Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 27 Dec 2011 (Tuesday) 13:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Just A Thought....Ultimate Wedding Setup

 
jonwhite
Goldmember
Avatar
1,279 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
Dec 29, 2011 07:03 |  #31

DMPRO78 wrote in post #13613680 (external link)
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.

Its not snobbery at all imo, certainly not from me anyway, it's just simply having the right tools for the job and a lens with an aperture of 5.6 would severely limit what shots I could take at times.

It would be fine on a bright day outside but inside a church or dimly lit venue it would be useless.

If I am at ISO 6400 on a 2.8 or even 1.4 lenses to get a decent shutter speed then a 5.6 lenses would be a waste of time and definitely nowhere near an "ultimate set-up"

I completely agree that the photographer has a big part to play in making the shot and its not just down to gear but in a low light situation very few photographers would choose to have a lens with an 5.6 aperture.


Wedding Portfolio Website (external link) | Wedding Photographer Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,945 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2828
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Dec 29, 2011 07:24 |  #32

jonwhite wrote in post #13614232 (external link)
Its not snobbery at all imo, certainly not from me anyway, it's just simply having the right tools for the job and a lens with an aperture of 5.6 would severely limit what shots I could take at times.

It would be fine on a bright day outside but inside a church or dimly lit venue it would be useless.

If I am at ISO 6400 on a 2.8 or even 1.4 lenses to get a decent shutter speed then a 5.6 lenses would be a waste of time and definitely nowhere near an "ultimate set-up"

I completely agree that the photographer has a big part to play in making the shot and its not just down to gear but in a low light situation very few photographers would choose to have a lens with an 5.6 aperture.

X1000
shallow depth and the ability to capture those types of images in very low light is simply impossible with an F/5.6 glass. Ive been in venues where F/2.5 at 1/20 was the ambient light. The lens in questions could not be used. That's a big waste of 2000.00 for a piece of glass. Far from lens snobbery.......just a simple fact


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bigarchi
Senior Member
Avatar
962 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
Location: upstate ny
     
Dec 29, 2011 07:53 |  #33

i know wedding photogs in this area that use 'superzooms' all the time, and we all know what their photos look like without having to show them :)

i think this hypothetical combo would at least be a step up for them, because they are already limited to lower iso's (cheaper cameras) and crappier image quality (cheaper quality glass too). e.g. rebels or 50d's and 15-85's or 18-135's and it works for them. they don't need 2.8 glass and they shoot in the same crappy venues i do, they just add light, like most of us do anyway.
and these guys make more money than i do too because they don't spend all their profits on new gear like i do :) unfortunately i'm a regular of this forum, therefore i have drank the juice and strive for better photos than these guys usually make :)


~Mitch

my gear and feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bigarchi
Senior Member
Avatar
962 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
Location: upstate ny
     
Dec 29, 2011 07:55 |  #34

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #13611871 (external link)
It wouldn't have to be that reasonable if you think about it... how much you'd save on other kit.

yeah, i don't mean cheap, i mean reasonble for pro's :)
i wouldn't want it so cheap that every soccer mom could afford it! lol


~Mitch

my gear and feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChadAndreo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,879 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2006
Location: WPB, FL
     
Dec 29, 2011 12:10 |  #35

I'm not sure if you guys missed it, but I agree that this setup cannot be used for a whole wedding. In my original post I was asking for opinions on using this setup for adequate lighting situations and using a second body with a fast prime for shallow dof shots. If the lighting does not permit you to use this lens, then you could revert back to your normal setup.
I was thinking this setup would reduce the chances of missing "The Shot" that you missed because the setup you were using didn't have a lens with the right focal length at the time.
This setup is definitely not for everyone, maybe even myself, but it definitely has been interesting hearing different opinions.
I do plan on renting one sometime and testing it out just see for myself how it performs.

jonwhite wrote in post #13614232 (external link)
Its not snobbery at all imo, certainly not from me anyway, it's just simply having the right tools for the job and a lens with an aperture of 5.6 would severely limit what shots I could take at times.

