crop-ability of the 800 the 85mm acted as zoom also.

Of course, nothing by way of pro shooting on hol's, but I did manage a few nice ones.
 
And they're still 2.8 or slower.

And bigger.

And heavier.

Many reasons to chose a lens. Sharpness is merely one.
 
Primes still kick butt on the Nikon side if you go by DXO mark
 
Radiohead said:
And they're still 2.8 or slower.

And bigger.

And heavier.

Many reasons to chose a lens. Sharpness is merely one.
Click to expand...

Did i say a zoom lens is lighter, smaller and quicker?

I replied to people saying zooms are not as sharp:bang:

I did not know a 24L, 50L and 85L all together is lighter then a single 24-70 mk2

a good zoom will take less space in your bag and less weight then even just a pair of primes that cover some of the zooms range.

So the only thing going for a prime is speed
 
Last edited:
Not for weddings but I have changed to prime lenses for my travel/documentary work. I've saved about 0.75kg in weight and gained at least 2 stops on all my lenses for working in low light. I also think the newer work I have shot has a new found quality that I can't really describe.
 
jacob12_1993 said:
I think you are forgetting resolution, depth of field, bokeh, better colour reproduction, sharpness at f2.8, corner sharpness, :bonk:
Click to expand...

resolutions? colour reproduction? sharpness? corner sharpness? umm no on all of those.

go check out the 24-70mk2 and the 70-200f 2.8. They are as sharp as many canon L lenses and also produce equaly as good colour rendition, resolution, corner sharpness etc .

i stand by what i said. primes are great for speed and DOF.

Primes however are not lighter then a zoom as no wedding photographer would just use a 85mm or a 135 or a 50mm or a 24l just on its own for the whole enture shoot. they will at minimum pic two of those primes to do the job and 2 of those will weigh more then a 24-70.

At very think DOF it is great for a single subject but for group shots, it is difficult to get multiple people in focus

Primes and zooms al have there advantages and disavantages but dont go posting false info on how zooms are not sharp enough.

Zooms have caought up in terms of IQ. cant dismiss them.
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
resolutions? colour reproduction? sharpness? corner sharpness? umm no on all of those.

go check out the 24-70mk2 and the 70-200f 2.8. They are as sharp as many canon L lenses and also produce equaly as good colour rendition, resolution, corner sharpness etc .

i stand by what i said. primes are great for speed and DOF.

Primes however are not lighter then a zoom as no wedding photographer would just use a 85mm or a 135 or a 50mm or a 24l just on its own for the whole enture shoot. they will at minimum pic two of those primes to do the job and 2 of those will weigh more then a 24-70.

At very think DOF it is great for a single subject but for group shots, it is difficult to get multiple people in focus

Primes and zooms al have there advantages and disavantages but dont go posting false info on how zooms are not sharp enough.

Zooms have caought up in terms of IQ. cant dismiss them.
Click to expand...

No one said they weren't sharp..just not as sharp as a prime at f2.8 which is understandable as a prime will be stopped down by some way whereas a zoom will be wide open.

I don't know about canon but I do know that the Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 aren't quite as good as the 24/35/50/85 f1.4 Nikon primes in terms of IQ. They have gotten much closer recently but they are not quite there.

It's not an earth shattering theory that at wider apertures primes will be sharper. Just the same as the fact that zooms beat primes for with VR, range, etc etc
 
Nikon primes are definitely sharper than their zooms, and their higher end zooms are already great in most ways. Primes save weight, give you extra light, they're just easier use, non-fuss, and they do have that certain something about the end IQ - you just don't get the same from a zoom. Just my personal there ... I've had most of the desired Nikon zooms, and I found some of them clumsy and overly heavy when there are cheaper primes that do the job just as good, if not better. Recently replaced my 24-70 with a Sigma 35 1.4 and Nikon 85 1.8, and couldn't be happier. The 70-200 VRII and Nikon 105 macro also gone, in place a Sigma 150 macro, covers both for my needs pretty much. And a much lighter load in bag.

I'm looking to a 300mm f/4 prime now, but that will be for specific outings, not something I'll have in the bag at all times.

I wouldn't write off a return to zooms, but for now I think I'm learning more as I go using primes.
 
I really like Nikon's 28/50/85 1.8Gs as a lightweight, high quality set of fast lenses, hard to fault really. They blow the 24-70 away for much less money. Still can't give up my 70-200 though, IQ is right up there and I can't live without that telephoto look you get in the 150-200 range.
 
My 85 Nikon 1.8G was actually not getting used enough, until recently, and now I wonder why TF I haven't been using it more! It's about the cheapest high quality lens you can buy for Nikon [outside the 50mm, which I don't like, I don't know why] . Every Nikon user should have one, seriously! I used it for all sorts abroad, for street, portrait, family shots, used it as a mini zoom [allowing for the D800's crop-ability] - wonderful, light, cheap, fun to use lens. Light, being the best part when travelling.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top