Just A Thought....Ultimate Wedding Setup

Armans Photography wrote in post #13607500
=Arman's Photography;13607500]W​OW, I am insulted don't let this workhorse rot in your bag

Sorry, didn't mean to insult.

I shouldn't say I never use it, but it's very rarely used. What can I say? I am a prime whore.

Armans Photography wrote in post #13607500
=Arman's Photography;13607500]W​OW, I am insulted don't let this workhorse rot in your bag

Mine lives in my bag a lot... only when I need the flexibility of a zoom does it come out.

SMP_Homer wrote in post #13606736
you've never shot a wedding

and

you should never shoot a wedding

Why is that?
Because I like to ask questions and think out side of the box?
Im not sure what your issue is or if it is just the fact that you lack reading comprehension.
Maybe you are the type of person who does not ask questions or experiment much? Either way, it might be beneficial to you to ask questions and take advice from others to help you with things such as your cross-processing.

This was just a question that I thought of after reading Jeff Ascough blog post "ZOOMS OR PRIMES?"

I did not see any reason for you to insult me with your statement just because I asked a question.

nicksan wrote in post #13607294
That said, I never use my 24-70L, opting for primes instead.

Off topic, I know, but wanted to say that I'd love to get here someday. I much prefer the IQ and wide apertures of primes. And the less weight and bulk. This is why I think of adding the 24 if not maybe even the 14.

That said, I just feel that I always need that zoom capability to react quickly to situations; especially during the bride's prep and reception. I suppose it's a crutch that I need to wean myself off of.

The 24-70 focal length is very useful to me, though; especially going back and forth between FF and 1.6.

ChadAndreo wrote in post #13608146
I did not see any reason for you to insult me with your statement just because I asked a question.

please do point out an insult in my post... there isn't one because one wasn't meant - anything you feel as a result of my post is something else you may or may not need to deal with, I have no idea, I really don't know you or your background, can't help you there...

All I'm saying is that anyone that thinks a single long mm range lens can be considered "ultimate wedding setup" was dreamed up by someone that's never shot a wedding, and someone that shouldn't do so, at least not with that setup!

In my opinion, not only is it insulting to tell someone "...you should never shoot a wedding" just because they asked a question that you might of found "idiotic", but it is also counterproductive because responses like that are one of the main reasons why people are scared to ask questions on forums and/or in real life. Also, you made a statement off of an assumption by saying "you've never shot a wedding".
I dont mean to ramble, but I love to learn and think outside of the box and I take it personally when someone tries hinder that.

Ultimate wedding setup for me would be:

Full frame 30mp camera able to accurately track focus in very dark rooms. 10 fps and ISO of 125,000. Built in ETTL radio transmitter. Internal blade type shutter that syncs at any shutter speed. Camera would be weather sealed and weight no more than 3 lbs. Battery life capable of delivering 3000 shots per charge.

Lens would be a 14-250mm f/1.2 zoom that weights about 1.5 lbs and is image stabilized. Retractable lens hood standard.

Lighting would be battery powered speedlights, capable of producing 3000 medium power shots per charge with a recycle time of .3 seconds at full power. Built in ETTL receiver that not only controls power settings (in manual mode) and/or ETTL mode, but also motorized swivel and tilt function on the head.

That should pretty much cover it.

...here we go
LOL

jcolman wrote in post #13611361
Ultimate wedding setup for me would be:

Full frame 30mp camera able to accurately track focus in very dark rooms. 10 fps and ISO of 125,000. Built in ETTL radio transmitter. Internal blade type shutter that syncs at any shutter speed. Camera would be weather sealed and weight no more than 3 lbs. Battery life capable of delivering 3000 shots per charge.

Lens would be a 14-250mm f/1.2 zoom that weights about 1.5 lbs and is image stabilized. Retractable lens hood standard.

Lighting would be battery powered speedlights, capable of producing 3000 medium power shots per charge with a recycle time of .3 seconds at full power. Built in ETTL receiver that not only controls power settings (in manual mode) and/or ETTL mode, but also motorized swivel and tilt function on the head.

That should pretty much cover it.

and is all 'reasonably' priced

ChadAndreo wrote in post #13605564
What do my fellow POTN'rs think of this setup, budget willing?
1D Mark IV or 1Dx (when its released) combined with the Canon 28-300L and a second body with a fast prime of your choosing.
I would think that this setup would cover 90% of most wedding photographers needs especially with the high iso technology that these cameras now have and when low light becomes an issue, you could always switch over to fast primes.

Did it ever occur to you that if this was even vaguely a practical or realistic possibility some people would already be using it? The very fact that there are several threads on this forum alone all with kit recommendations from wedding photographers with no one suggesting anything similar to what proposed speaks volumes.

bigarchi wrote in post #13611466
and is all 'reasonably' priced

It wouldn't have to be that reasonable if you think about it... how much you'd save on other kit.

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #13611859
Did it ever occur to you that if this was even vaguely a practical or realistic possibility some people would already be using it? The very fact that there are several threads on this forum alone all with kit recommendations from wedding photographers with no one suggesting anything similar to what proposed speaks volumes.

Yes I did. There have been no discussions or threads on here about this setup. All you see are post about 24-70mm, 70-200mm, 35mm and 85mm for a wedding kit.
Try googling "Canon 28-300L and Weddings" and you will find a few who use and like this setup.
Although this is my favorite photography forum, just because someone ask a question that's not the norm here doesn't mean there's something wrong with it. Photography is definitely one of those "more than one way to skin a cat" things.

Never seen a wedding photographer who uses a 28-300L and I definitely wouldn't use it myself, no matter what camera you pair it with I would consider it too slow.

Wedding togs tend to stick to 2.8 and wider aperture lenses as we quite often find ourselves pushing the ISO limits of our cameras or wanting to separate our subjects from the background with a nice wide aperture.

Lens snobbism is rampant. Many photographers can "make do" with these extreme zooms that are "slow". One that comes to mind is Mark McCall from Lubbock, TX. He routinely uses a Tamron 28 - 200 f/3.8-5.6 to create, in his own words, merit winning images in PPA competitions. He swears by, not at, his Tamron lenses.

It's not what you have, but what you do, with these lenses. Don't knock 'em if you just aren't capable of using them to best effect. It seems others can.

DMPRO78 wrote in post #13613680
Lens snobbism is rampant. Many photographers can "make do" with these extreme zooms that are "slow". One that comes to mind is Mark McCall from Lubbock, TX. He routinely uses a Tamron 28 - 200 f/3.8-5.6 to create, in his own words, merit winning images in PPA competitions. He swears by, not at, his Tamron lenses.

It's not what you have, but what you do, with these lenses. Don't knock 'em if you just aren't capable of using them to best effect. It seems others can.

Thank You