Shooting a wedding with a prime?

[LORatliff]

Just curious to see if anyone has shot a whole wedding with a prime (say the 50mm f/1.8 or something similar) or has any input as to how well (or how not! :lol:) this would work.

[Big Mike]

I know a few WP that shoot exclusively with prime lenses. The 35mm F1.4 L being a favorite lens.

[LORatliff]

Wow, even a 35mm? That's good to know. I was really just concerned about focal length and not having that zoom but from what I've read, it seems like not being able to rely on the zoom ends up producing sharper, better composed photos.

[-MasterChief-]

yes, and because of it, the next items on my wishlist are the EF 24 f1.8 and the 135 f2.0 L. :)

[sapearl]

When I shot MF film all I had were primes.

The medium wide angle for 2 1/4 is the 60mm lens which is very similar to the 35mm for angle of coverage. It was perfect for the groups, formals, and as a the candid "walkaround." It was only an f/3.5, but bounce and direct flash covered my lighting.

You could use your 50mm, but you will get into trouble on some group shots. You may not have large enough rooms where you can sufficiently back up to accomodate large numbers of people. This is why some sort of wide angle is always critical for wedding work. - Stu

[CyberPet]

My mentor is shooting primes, a few different ones, plus a 70-200/2.8L IS and he just love that set-up. He uses three bodies.

[salinas20d]

My sister in law just got maired and the photographer shot most of the event with a 85mm 1.2 . He also had a 70-200-2.8 IS , 16-35 2.8 , The shots all came out great .

[neil_r]

Pre digital, MF and Pentax days that is all I used and you had to focus them manually too. I no longer "do" weddings (other than as personal favours) but I would not be daunted if all I had was the 35 1.4, 50 1.2 and 85 1.2. If god had meant us to rely on zooms, he would not have given us legs.

[sapearl]

As much as I love my old Zeiss glass, todays "L" zooms with their razor sharp autofocus have spoiled me a bit, and yes, everything was manual focus back then. But my eyes are not as youthful as in a the past, and I don't mind the autofocus assist.;) I still do zoom with my feet today as circumstances dictate.

Pre digital, MF and Pentax days that is all I used and you had to focus them manually too. I no longer "do" weddings (other than as personal favours) but I would not be daunted if all I had was the 35 1.4, 50 1.2 and 85 1.2. If god had meant us to rely on zooms, he would not have given us legs.

[jessiper]

...But sometimes you can't always move your feet to zoom or switch to a different lens or camera, plus, with the quality of the L lenses, why would you want to shoot only w/primes? When I used to shoot weddings w/film one of my cameras had a prime and the other had a little zoom, but I wouldn't trade my 24-105 or 70-200 for anything!

[sapearl]

You got that right ;) . That's why my only dSLR purchases so far have been the 24-105L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I'm having so much fun with those that I haven't even considered any sort of PRIME purchase at this point. Perhaps one day after the novelty wears off, or I decide to get one of those fine macro's.....

...But sometimes you can't always move your feet to zoom or switch to a different lens or camera, plus, with the quality of the L lenses, why would you want to shoot only w/primes? .....

[jessiper]

You got that right ;) . That's why my only dSLR purchases so far have been the 24-105L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I'm having so much fun with those that I haven't even considered any sort of PRIME purchase at this point. Perhaps one day after the novelty wears off, or I decide to get one of those fine macro's.....

My macro is fun, too, for ring shots and personal stuff especially. I bought the 50 1.4 because some receptions require it, but I know what you mean about the other two lenses! :)

[psk4363]

Pre-digital and shooting MF on 645 I only ever used my 75mm (standard) lens. Nowadays I shoot mainly with my 50mm f1.4 and occasionally with my 16-35L on my 20D.

[karensimmons]

I shoot almost exclusively primes at weddings. I use the 20mm 2.8, the 50mm 1.4, and the 100mm 2.8 the most.

Karen

[Phil V]

With MF I shot with the 75mm std and the 150 tele. But it was a different style of shooting to what I do now. The only primes I have now are the macro and the 50 1.8, I suppose if I had the 30mm1.4 I could shoot a wedding just with those (poss with a 20 as well), But it'd mean carrying 2 bodies and constant swapping, the fast zooms do it for me and are just easier to use IMHO.

[dtngo]

But the <f/1.8 speeds of primes would be handy for low light, no flash situations wouldn't they?

Two bodies sound ideal - one with a fast prime and the other with a quality zoom.

[Grace]

I am about to purchase a 35 and rely on my primes for weddings. May not sound like the thing to do to everyone else but I like the idea. 35,50 and 85 and my package will be complete.......for now. Until someone wants to give me a 24-70 L. I have found around here I don't really need a longer lens. All our churches are small and the 85 still gives me crop room.

