p.2 #1 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
when I say all the photos look the same, i don't mean literally the same. A 24mm shot is a 24mm shot no matter what. Of course it won't look literally the same, each shot will have different backgrounds and subjects, but a 24mm shot is a 24mm shot and you can only do so much with 24mm. Try foot zooming with the 24mm to capture a head shot, I surely won't like that.
A 1.4 lens compared to a 2.8 lens is critical in only some of the situations where you cannot use a flash. If you are a pro you should be skilled in working with multiple strobes anyways. That's one area where i'm really trying to learn. A wedding session needs couple Alien Bees or Quantums, and a 2.8 lens is plenty fast for most situations. There are times where you need 1.4 lens, and I believe it should be in every pro's bag, but a fast lens is not a substitute for proper lighting in the first place.
There is a good reason why the 24-70 and 70-200 are the two most used lenses in a wedding/event. As an active amateur, i fully understand the different shots and ambiances certain lenses can create, that's why I said I do not want MY wedding shot with just two primes. If you are fine with just the 35 and 85, that's totally ok with me as it's not my wedding. But I want my wedding shots to have some wide angle effect, some normal angle effects, some tight head shots, upper body, just a variety of angles to capture all the different moods and moments. And the 24-70 and 70-200 are the two best lenses to do that.
p.2 #2 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
If you are a pro you should be skilled in working with multiple strobes anyways. That's one area where i'm really trying to learn. A wedding session needs couple Alien Bees or Quantums, and a 2.8 lens is plenty fast for most situations. There are times where you need 1.4 lens, and I believe it should be in every pro's bag, but a fast lens is not a substitute for proper lighting in the first place.
So now you're insinuating that weddings need flash/artificial lighting? Have you ever heard of Jeff Ascough?
Don't get me wrong, I *like* flash. But realize that these absolutist statements indicate that you're simply not paying attention to a wide array of really good wedding photographers that contradict everything you're saying.
p.2 #3 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
Yes, I stand by my statement. There is a time and place for ambient light only shots, and there is a time and place for strobe supplemented shots. A wedding should not be one or the other exclusively. It just depends on the situation, and a well rounded pro should be proficient in both ends of the spectrum as you don't know what exact environment the situation will present.
Yes, I still believe that a really proficient wedding/event photographer should be a master of lighting, which includes strobes and skilled use of ambient lighting.
p.2 #4 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
VTXT wrote:
Yes, I stand by my statement. There is a time and place for ambient light only shots, and there is a time and place for strobe supplemented shots. A wedding should not be one or the other exclusively. It just depends on the situation, and a well rounded pro should be proficient in both ends of the spectrum as you don't know what exact environment the situation will present.
Yes, I still believe that a really proficient wedding/event photographer should be a master of lighting, which includes strobes and skilled use of ambient lighting.
I agree that a well rounded pro should understanding lighting, both ambient and artificial. I *highly* disagree that a wedding cannot be exclusively one or the other. Jeff Ascough would laugh in your face. A pro is simply somebody who is effective at his art, and part of that efficacy is choosing the right tools for his style. The right tool isn't always a 24-70, just like flash isn't always the right technique.
If the OP thinks he/she can use a 24 and a 135 and please clients more than a 24-70, who are you to impose your style? This isn't even an academic exercise. Borrowing your own phrase, 'i don't mean to be insulting,' but what you're saying is *ignorant* of all the really good photographers who choose to do only available light, and/or the ones who exclusively/mostly use primes over a 24-70.
I *love* flash. I have thrown insults at people on this very forum who have denigrated the use of flash. But to say that flash is 'necessary,' the nicest way I can respond to that is that it's absolutely ridiculous. It's like saying that an artist has to use acrylic.
"The reason I choose not to use flash is simply because I find it intrusive and as a consequence it evokes a certain reaction in the people being photographed. Cartier-Bresson referred to flash as ‘vulgar’ because of the intrusion that it enforces onto the subject. It has nothing to do with me not knowing how to use flash - in fact I was winning international awards in the mid 1990’s with images captured with off camera flash utilising dodgy IR triggers and modified bare bulb Vivitar 283’s!! Having said this, you need a high level of skill and experience to tackle a wedding without flash, and it’s unfortunate that a lot of today’s ‘available light’ shooters have no clue when it comes to light direction and quality, often ending up with ugly lighting, little or too much contrast and unflattering images."
