The big Prime lens Con Trick.

24

Comments

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    @Nikoniser: "I don't buy the Weddings require zooms argument. There are award winning Wedding Photogs that use only 35mm and 85mm prime lenses.

    I wonder at what point statistics overcome common sense? How many use primes? How much work do they get? What area of the market do they operate in? I suggest you hang out a shingle, use primes and see how your prime lens fetish fits in with the over-produced production line that is today's wedding business. The time you are allowed between the arrival of the couple from the church, up until the event manager is pecking your head about the food being ready can be as little as 30-40 minutes during which time you have hundreds of people to do various group shots of and then of course the special shots of the couple.


    @WestEndFoto; "I also think I agree with you on the weddings argument though as I have never shot a wedding, I am not certain."

    That cracked me up =))

    @Pistnbroke: If you forget weddings, you aren't restricted to 5.6 or 8.
    Always learning.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,443Member
    So we deduce that without vast expense and weight we cannot get a brilliant 10x zoom. In the old film days the lens put the image on the film and that was that but now the firmware more and more is correcting defects, In fact lenses are designed with correctable defects so we may see improvements . Until then that's fine I will stick with my softie.
    Off Topic
    As for using a 35mm and 85mm for a wedding its simple....If a bride has paid $5000+ for her photographer (about the same as a wedding dress) then she will give you time before during and after the wedding because photography is important to her so those lenses are practical. But a more typical wedding with a photographer at $600 ( and a hired dress !!) you do what you can in the hour allocated after the service because the brides mum said she must have a proper photographer and for that you need the speed of a zoom.
    Perhaps some don't understand...for every "pose" I might take 10 shots at different focal lengths/compositions, even a group of 30 people may have 5 or6 secondary compositions within it and you can only hold the group for 20 seconds .....not a time to change lenses after all the bride says she needs to stop for a cigarette and the manager is hovering ,the chef has moved the meal forwards .......oh what joy.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,186Member
    ... You love it !!
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,742Member
    Actually, Pistnbroke, you have hit the nail on the head.

    But if "I" am going to shoot weddings, it is going to be the $5,000 variety. I don't need the money and won't for a long time. I am more likely to pop a snarky brides poor excuse for a mom than continue popping flashes on an entitled bride's entourage at f/8 in the noonday sun. I want to have fun producing a masterpiece and the price I will charge will have the primary purpose of weeding out the bumpkins.
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    Events of any sort are hard. You have to be in the right place at the right time, with the right gear/settings and you need to herd cats, err, manage people. I've never seen a pro shoot a wedding solo, there is always an assistant. At my wedding there were three photographers and two videographers. There would be almost no good photos of my wife if it weren't for the third photog. She freezes up when the camera is pointed at her, and the third shooter was doing candids with a long FL from far enough away that we got some really good moments for her.
    Corporate events, other social events are a bit less stressful, and I've seen folks go solo on those. Even then you are running around like a one-legged man in an a$s-kicking contest. At a large corporate event, there can be three or more things happening at the same time, so you have to prioritize and then run to the next one to try and catch at least part of it.

    And FWIW, I've never seen an event photog use lens caps. They just swap and close their bag, and never primes, always zooms. I've been to hundreds of these things, and I always make a point to corner the pro during a down moment and discuss "how's it going". They are popping advil (vitamin i) and checking their gear, but always willing to "talk shop".
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    edited February 2016
    "running around like a one-legged man in an a$s-kicking contest" That is classic! Us Brits say "busier than a one-armed wallpaper hanger".
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    @Ironheart

    Thank you for the voice of experience.

    I have shot many events, mostly weddings in the last 45 years.
    I have not been a working pro for a long time, but do 1 or 2 weddings a year under special circumstances and because I like it.

    I generally shoot bounce flash (with appropriate reflectors / modifiers ), or if I have a difficult location (tall or colored or dark ceilings), I will use multiple lights.

    My default kit today is a D810 mounting a 24-120 / f4, usually set for F5.6, with the camera at TTL and 1/180 SS. The high SS is to minimize the effect of ambient light on my WB. This lens is not dismounted for the duration. It's IQ is excellent under those conditions, and much better than I have ever seen anyone consistently do with fast primes shooting available light handheld with moving subjects.

    Zooms also let me frame more tightly, thereby cropping less, and manging perspective.

    For special shots I might have 24/1.4 on another body for available light, or a 70-200/2.8 for long shots and portraits, also with flash.

    If I did more of this, the only equipment I would change is going to more powerful flashes with faster recycling.

