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 18 Mar 2014 (Tuesday) 14:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Any of you use only primes for weddings?

 
RMH
Goldmember
Avatar
1,000 posts
Likes: 36
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canterbury
     
Mar 19, 2014 17:54 |  #31

^^ It's absolutely true; I bought the 24-105 about 6 months ago thinking it'd be a great do-everything lens, but as someone that's shot only primes for years and years, I actually found it very limiting and I took it back in the end. I just couldn't get an interesting looking shot out of it. Nothing against the image quality at all or even qualtity of light, but I don't often stop down as far as f4, so having that as a starting point was just completely alien to me.



All the stuff I've owned at one time or another

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,565 posts
Likes: 716
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Mar 19, 2014 19:34 |  #32

RMH wrote in post #16771185 (external link)
^^ It's absolutely true; I bought the 24-105 about 6 months ago thinking it'd be a great do-everything lens, but as someone that's shot only primes for years and years, I actually found it very limiting and I took it back in the end. I just couldn't get an interesting looking shot out of it. Nothing against the image quality at all or even qualtity of light, but I don't often stop down as far as f4, so having that as a starting point was just completely alien to me.

See that's the funny thing. For some reason, telling people to shoot a single focal length wide open at f/1.2 is often mistakenly called a learning experience that liberates your artistic capability.

But then you tell someone to create a beautiful work of art at F/16 at any focal length at their disposal, and people say, "What's the point? That's stupid."

It's more of a challenge, and more of an accomplishment IMHO to create something beautiful at f/16 than it is at f/1.2.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RMH
Goldmember
Avatar
1,000 posts
Likes: 36
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canterbury
     
Mar 19, 2014 19:39 as a reply to  @ picturecrazy's post |  #33

Probably very true :) good job I shoot primes cause I like them, not as some hair-shirt learning experience :)

If you really want to be great, probably best never to upgrade past your kit lens :)



All the stuff I've owned at one time or another

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thomas ­ Campbell
Goldmember
Avatar
2,105 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Kingwood, TX
     
Mar 20, 2014 01:33 |  #34

There are currently* 2 good reasons to use primes: speed and DOF.

1. More light
2. Many (not all - looking at you 85L) focus quicker than zooms.
3. Cost
4. Even though the go to zooms have gotten much better in quality, the top end primes pretty much always beat them.
5. Specialty lenses like macros/tilt-shifts/fisheyes
6. Ultra wides (14L vs 16mm is the widest zoom)
7. Shallower dof than zoom at same focal length
8. Weight
9. Preference

Why is the use of flash connected to zoom usage?

I don't know that people do. I prefer my prime plus OCF+on-camera bounced flash set up to using a zoom with my set up for weddings.

Why the link between primes and available light only?


Houston Wedding Photographer (external link)
Houston Sports Photographer (external link)
Current Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Staszek
Goldmember
Avatar
3,606 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Mar 20, 2014 02:05 |  #35

The only zoom I have is a 70-200 II. I really prefer working with short primes for various reasons:
1. Low light versatility
2. Depth of field control
3. Creativity driven from having to move feet
4. Uniformity in lens perspectives
5. Simplicity in working throughout the wedding day
6. I like knowing that all of my eggs aren't in one expensive basket (24-70 II). If a lens is damaged or quits working, I have similar focal lengths that are just as fast and produce similar results.

I have owned and used just about every Canon short zoom including the 17-40, 16-35 II, 24-70, 24-70 II, and 24-105. While the 24-70 II is by far the sharpest and most consistent short zoom, at $1800 (current price), it's stupid expensive, is a rather dull zoom range, and is marginally fast enough for most dark venues I shoot at.

Not to mention, having the 24-70 II on my camera and 16-35 II in my pouch always led me to less productivity. I much prefer working with a 35L on one camera and a 70-200 II (almost always shot at 200mm) on another. If my back is against a wall or I want to play on distorting close objects, I'll put on the 24L. If I am limited to my location or want a more straight forward perspective, I'll use the 50L. Any other time, it's the 35L and 70-200 II.


SOSKIphoto (external link) | Blog (external link) | Facebook (external link)| Instagram (external link)
Shooting with big noisy cameras and a bag of primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Mar 20, 2014 07:03 |  #36

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16771979 (external link)
1. More light
2. Many (not all - looking at you 85L) focus quicker than zooms.
3. Cost
4. Even though the go to zooms have gotten much better in quality, the top end primes pretty much always beat them.
5. Specialty lenses like macros/tilt-shifts/fisheyes
6. Ultra wides (14L vs 16mm is the widest zoom)
7. Shallower dof than zoom at same focal length
8. Weight
9. Preference

I don't know that people do. I prefer my prime plus OCF+on-camera bounced flash set up to using a zoom with my set up for weddings.