-Jeff Ascough
p.2 #5 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree.
Just because something can be done 100% ambient lighting does not mean it will yield the best results all the time, and vice versa, using flash does not mean it will give you a better result all the time either.
It just depends on the situation and the effects you are trying to create.
Of course a wedding can be done 100% ambient, with the high ISOs of today's cameras and fast lenses that's not an issue. I never said it couldn't be done. I still think a wedding shot 100% on ambient is not as good as one with more balance, some on ambient and some with strobes. And that's my opinion. If you and your clients are totally fine with, and actually want a 100% ambient light wedding then that's their choice, just like it is my choice to use some flash if I think it will make the shot better.
Photography is an art, and customers will pick the painters that can cater to their wants.
p.2 #7 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
adamdewilde wrote:
two of the most expensive wedding photographers I know (who are booked a year in advance) primarily use ONE lens.. They may have more then one, but only use the one
p.2 #12 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
VTXT wrote:
when I say all the photos look the same, i don't mean literally the same. A 24mm shot is a 24mm shot no matter what. Of course it won't look literally the same, each shot will have different backgrounds and subjects, but a 24mm shot is a 24mm shot and you can only do so much with 24mm. Try foot zooming with the 24mm to capture a head shot, I surely won't like that.
A 1.4 lens compared to a 2.8 lens is critical in only some of the situations where you cannot use a flash. If you are a pro you should be skilled in working with multiple strobes anyways. That's one area where i'm really trying to learn. A wedding session needs couple Alien Bees or Quantums, and a 2.8 lens is plenty fast for most situations. There are times where you need 1.4 lens, and I believe it should be in every pro's bag, but a fast lens is not a substitute for proper lighting in the first place.
There is a good reason why the 24-70 and 70-200 are the two most used lenses in a wedding/event. As an active amateur, i fully understand the different shots and ambiances certain lenses can create, that's why I said I do not want MY wedding shot with just two primes. If you are fine with just the 35 and 85, that's totally ok with me as it's not my wedding. But I want my wedding shots to have some wide angle effect, some normal angle effects, some tight head shots, upper body, just a variety of angles to capture all the different moods and moments. And the 24-70 and 70-200 are the two best lenses to do that. ...Show more →
It really depends on your style... I have tried the many strobes route, and I found it really troublesome, and even when I did use that method, it was merely to flood light in from behind, because I thought the venue was crap. The problem is, the shoots all end up looking very similar. If you meant to use the strobes to get even lighting and DOF, then honestly if you just wanted even lighting, you can get that with a on camera flash (580exII SB-910) and a bit of tricky dialing of manual exposures.
You can shoot with primes and no flash, you can shoot with primes and flash. You can shoot with zooms and no flash, you can shoot with zooms an flash.. It really depends on the look you're going for.
p.2 #13 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
tobicus wrote:
Ha, I PMed Adam a little while ago asking for both the names of the photographers and the lenses used. I love reading about this kind of stuff.
p.2 #15 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
krickett wrote:
I agree that a well rounded pro should understanding lighting, both ambient and artificial. I *highly* disagree that a wedding cannot be exclusively one or the other. Jeff Ascough would laugh in your face. A pro is simply somebody who is effective at his art, and part of that efficacy is choosing the right tools for his style. The right tool isn't always a 24-70, just like flash isn't always the right technique.
If the OP thinks he/she can use a 24 and a 135 and please clients more than a 24-70, who are you to impose your style? This isn't even an academic exercise. Borrowing your own phrase, 'i don't mean to be insulting,' but what you're saying is *ignorant* of all the really good photographers who choose to do only available light, and/or the ones who exclusively/mostly use primes over a 24-70.
