Is a 70-200 lens helpful/essential for weddings?

[tim]

I'm shooting a small wedding for a friend of a friend - I don't know any details of location yet. I'm wondering if 70-200 or similar lens is helpful or essential for weddings. What i'm thinking is if I want to stay out of the way during the ceremony or reception, and still get decent photos, I might need a longer lens. It also occured to me they might not want the rather noise 20D clicking all the way thru their ceremony.

My current equipment is below. I'd appreciate if you only answer if you have experience shooting weddings :)

[DaveG]

I'm shooting a small wedding for a friend of a friend - I don't know any details of location yet. I'm wondering if 70-200 or similar lens is helpful or essential for weddings. What i'm thinking is if I want to stay out of the way during the ceremony or reception, and still get decent photos, I might need a longer lens. It also occured to me they might not want the rather noise 20D clicking all the way thru their ceremony.

My current equipment is below. I'd appreciate if you only answer if you have experience shooting weddings :)

I've shot about 160 weddings so I guess that I qualify. ;-)

The majority of those weddings were shot with a medium format Mamiya 645 system and the longest lens that used was a 150mm f3.5. That's roughly the same as a 50mm lens on a 20D.

About a month ago I shot a wedding and used among other lenses my 70-200 f2.8. It was from the back of the church, so I would not be the centre of attention and it was wonderful. I had my 20D on a Pro-T Stroboframe bracket and rather than having to disassemble all of that I just used my 10D with the 70-200. Of course this was on a tripod and I shot at ISO 800.

This newfound reach of - effectively - a 320mm lens was amazing. I could easily frame the bride and groom and with the speed of the lens get enough shutterspeed to freeze movements. Although a 70-200 f4 would still do a very nice job I would have had to increase my ISO by a stop to get the same shutterspeed. Now I'd have no problem about increasing the ISO to even 3200 as long as I got good sharp images; but obviously I'd like to use the lowest ISO that I could. With that in mind the 2.8 lens is very useful, and very expensive.

I'm shooting a wedding on Saturday where the ceremony is going to be held in a not particularly attractive Lion's Club. The venue will be quite small and I don't think that the 70-200 will come out of the bag. But for conventional church weddings I expect to use it a lot.

I also have to say that I could sucessfully shoot an entire wedding with my 24-85. That lens gives me every bit of lens focal length coverage that I used during my MF wedding days. My point is that the 70-200 and the 10-22 gives me the chance to do different things and while I want to take advantage of those options, they are the spice in the soup, not the soup itself. Make sure that you have all your other ducks in line (extra camera body, extra flash and so on) before you buy the spice.

Gee some mixed metaphors in that last line, eh?!

[NGrinerPhoto]

i use my 70-200 2.8 all the time when shooting weddings. you don't necessarily need that lens, but you should get something long and fast. -nick

[tim]

It sounds like a 70-200 lens will be helpful, thanks for all your feedback everyone :) I'll either go for the F4 or the Sigma F2.8 to start with, probably the L lens for it's light weight. I'll have to use a monopod/tripod and a higher ISO but I can live with that to start with, and the L will have great resale value here in NZ - or maybe i'll even sell it at a profit believe it or not.

An extra body and extra flash will go on my list if I start doing weddings seriously, for now, the single 20D is enough of an investment!

[robertwgross]

An extra body and extra flash will go on my list if I start doing weddings seriously, for now, the single 20D is enough of an investment!

The extra flash can come in handy for about three shots:
1. The bride is coming down the aisle, and you are about halfway down. When the bride is still at a distance from you, you flash a shot, and you have a second flash half the distance to the bride. With a Canon wireless flash system, that gives you some distance and it puts more light on the primary subject. Forget the dad, it's the bride.
2. A very large family shot after the ceremony. Like, if there are 25 people. A second flash can light up the sides better.
3. At the reception or whenever the bride tosses the bouquet. You use the primary flash close to the bride as her arm tosses the bouquet, and then you have the secondary flash closer to the catchers. So, you get the shot with the bride on one side and the others way behind, but also lit up. In my opinion, this is one of the most difficult standard shots to get right (because of issues of Depth of Field, flash illumination on the bride, flash illumination on the catchers, and shutter speed/motion blur).