Why the link between primes and available light only?

Sigma 12-24 is the widest full-frame non-fisheye that I'm aware of. It may not be super sharp but the 14L doesn't impress me either.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hairy_moth
Goldmember
Avatar
3,739 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 16
Joined Apr 2009
Location: NJ
     
Mar 20, 2014 08:29 |  #37

For arguments sake, let's limit this discussion to L lenses.
The points are similar for non L lenses. Mixing them gets complicated when introducing non L primes and zooms, the temptation would be to mix them in a way that favors the point we are trying to make.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16771979 (external link)
1. More light

Given "speed"

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16771979 (external link)
2. Many (not all - looking at you 85L) focus quicker than zooms.

I'd like to see some numbers to support this. both my 70-200 and especially my 17-55 are very fast. I suspect the 24-70 II is also very very quick. The 17-55 (I know, it is a crop lens and is not a L) has the reputation of being the fastest focusing lens in canon's lineup. I don't know if that is true, but focus speed is difficult to quantify for primes or zoom.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16771979 (external link)
3. Cost
4. Even though the go to zooms have gotten much better in quality, the top end primes pretty much always beat them.

I don't believe you can claim both cost and quality, maybe 1 or the other, maybe. The extra stop not withstanding, if you concede that one of the L zooms gives you the functionality of at least 2 L primes. I took a quick look at the canon lens lineup (external link) and I can't see any combination of 2 L primes in or about the same focal distance that, together, cost less than a comparable zoom. I agree, lenses like the 85L or the 200 f/2.0L do some magic wide open that you can't get with one of the zooms, and that was what I meant by both "DOF" and "speed", but, if considering these lenses, then you are throwing the cost argument out the window.

Looking at the lens comparison tool (external link), you will be hard pressed to be able to find a case where one of canon's primes beats either the 24-70 II or the 70-200 f/2.8II. I know this tool is not perfect, it does not account for bokeh (quality of blur), though the amount of blur (or separation), given the same f/stop, focal length and body, is the same whether using one of the zooms or a prime.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16771979 (external link)
5. Specialty lenses like macros/tilt-shifts/fisheyes
6. Ultra wides (14L vs 16mm is the widest zoom)

granted

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16771979 (external link)
7. Shallower dof than zoom at same focal length

given "DOF"

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16771979 (external link)
8. Weight

if you are comparing lenses 1 for 1, then yes. But if 1 person is carrying 2 zooms, the other 3 of 4 primes, I'm not sure about this.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #16771979 (external link)
9. Preference

Given in my post, but I am not so sure this is a good reason, because I believe the 'preference' is often rooted in one of the other reasons, or a not so good reasons, e.g., "primes are what the cool kids use." And though nobody will admit that that is their reason for using primes, let's face it: "it is cool to "use only primes" and that has got to be part of the appeal for some preferences to use only primes. I can't prove it, but we all know that there are some people that are drawn to the coolness of primes. (another person mentioned "elitists" he was talking about the same thing.)


7D | 300D | G1X | Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 | EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro | EF 85mm f/1.8 | 70-200 f/2.8L MkII -- flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RMH
Goldmember
Avatar
1,000 posts
Likes: 36
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canterbury
     
Mar 20, 2014 08:45 |  #38

Just for the sake of playing devils advocate here.....

hairy_moth wrote in post #16772415 (external link)
For arguments sake, let's limit this discussion to L lenses.
Given "speed"

I'd like to see some numbers to support this. both my 70-200 and especially my 17-55 are very fast. I suspect the 24-70 II is also very very quick. The 17-55 (I know, it is a crop lens and is not a L) has the reputation of being the fast focusing lens in canon's lineup. But focus speed is difficult to quantify for primes or zoom).

Actually, I have to agree here. There are a few very quick L primes like the 135L, but there's plenty of slow ones too - they're generally moving more glass and the 24-70 and 70-200 ore very very fast AF'ing lenses.

hairy_moth wrote in post #16772415 (external link)
I don't believe you can claim both cost and quality, maybe 1 or the other, maybe. The extra stop not withstanding, if you concede that one of the L zooms gives you the functionality of at least 2 L primes. I took a quick look at the canon lens lineup (external link) and I can't see any combination of 2 L primes in or about the same focal distance that, together, cost less than a comparable zoom. I agree, lenses like the 85L or the 200 f/2.0L do some magic wide open that you can't get with one of the zooms, andf that was what I meant by both "DOF" and "speed", but, if considering these lenses, then you are throwing the cost argument out the window.