It would be fine on a bright day outside but inside a church or dimly lit venue it would be useless.

If I am at ISO 6400 on a 2.8 or even 1.4 lenses to get a decent shutter speed then a 5.6 lenses would be a waste of time and definitely nowhere near an "ultimate set-up"

I completely agree that the photographer has a big part to play in making the shot and its not just down to gear but in a low light situation very few photographers would choose to have a lens with an 5.6 aperture.

umphotography wrote in post #13614287 (external link)
X1000
shallow depth and the ability to capture those types of images in very low light is simply impossible with an F/5.6 glass. Ive been in venues where F/2.5 at 1/20 was the ambient light. The lens in questions could not be used. That's a big waste of 2000.00 for a piece of glass. Far from lens snobbery.......just a simple fact


Photographer + Cinematographer
LETS CONNECT - SOCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY SITE LINKS | Website (external link) | Wedding Site (external link) |
| Flickr  (external link) | Gear | 500px  (external link) | Tumblr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChadAndreo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,879 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2006
Location: WPB, FL
     
Dec 29, 2011 12:14 |  #36

I hear you. Wanting to be great can definitely be expensive sometimes.

bigarchi wrote in post #13614352 (external link)
and these guys make more money than i do too because they don't spend all their profits on new gear like i do :) unfortunately i'm a regular of this forum, therefore i have drank the juice and strive for better photos than these guys usually make :)


Photographer + Cinematographer
LETS CONNECT - SOCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY SITE LINKS | Website (external link) | Wedding Site (external link) |
| Flickr  (external link) | Gear | 500px  (external link) | Tumblr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,945 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2828
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Dec 29, 2011 13:06 |  #37

ChadAndreo wrote in post #13615521 (external link)
I'm not sure if you guys missed it, but I agree that this setup cannot be used for a whole wedding. In my original post I was asking for opinions on using this setup for adequate lighting situations and using a second body with a fast prime for shallow dof shots. If the lighting does not permit you to use this lens, then you could revert back to your normal setup.
I was thinking this setup would reduce the chances of missing "The Shot" that you missed because the setup you were using didn't have a lens with the right focal length at the time.
This setup is definitely not for everyone, maybe even myself, but it definitely has been interesting hearing different opinions.
I do plan on renting one sometime and testing it out just see for myself how it performs.

For the money, i would think you would be far better off investing in a 24-105 and a 70-200 F/4......you could get away with these inside in low light if the body is clean ay 3200-6400

Definitely would not be a problem on the MarkIV or the upcoming 1DX...all extremely clean at 6400 iso


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gel
Goldmember
Avatar
1,145 posts
Likes: 45
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Brighton , East Sussex
     
Dec 29, 2011 13:06 |  #38

My average kit lens and body wise:

16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 85L, 100mm macro

I'm seriously considering bringing in a mirrorless setup and dumping the Macro just to improve versatility.

I can't decide on which though, the Fuji X100 is tempting even with a fixed lens.


Chris Giles Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jonwhite
Goldmember
Avatar
1,279 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
Dec 29, 2011 13:23 |  #39

ChadAndreo wrote in post #13615521 (external link)
I'm not sure if you guys missed it, but I agree that this setup cannot be used for a whole wedding. In my original post I was asking for opinions on using this setup for adequate lighting situations and using a second body with a fast prime for shallow dof shots. If the lighting does not permit you to use this lens, then you could revert back to your normal setup.
I was thinking this setup would reduce the chances of missing "The Shot" that you missed because the setup you were using didn't have a lens with the right focal length at the time.
This setup is definitely not for everyone, maybe even myself, but it definitely has been interesting hearing different opinions.
I do plan on renting one sometime and testing it out just see for myself how it performs.