---Bob Gross---

[tim]

Thanks Bob, those sound like three of the more difficult shots, and that last one sounds down right hard to get right. I guess everything about that shot has to be planned so you can set up in advance. Where do you mount the 2nd flash? On a bracket? I wouldn't mind a 420EX or something cheap and small, or maybe even a sigma 500 Super, if I do more weddings.

[Todd Jacobsen]

The extra flash can come in handy for about three shots:
1. The bride is coming down the aisle, and you are about halfway down. When the bride is still at a distance from you, you flash a shot, and you have a second flash half the distance to the bride. With a Canon wireless flash system, that gives you some distance and it puts more light on the primary subject. Forget the dad, it's the bride.
2. A very large family shot after the ceremony. Like, if there are 25 people. A second flash can light up the sides better.
3. At the reception or whenever the bride tosses the bouquet. You use the primary flash close to the bride as her arm tosses the bouquet, and then you have the secondary flash closer to the catchers. So, you get the shot with the bride on one side and the others way behind, but also lit up. In my opinion, this is one of the most difficult standard shots to get right (because of issues of Depth of Field, flash illumination on the bride, flash illumination on the catchers, and shutter speed/motion blur).

---Bob Gross---


Bob,

How do you set this up again? Your not talking TWO shots right? You just have a multi flash setup.

So for setup #1:

One flash (B) half the distance to subject which produces 4x light on subject compared to bracket flash(A) - your camera position.

1) Do you adjust for that in the forward flash via ratio (A:B ~ 2:1)?
2) What is the flash highth (ground 45, waist 10 etc)?

Setup #2:
Big group shot:

1) What is the flash ratio used (between key (side) and fill (camera) lights?
2) What was the side light angle (45, 60, 90 etc).
3) Would you recommend three lights : key, fill, background?
4) Where is the best fill location: front or opposite 45 degree side?

Setup#3
Flower throw:

Bracket light(A) on Bride, second light on flower catchers:

1) What is your camera angle to bride 90 degrees?
2) Is there a difference between bracket light angle and camera
2) What is the flash ratio (A:B ~ 1:2 or 1:4)?

Appreciate your responses.

[robertwgross]

Thanks Bob, those sound like three of the more difficult shots, and that last one sounds down right hard to get right. I guess everything about that shot has to be planned so you can set up in advance. Where do you mount the 2nd flash? On a bracket? I wouldn't mind a 420EX or something cheap and small, or maybe even a sigma 500 Super, if I do more weddings.

Planning is part of it, and practice is the other part. You have to work out the recipe far in advance, because once the scene is happening, there is little time to think. Once it is planned and practiced, and once you think you have the recipe, then you test the recipe at the rehearsal, if there is one. The rehearsal is typically the night before the wedding, so that allows the photographer to get the image onto the computer to make any last-minute tweaks to the recipe.

The primary flash goes on the flash bracket at the camera. The secondary flash can be anywhere, like twenty feet away, either stuck on a cheap tripod, or hand-held by an assistant. The secondary flash is a wireless slave, so 420EX would do nicely. The trick is that the slave must have its "eye" facing toward the master, and that is why the upper and lower parts of the 420EX, 550EX, and 580EX will all swivel.

---Bob Gross---

[robertwgross]

How do you set this up again? Your not talking TWO shots right? You just have a multi flash setup.

So for setup #1:

One flash (B) half the distance to subject which produces 4x light on subject compared to bracket flash(A) - your camera position.

1) Do you adjust for that in the forward flash via ratio (A:B ~ 2:1)?
2) What is the flash highth (ground 45, waist 10 etc)?

Setup #2:
Big group shot:

1) What is the flash ratio used (between key (side) and fill (camera) lights?
2) What was the side light angle (45, 60, 90 etc).
3) Would you recommend three lights : key, fill, background?
4) Where is the best fill location: front or opposite 45 degree side?

Setup#3
Flower throw:

Bracket light(A) on Bride, second light on flower catchers:

1) What is your camera angle to bride 90 degrees?
2) Is there a difference between bracket light angle and camera
2) What is the flash ratio (A:B ~ 1:2 or 1:4)?


Todd, your questions are not clear. "Ground 45"?