I *love* flash. I have thrown insults at people on this very forum who have denigrated the use of flash. But to say that flash is 'necessary,' the nicest way I can respond to that is that it's absolutely ridiculous. It's like saying that an artist has to use acrylic.
"The reason I choose not to use flash is simply because I find it intrusive and as a consequence it evokes a certain reaction in the people being photographed. Cartier-Bresson referred to flash as ‘vulgar’ because of the intrusion that it enforces onto the subject. It has nothing to do with me not knowing how to use flash - in fact I was winning international awards in the mid 1990’s with images captured with off camera flash utilising dodgy IR triggers and modified bare bulb Vivitar 283’s!! Having said this, you need a high level of skill and experience to tackle a wedding without flash, and it’s unfortunate that a lot of today’s ‘available light’ shooters have no clue when it comes to light direction and quality, often ending up with ugly lighting, little or too much contrast and unflattering images."
-Jeff Ascough...Show more →
p.2 #16 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
As long as you produce what you say you will and your clients are happy, it does not matter if you use one lens, or multiple lenses, shot with just available light or use flash, everybody has different style and experience.
What is wrong is to take risks with a couple's wedding photos, and not being able to deal with equipment failure on the day, be they lenses, flashes or bodies not working on the day is a big risk to take.
To the original poster, if either lens packed up on the day, could you shot the rest of the wedding, some people might, I could not, hence why I have the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 as a minimum, if one lens goes down, the limit what and how I shoot is minimised.
p.2 #17 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
Good reading, enjoying this thread. Especially since all posters so far have been fairly civil even though there is strong disagreement.
I say shoot whatever gear works for your style, I would think that the client would have seen and liked your style prior to engaging your services. I personally find it fun to be a second shooter (with prior approval of the primary photographer, and the wedding party) so that I can just experiment knowing that the primary photographer is delivering the goods, and the brides have mostly appreciated what I come up with, sometimes more than the main photographer's pics :-)
My style would probably be 3 primes if I did a prime only wedding (24, 35, 85), though I love my 70-200 as I regularly shoot from farther away, and I like the incredible flexibility of the 24-70. I also tend to like a little less isolation in some of my shots, so the f2.8 is not necessarily restricting all the time.
p.2 #18 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
I would say buy the 50...not because you can't shoot with only those two lenses, but dear goodness what were to happen if your 105 goes belly up at the wedding and now all you have is the 24 or vice versa. At least with a cheap 50mm in your bag you are protected. By all means, shoot with those two lenses, but it's an added security to have a 3rd lens in your bag that you know you can count on to get shots if something were to happen to one of your lenses.
p.2 #19 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
When natural light is there there's nothing more beautiful: Long, low strands of golden sun partially diffused by the last whispy stratus clouds of the day, with an angle view between long contrasty shadows. Bringing out a flash in this situation would be pure blasphemy.This is when portfolio-worthy bridal portraits are made. But as wedding photographers we do not get to pick the time, the location, or the weather. A couple hours later we are probably shooting inside a hotel ballroom with nasty tungsten (or worse) bulbs directly overhead, dreadful. Without some nice, well positioned off-camera flash, "snapshots" is all you're going to capture in that situation. Add 2 or 3 well positioned speedlights on stands and you're back to shooting portfolio material. The truly skilled photographer understands how to use off camera flash, and when to keep it in the bag.
And back to the OT, I prefer zooms for weddings as not unlike the weather, you may not get to predict where you'll be able to stand or where the spontaneous action will happen relative to your position. That being said, I'm toying with the idea of a 24 on a d800 as my wide body, as those images will be able to be cropped significantly if too wide. Sorta like having 2 primes on at the same time
p.2 #20 · Nikon 24 1.4G vs 24-70 f/2.8G for weddings?
I slowly moved to all primes...I shot with the 24-70 and 70-200 as my main lenses for years, but used my 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 more and more and eventually (as they were released) purchased the 24G, 35G, 50G, and 85G, so I just sold my 24-70 and have my 70-200 for the long end and if Nikon comes out with a 135 f/2G, I will ditch the 70-200 and gladly shoot all primes.
For me, I just didn't like how sloop the 24-70 let me be when shooting...