Again, this is one of those "everyone" has their own opinion thread and mine is not meant to speak for anyone other than me :)

[mace0002]

I am shopping for the "perfect" wedding lens right now...and have read and read, and read all these forums-we are all so different in our styles and thoughts it is hard to decide. I hate changing lenes too much during a wedding(dust scares me...LOL, just kidding) So I am leaning toward a zoom, but alot of use the 50 and 85. I know I want a fast lens for low light, the lens I use most is just not cutting it at 3.5, but do I spend my budget on 2 lens or one good "L" lens like the 24-70. I wish there was a perfect answer from the all knowing Lens God for me..LOL

[sapearl]

I know other views may differ from mine, but I've had no trouble at all using just the 24-105L & recently the 70-200 f/2.8L for my weding and event work.

Most of the time the 24-105 is used in conjunction with the 580ex either bounced, or direct for large groups. The long lens gets used for tight portraits and candids (no flash), or mounted on a monopod/tripod in dim churches. Whenever ambient light is sufficient that it's used handheld, no flash. Each lens is mounted on its own body for speed of use.

[MagicallyDelicious]

I shot the whole of a cermony with the nifty but then switched to a zoom after.

[Stan43]

I use Canon L's, 35,85,135 and 200 on three bodies. It just works for me. I would also suggest the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 as excellent choices. You can get them for a good price and mix your zooms in . I would say most shooters have a blend of primes and zooms.

[Stan43]

I am shopping for the "perfect" wedding lens right now...and have read and read, and read all these forums-we are all so different in our styles and thoughts it is hard to decide. I hate changing lenes too much during a wedding(dust scares me...LOL, just kidding) So I am leaning toward a zoom, but alot of use the 50 and 85. I know I want a fast lens for low light, the lens I use most is just not cutting it at 3.5, but do I spend my budget on 2 lens or one good "L" lens like the 24-70. I wish there was a perfect answer from the all knowing Lens God for me..LOL
In your case I would get the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. Sharp ,fast focusing and light weight.

[spphoto]

I like the idea of primes and use a 50mm 1.8 often, but knowing my shooting style (haven't shot a wedding yet :P) I don't think I could survive without my zooms. I shoot very close crops, so the longer zooms are great (200mm is a little short for a lot of stuff) and am a VERY active shooter (I'm often compared to the squirrel from the movie "Over the Hedge") so the flexibilty of zooms is much appreciated.

[sapearl]

In your case I would get the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8. Sharp ,fast focusing and light weight.

Those are excellent lens recommendations - just make sure you have a pretty good wide angle though.

For a FF camera you'd need either a 24 or 28mm for group shots in tight spots. If you don't have something to handle those situations you'll get yourself in a pickle - bridal party, family, friends, coworker, etc. group shots can really spread themselves out. You're not always able to back up far enough for total coverage.

[SuzyView]

I shoot with the 24-70 on the 5D, and the 50 or 85 on the 20D. That way I am covered. The bokeh on the 50 and 85 makes portraits of small groups or individuals amazing. So, yes, I shoot weddings with primes and 1 zoom.

[l3it3r]

I do 50mm f/1.8 for portrait and closeups and the 28-135 for everything else

[mace0002]

I use the 5D camera...I have a wide angle 19-35 zoom, I also have the Sigma 105 macro-that could be used for a portrait lens, and have the 50...I am thinking I want a zoom. sapearl is the 24-105 fast enough in low light situations? Or l3it3r what abouat the 28-135 for low light-I was fast focusing. I guess I do lean toward a 24-70L for the 2.8 speed. I have the Tamron 28-200 3.8-its slooow to focus in low light but I love the range quite honestly for weddings. I don't really want to carry around 2 cameras...I have backup but only if I need backup. I dunno??? LOL

[sapearl]

Mace, I don't have a problem with the 24-105L in low light, but then I'm always using a flash (580 on AUTO-ETTL and camera on Manual if it's really dark), and/or shooting ISO 800 in dim churches.

If things are really dark during the ceremony I'll have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS either hand held at higher ISO or likely on a tripod in the balcony or at the back.

[s8langwo]

I shoot with primes because of their low light capability and image quality. The 1+ extra stop flexibility gained by the fast primes offsets the penalty in foot zooming. As the paid photographer I've been afforded the luxury of free movement when I'm behnd the wedding guests, so foot zooming is my first choice.

The frequency of saying 'I wish I had a zoom' has yet to dictate the purchase of one.