1. Yes, a closer flash will put more light on the subject than the farther flash. Yes, adjusting the ratios can even that out.
2. Unlike a single portrait flash shot, I don't try to work out main versus fill ratios. I shoot two flashes "square on" at the large group. One flash is about 5-10 feet to the left of the camera, and one is about 5-10 feet to the right of the camera. The left one is the main and the right one is the fill ... to the left side, and the right one is the main and the left one is the fill ... to the right side.
3. Camera angle to bride 90 degrees? No. You want to get the bride in the foreground, say on the right, and the bouquet is flying though the air at the top, and the catchers are in the background, say on the left. The main flash is right on the bride, and your assistant is holding the second flash out near the catchers. The only problem is that the bouquet tends to be poorly lit as it flies through the air. Well, it has motion blur anyway. I can guarantee that the first time you try this the result will be bad.

---Bob Gross---

[DaveG]

It sounds like a 70-200 lens will be helpful, thanks for all your feedback everyone :) I'll either go for the F4 or the Sigma F2.8 to start with, probably the L lens for it's light weight. I'll have to use a monopod/tripod and a higher ISO but I can live with that to start with, and the L will have great resale value here in NZ - or maybe i'll even sell it at a profit believe it or not.

An extra body and extra flash will go on my list if I start doing weddings seriously, for now, the single 20D is enough of an investment!

If you do any weddings, then they're serious. Tell the bride that your not serious some time and see how that goes over. A backup camera and flash isn't an option for a wedding photographer unless they are giving their services away. If you don't have backups I sure do hope that you have great malpractice insurance.

[tim]

I take your point Dave. In this case the bridge considers photos an optional extra, I don't think she was even going to bother with photos. Not sorting it out until 3 weeks before the wedding indicates she's not overly worried. I think i'm going to be taking the pictures a LOT more seriously than her. If i'm going to bother to do something, I do it to the best of my ability.

My plan is to do this wedding, see how it goes, and do a few more freebies to gain experience and a portfolio. If at that point there's a demand for my services at prices that are worthwhile to me i'll get a 2nd body, 2nd flash, maybe the 2.8 IS lens

[Todd Jacobsen]

Todd, your questions are not clear. "Ground 45"?

---Bob Gross---

Flash on ground pointed up 45 degrees or is it tripod mounted


So, your arrangement for the flower throw is kinda like this:


- - - - - - - - - - - bride

camera - - - - (center pt) -- - - - - catchers


or is it more like this


camera - - - - - bride

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -(center pt)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - catchers

Impressed if you can make this work

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - bride

camera - - - - - - - -(center pt)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - catchers

[Todd Jacobsen]

Tim,

I would think the 70-200 would be useful for a few shots only, that's a lot of separation to make that lens work. You can only back up so much...

[tim]

From asking this question here and on FM i've gotten a huge range of answers. Some people consider the 2.8 IS version essential for a professional wedding photographer, some use a 28-75 (or 24-70) almost exclusively. I think it's a question of style rather than need. I think one could be helpful in some cases, but i'm not going to rush out and buy one for my first, free wedding.

Thanks for all the help everyone :)

[robertwgross]

Todd, let me see if I can explain.

I'm at the camera, with the master flash on a bracket. The bride is on the right side of the frame at about ten feet, facing the camera, preparing to toss the bouquet backwards. The bouquet is going to go through the darkness at the top of the frame. Then the catchers are visible on the left, also facing the camera, at about 20-25 feet. The slave flash is outside the frame at about 15 feet, pointed at the catchers.

The intensity of the master light on the bride is one thing. The intensity of the slave light on the catchers is another thing. The ratios have to be worked out so that the bride is only a little bit brighter than the catchers, even though she is much closer to the camera.

Part of the problem is the depth of field. In general, the only way to do this is to move the camera back away from the bride and stick a telephoto lens on to compress the apparent distance from the bride to the catchers. But then that screws up the lighting ratios again. Like I said, I had to go over it several times for practice until I got it.

You've already got it figured out that the depth of field is going to be that deep if the aperture is tiny. Correct. To get the aperture that tiny, you have to play around with the ISO and the shutter speed. Normally, the shutter speed doesn't come into play that much unless you are trying to expose for ambient light with flash. So, instead, you need to crank up the flashes to maximum intensity, which is comparable to cranking up the ISO.