Go to B&H and try to buy half a zoom and see how you go ;)

On a fixed budget you may be able to get a single L prime, but not an L zoom. To me this is more of a downsize of any given prime (less utility) than an argument that they are not cheaper.

hairy_moth wrote in post #16772415 (external link)
Looking at the lens comparison tool (external link), you will be hard pressed to be able to find a case where one of canon's primes beats either the 24-70 II or the 70-200 f/2.8II. I know this test is not perfect, it does not account for bokeh (quality of blur) -- the amount of blur, given the same f/stop, focal length and body, is the same.

I may need too go check my facts, but I'm pretty sure the 24L II, the 135L and the 200 f2 L @ f2.8 beat any zoom at that apeture. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85L is sharper too once you've stopped aaaalll the way down to f2.8. But really with this league of glass, sharpness differences rapidly become so small as makes no different. I do believe that the bokeh quality is generally better with primes than with an equivilent length and apeture (and age) zoom. I wouldn't be surprised if the 24-70II beats the 35L @2.8 in terms of bokeh quality, but there's a very big age gap. As great as it is, I do not believe the 70-200II can quite match the 85L for bokeh look @ f2.8

hairy_moth wrote in post #16772415 (external link)
if you are comparing lenses 1 for 1, then yes. But if 1 person is carrying 2 zooms, the other 3 of 4 primes, I'm not sure about this.
Given in my post, but I am not so sure this is a good reason, because I believe the 'preference' is often rooted in one of the other reasons, or a not so good reasons, e.g., primes are what the cool kids use." And though nobody will admit that that is a reason for using primes, let's face it: it is cool to "only use primes" and that has got to be one of the underlying reasons some choose to use only primes.

Same as with cost -- cut your zoom in half to get to the the weight of a prime and you're not going to be doing much shooting. Yes to cover the same range you need more than 1 prime, but you CAN go out with one prime and it will weigh less than one zoom. I would certainly rather have the 135L on my shoulder all day than the 70-200 f2.8. Yeah you the zoom has more utility, but depends what you're doing. If you're shooting soccer they zoom has a huge advantage. If you're shooting portraits where you can just walk further or nearer, i'd rather have an extra stop of apeture available.



All the stuff I've owned at one time or another

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,635 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 10918
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Mar 20, 2014 10:29 |  #39

RMH wrote in post #16772450 (external link)
If you're shooting portraits where you can just walk further or nearer, i'd rather have an extra stop of apeture available.

Walking nearer or further isn't the same as using a different focal length. The benefit of zooms for portraiture isn't the ease of framing shots without having to zoom with your feet.... its the flexibility you have in terms of FOV/perspective. Shot with a similar subject framing (by moving closer or further away from your subject as you change focal lengths), 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 70mm will produce very different looking photos. Same with 70mm, 85mm, 135mm, and 200mm, though to a lesser degree as you go longer. Constantly changing lenses can be detrimental even in controlled shoots (your client will lose patience with you eventually, affecting their moods and the outcome of the shoot)

Primes offer flexibility in terms of aperture, zooms offer flexibility in terms of FOV.

Depends on what your needs and priorities are. For me a mixture of primes and zooms coveres everything I need, but we all have different needs.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hairy_moth
Goldmember
Avatar
3,739 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 16
Joined Apr 2009
Location: NJ
     
Mar 20, 2014 10:45 |  #40

RMH wrote in post #16772450 (external link)
Go to B&H and try to buy half a zoom and see how you go ;)

Would you walk in to shoot a wedding with only 1 prime?

RMH wrote in post #16772450 (external link)
On a fixed budget you may be able to get a single L prime, but not an L zoom.

I am just not seeing the cost argument. I am considering only Ls because we are concerned with quality. The prices of the top zooms is not that out of line with the prices of the top primes. Again, conceding that a zoom gives you, at least, the flexibility of any two primes, the zooms win clearly on cost.

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7322/13289286465_ed49347550_o.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …44350103@N05/13​289286465/  (external link)

RMH wrote in post #16772450 (external link)
I may need too go check my facts, but I'm pretty sure the 24L II, the 135L and the 200 f2 L @ f2.8 beat any zoom at that apeture. I wouldn't be surprised if the 85L is sharper too once you've stopped aaaalll the way down to f2.8. But really with this league of glass, sharpness differences rapidly become so small as makes no different.

I agree with the bold statement. Did you check the comparisons of the primes you mentioned to the zooms. they are pretty close!

24mm (external link)
135mm (external link)
200mm (external link)


RMH wrote in post #16772450 (external link)
I do believe that the bokeh quality is generally better with primes than with an equivalent length and aperture (and age) zoom.

