Victor S wrote:
Daan, I think you misunderstand the use of wideangle here. I used to have the same wrong idea about the wideangle use... Anyways, long story short, if you used other FL under those conditions you wouldn't have the same amount of clouds and sky in the background. It's not about fitting the couple in the frame, it's about how much background you can fit while still having the couple the size you want.
I hope it makes sense!
What I meant... If I shoot a subject with BG at 24mm... and zoom in to 35mm and back off a little, I get the exact same framing (with subject and BG equally sized). The reverse is also true. So, if that shot was done at 14mm, and I would have room to manouvre backwards, I could use the 24mm FL to get roughly the same framing (with subject and BG equally sized). Hope this makes sense too
I realize that when the differences between FL's become more extreme, this will have a more pronounced effect on how much of the BG will appear in the frame... In other words: the differences will be greater.
Let's say I return this lens and get the 85mm 1.4, how different is this
lens from say using my 70 - 200 mm f2.8 zoomed to 85mm ? Besides the aperture
difference ofcourse.
I think I'll just gain some sharpness, and lose a lot of weight. Is the bokeh really
worth the $1000 ?
our 14-24 is worth it's weight in gold. We use it almost as much as our 24-70's, and when both of our 24-70's tanked at the last wedding (at the same time, one the zoom froze at about 55 and one the aperture blades got stuck at f/8) we had the 14-24 on one camera, a 50mm on another, and a 70-200 on the third. Oh and you cant beat the flare out of this lens.
We do end up using this a lot at weddings but it sees the bulk of its work commercially.
Jed Eltom wrote:
A fellow successful wedding photographer who has been in the business for more
than 8 years told me that you will never need anything wider than a 24mm. He
said that for wedding photography purposes, anything wider than 24mm is
uncalled for and is a waste of money that could better be spent on other aspects
of the business.
what a ignorant and close minded outlook! ignore him, develop your own taste in lenses and use what you think suits you.
I've had similar comments thrown my way about the stack of prime lenses in my bag, I just ignore them and keep booking more weddings than they do.
14-24 is a sick lens (though I've never used it)...
BUT
I buddies just had their wedding shot by a "friend" and he used
the 14-24 almost exclusively through the day. We're talking
getting ready, ceremony, formals, reception. And about 50%
of the shots were in portrait orientation. Yea...have you seen
what 14mm does to someone in portrait orientation? When
you're a good 5-6 feet away? HORRIBLE. Don't do that
Ever since I got it, I've been doing that on purpose for fun.
Zoom out to 14, frame someone's head near the corner of the frame,
and snap. It makes them look like a cross between a conehead and
an alien. It's Hilarious !! I should post some up.
I'll post them once I get home. I've been preparing some material to post up anyway. I have an engagement to post, and I also have my own honeymoon shots from Aruba. So stay tuned for tonight.
...Dudes on Nikon, so in his case any cheap UWA zoom will do. I did have the 14-24 for a year, but preferred the 20mm f2.8 so much more that I just sold it. IMO the 14-24 is too heavy, overbuilt, and just unnecessarily expensive for wedding use. Thing's bloody delicate, too, ya gotta baby it with that bulging front element... Who's got time for that crap?
MAYBE at most get the 17-35. But really the 20 is fine.