And then, if that isn't enough, the recipe you work out in one room won't really work in another room. But it is a great self-challenge.

One time, I cheated. I snapped the bouquet in a practice shot. Then I pasted it into the real shot that had the bride perfect and the catchers perfect, but the bouquet was blurry. Just call that artistic license.

---Bob Gross---

[DocFrankenstein]

Bob, that shot gives me shivers just thinking about it. :confused:

[robertwgross]

If the job was easy, then they could have hired just anybody.

---Bob Gross---

[tim]

I'm going to bump this thread again, to get more input from people. The feedback here and on FM is mixed: some people love the 70-200 for weddings, some don't use it at all, and some use it occasionally. The question is "will a 70-200 lens let me get better shots at a wedding, given that I don't want to spoil the ceremony by getting in the way or moving around too much". I don't have any wedding experience, so I can't make that decision myself.

I need to make this decision ASAP, as if I decide to get one it will go into the order i'll make tomorrow. Shipping to NZ is quite expensive, so i'd rather not make 2 orders.

[robertwgross]

"better shots"?

Better than what?

For some photographers, it takes a little practice time to get used to a new lens. As you walk up to a scene, your eye looks at the angles and says this lens or that lens.

The super fast lens is good if you intend to nail down the depth of field to a gnat's ass. On the other hand, if you'll have good space behind the posed subjects, then you don't need to control depth of field that tightly, so you can do with any decent lens.

---Bob Gross---

[tim]

By "better shots" I mean tightly framed shots where the subject fills the frame, rather than wide shots with the subject a tiny blob in the middle of the photo. It might be that at most weddings/receptions there are too many people around to bother with longer lenses, or maybe they're useful. I have no idea, that's why i'm asking people who've done it before.

What lens or lenses do you most often use for weddings Bob?

[Todd Jacobsen]

By "better shots" I mean tightly framed shots where the subject fills the frame, rather than wide shots with the subject a tiny blob in the middle of the photo. It might be that at most weddings/receptions there are too many people around to bother with longer lenses, or maybe they're useful. I have no idea, that's why i'm asking people who've done it before.

What lens or lenses do you most often use for weddings Bob?

Tim,

I wish I could trust a full frame shot every time. I am very gratefull for PS and the ability to C-R-O-P. I notice that my intent doesn't always match results and a simple crop cleans up the distractions.

I know my increased experience will improve each shot, but until then, I value space around the subject.

[robertwgross]

What lens or lenses do you most often use for weddings Bob?

I guess I will go over this again. For most wedding photography, you want to use the middle focal lengths, like 30 or 40 up to maybe 80 or 90mm. Once in a while, you may have a large family or wide group shot. I've used 20mm for those, but never anything wider. Note that my camera body is 1.6 factor. Once in a while, like at a reception, I will be across the dance floor from something good, so I will use a long lens up to about 200mm.

Part of my need for zoom lenses is that I shot (digitally) alongside a Nikon film shooter. I know that is sort of like trying to mix oil and water. When doing formal poses, we would need to line up our tripods side by side. However, he would be full frame, and mine had the 1.6 factor, so I would need to zoom my lens to kind of agree with the subject.

If I had to shoot one entire wedding with only a single lens, it would be the 28-135 I.S.

---Bob Gross---

[Columbus Photo]

Bob would you suggest the 28-135 IS or Tamron 28-70 for weddings? Tamron is faster, but yet 28-135 has more focal lengths. Whats your preference? Thanks!

[tim]

Tamron 28-70

FYI it's a Tamron 28-75, not 28-70.

[robertwgross]

Bob would you suggest the 28-135 IS or Tamron 28-70 for weddings? Tamron is faster, but yet 28-135 has more focal lengths. Whats your preference? Thanks!

I have not used both, so I can't compare.

When I shoot alongside a film shooter, I have the 1.6 factor working to my advantage on the long side. So, normally, I should not have to go up to really long focal lengths much.

---Bob Gross---

[Columbus Photo]

FYI it's a Tamron 28-75, not 28-70.

Yep..I miss typed it! Thanks