This is very difficult to quantity, but I do not disagree with this. The 200f/2.0, 135f/2.0, 85f/1.2 and 50f/1.2 in particular do some magic here that, I believe beat the zooms. It is difficult to quantify and the bokeh of the 2 zooms that I am talking about is quite good, but you can't beet the 200f/2.0 on bokeh.

RMH wrote in post #16772450 (external link)
Same as with cost -- cut your zoom in half to get to the the weight of a prime and you're not going to be doing much shooting.

Again, would you walk in to shoot a wedding with just 1 prime?
When you consider the cumulative weight of the full set of primes that you will need to cover a wedding (3 or 4), or the set of zooms (2), I don't think the primes are lighter.


7D | 300D | G1X | Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 | EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro | EF 85mm f/1.8 | 70-200 f/2.8L MkII -- flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RMH
Goldmember
Avatar
1,000 posts
Likes: 36
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canterbury
     
Mar 20, 2014 11:09 |  #41

hairy_moth wrote in post #16772736 (external link)
Would you walk in to shoot a wedding with only 1 prime?

I wouldn't walk into shoot a wedding regardless of what was in my camera bag :lol: as I said I was just playing devils advocate, and I thought the conversation had pivoted away from weddings a little appologiesd if I was mistaken around that as my thoughts were based on general differences, not in the context of a wedding. I find all of your arguments pretty reasonable either way, but it does depend on what you need out of your camera kit; if a single prime will do for what you're after then in generaly your bag will be lighter and your wallet heaver .

hairy_moth wrote in post #16772736 (external link)
I agree with the bold statement. Did you check the comparisons of the primes you mentioned to the zooms. they are pretty close!

I did not (and said as much). I expected it to be a splitting hairs difference, having now done so, they're even closer than I would have guessed. I'd agree with you that you really can't say that a prime is sharper than a zoom these days. Or that sensors don't yet have enough resolution to see the difference.

hairy_moth wrote in post #16772736 (external link)
This is very difficult to quantity, but I do not disagree with this. The 200f/2.0, 135f/2.0, 85f/1.2 and 50f/1.2 in particular do some magic here that, I believe beat the zooms. It is difficult to quantify and the bokeh of the 2 zooms that I am talking about is quite good, but you can't beet the 200f/2.0 on bokeh.

Again, would you walk in to shoot a wedding with just 1 prime?

Yes, but only as a guest, not as the photograhper :lol:

As I said, I thought the conversation had pivoted away from weddings to a general discussions around zoom vs prime.



All the stuff I've owned at one time or another

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dcnats
Senior Member
Avatar
359 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Mar 20, 2014 14:03 |  #42

9. Preference

hairy_moth wrote in post #16772415 (external link)
Given in my post, but I am not so sure this is a good reason, because I believe the 'preference' is often rooted in one of the other reasons, or a not so good reasons, e.g., "primes are what the cool kids use." And though nobody will admit that that is their reason for using primes, let's face it: "it is cool to "use only primes" and that has got to be part of the appeal for some preferences to use only primes. I can't prove it, but we all know that there are some people that are drawn to the coolness of primes. (another person mentioned "elitists" he was talking about the same thing.)

Since when is personal preference not a good reason?


1513 Photo (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hairy_moth
Goldmember
Avatar
3,739 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 16
Joined Apr 2009
Location: NJ
     
Mar 20, 2014 14:13 |  #43

dcnats wrote in post #16773173 (external link)
9. Preference
Since when is personal preference not a good reason?

Did you read my explanation of my opinion that you quoted? I provided the reason for that opinion, in that quote, right after the word "because." "Personal preference" does not stand alone, it is based on something else.

Show me a person that says "my personal preference is to shoot only primes." but cannot explain why, beyond "that is my preference" and I'll show you either a moron or a liar.


7D | 300D | G1X | Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 | EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro | EF 85mm f/1.8 | 70-200 f/2.8L MkII -- flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dcnats
Senior Member
Avatar
359 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Mar 20, 2014 14:18 |  #44

One of my favorite wedding photographers is a woman named Citlalli Rico (external link), you can check out her work there.

She discusses her gear here (external link), she uses a 35mm and a 105mm, she likes it. It does well for her. I don think she's lying, I don't think she a moron.

I also really like and admire Thomas Campbell's work. He's told us that he prefers primes. I don't think he's a moron or a liar.


1513 Photo (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dcnats
Senior Member
Avatar
359 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Mar 20, 2014 14:25 |  #45

you know what? I'm ashamed I've even allowed myself to get sucked into this pointless debate. I think people can like what they but for argument's sake, you win.


1513 Photo (external link)

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

16,441 views & 0 likes for this thread
Any of you use only primes for weddings?
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 drmogensen
828 guests, 272 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.