What you don't seem to understand is that having a lens with a poor max aperture on your camera is also very likely to lead to you missing shots during parts of the day or getting shots of sub standard quality

You seem to think that having a lens with a large focal range on your camera is essential when in fact for me (and I am sure many others) that wouldn't be our main priority, particularly when your sacrificing aperture for that AND a lens with variable max aperture at that.

When your shooting a wedding and are shooting manual exposures for consistency you need a lens that changes aperture size depending on the zoom amount as much as you need an extra hole in your head! It would drive me up the wall having to change settings whenever I zoomed in or out!

I don't know what wedding experience you have but I am guessing its not very much and maybe after a 100 or so weddings you can come back and visit this thread to see if your views have changed in anyway........ I am guessing they will have.


Wedding Portfolio Website (external link) | Wedding Photographer Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Red ­ Tie ­ Photography
Goldmember
Avatar
3,575 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: San Diego
     
Dec 29, 2011 16:05 |  #40

I can appreciate you looking outside the box for an alternative solution to a problem faced by many pros, but as you have seen in the opinions stated here, I dont believe this would be a very suitable solution. If you wanted to get all the shots you need, two 1Dx, a 24-70 and a 70-200 would be a better start.

That being said, I just shoot one body (currently, I change my ways fairly often) and shoot with a lot of primes. I can get by just fine. Sure, there are moments that are missed, but they haven't been the ones I absolutely had to capture - not yet at least.


Bryan
Gear List (external link)
San Diego Wedding Photography - Red Tie Photography (external link)
Red Tie Photography Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChadAndreo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,879 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2006
Location: WPB, FL
     
Dec 29, 2011 16:29 |  #41

I hear what you guys are saying. I like my current setup which consist of 2 bodies matched with the 24L, 135L and 24-105L.
If you guys care to see what I did with that setup, here is a link to some photos from a wedding 2 weeks ago in the Bahamas. LINK (external link) I was hired as the videographer, but with the permission of the photographer, I was allowed to snap a few shots.


Photographer + Cinematographer
LETS CONNECT - SOCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY SITE LINKS | Website (external link) | Wedding Site (external link) |
| Flickr  (external link) | Gear | 500px  (external link) | Tumblr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChadAndreo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,879 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2006
Location: WPB, FL
     
Dec 29, 2011 16:32 |  #42

Great point on the changing aperture.
I look forward to the day when I reach 100 weddings either shooting solo or 2nd shooting for some whose work I admire. I have only been shooting weddings for a year 100% self taught and you can see what my work looks like in the link above.

umphotography wrote in post #13615819 (external link)
For the money, i would think you would be far better off investing in a 24-105 and a 70-200 F/4......you could get away with these inside in low light if the body is clean ay 3200-6400

Definitely would not be a problem on the MarkIV or the upcoming 1DX...all extremely clean at 6400 iso

jonwhite wrote in post #13615904 (external link)
What you don't seem to understand is that having a lens with a poor max aperture on your camera is also very likely to lead to you missing shots during parts of the day or getting shots of sub standard quality

You seem to think that having a lens with a large focal range on your camera is essential when in fact for me (and I am sure many others) that wouldn't be our main priority, particularly when your sacrificing aperture for that AND a lens with variable max aperture at that.

When your shooting a wedding and are shooting manual exposures for consistency you need a lens that changes aperture size depending on the zoom amount as much as you need an extra hole in your head! It would drive me up the wall having to change settings whenever I zoomed in or out!

I don't know what wedding experience you have but I am guessing its not very much and maybe after a 100 or so weddings you can come back and visit this thread to see if your views have changed in anyway........ I am guessing they will have.


Photographer + Cinematographer
LETS CONNECT - SOCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY SITE LINKS | Website (external link) | Wedding Site (external link) |
| Flickr  (external link) | Gear | 500px  (external link) | Tumblr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,197 views & 0 likes for this thread
Just A Thought....Ultimate Wedding Setup
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Cosmo19
865 guests, 228 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.