    I have seen this basic rig at many weddings where I know the photog was getting in the $ 5K range.

    If I did more of this, the only equipment I would change is going to more powerful flashes with faster recycling.

    Having shot hundreds of weddings with prime lenses, mostly with film, I would never do it that way with modern stuff available.

    In addition to DOF, and motion (both camera and subject) problems with available light, in many venues you will find a mix of tungsten, flourescent, and perhaps sunlight bleed, making the white balance impossible with available light. Forget fixing it in post, if parts of the spectrum (flourescent is almost all blue), are missing, and it will take more time than you have.

    Remember, event photography is not about your 'art', it is bout your customers memories.

    .... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,742Member
    edited February 2016
    haroldp said:

    @Ironheart

    Remember, event photography is not about your 'art', it is bout your customers memories.

    .... H

    Yeah, I doubt that I will ever shoot a wedding, unless I stage it. However, I would find pre-wedding photography interesting. I have actually done that a few times.

    I think that my previous post was a little off the wall. I imagine that most of the clients spending $500 are decent people with reasonable expectations. However, I just know I will run into what I have described which will ruin it for me.
    Post edited by WestEndFoto on
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    Your expectation that those who spend a lot will adjust the timing of their event to fit your 'art' or enjoyment is simply not reality.

    Whether the client spends $500 or $5,000, (or more), they will and should :

    - expect you and your team to fit into their event and time frame, it is not about you.
    - expect a professional result.

    Even at pre: wedding (make-up, formals etc) you are on a tight time schedule.
    You will likely have one lighting setup for formals which will cover large groups, small groups, couples, head shots etc., and one tripod setup (maybe two). A zoom or two (24-120, 70-200) works pretty well.

    Fast primes are useful for some candids, I like 24/1.4 for make-up and preparation shots, but it is less than 5% of the shots covering a wedding, and if they look awful (mine never do, 45 years helps), I would not show them, and they would not be missed.

    We like to talk about Bokeh and DOF, remember that in 20 years, a dancing or group or table shot may be the best or only photo your customers they have of uncle Melvin. They will not appreciate the art if he is fuzzy or distorted.

    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • user001user001 Posts: 5Member
    Ironheart said:

    The reality is that it is a trade off. Here is a zoom that will wipe the floor with all of the Nikon primes:
    Angenieux Optimo DP 25-250mm T3.5 10x Zoom Lens
    The Optimo DP 25-250mm T3.5 10x Zoom Lens from Angenieux delivers optimized optical quality with low chromatic aberration, telecentricity, and low distortion for S35 digital cameras. With an image circle of 31.4mm diagonal, the lens is fit for illumination of S35 sensors. The lens is equipped with robust and precise zoom and focus mechanics with Angenieux rod guiding system design.

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1179340-REG/angenieux_25_250_optimo_optimo_dp_25_250mm_f_3_2_t3_5.html

    It only weighs 16lbs (7.4kg) and costs only $43,000

    However it is exactly what @Pistnbroke is looking for; this is the result of optimizing for quality over price.

    What a steal! It practically pays itself after doing 72 $600 wedding events.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    S35 film or sensor at 31.4 diagonal is 35mm half frame, approx. APS-C or DX coverage.

    This lens It is optimized for '35mm' movie film which is 1/2 35mm still film.

    Video lenses such as this have optimizations that are not needed or particularly useful for a digital still camera, and clearly add size, weight, and cost.

    Much more plebian zoom lenses can yield essentially perfect results id the photographer is doing their job.

    I miss my share of shots but it is never the lenses fault.
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    I will throw this in there and maybe it isn't true, but zooms in weddings are "good enough". They might not be the sharpest, but If you get the shot they are good enough. I still would prefer a sharp prime for individual or couple portraits, but if you had something like the 70-200 it is probably good enough. I think you can have too sharp of portraits also so a zoom shouldn't have that issue.

    My single wedding experience I had no problem with my 17-55 and 105. My 300 without VR wasn't too useful, but I did get a couple of shots on the monopod with high ISO. I am not sure I would use the 300 again. I just looked back through and I really shot mostly with my 17-55 and they are sharp even at ISO up to 1600+. If I had it I would probably do 17-55 and 70-200 and be set.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    haroldp said:

    S35 film or sensor at 31.4 diagonal is 35mm half frame, approx. APS-C or DX coverage.

    This lens It is optimized for '35mm' movie film which is 1/2 35mm still film.

    Video lenses such as this have optimizations that are not needed or particularly useful for a digital still camera, and clearly add size, weight, and cost.

    Much more plebian zoom lenses can yield essentially perfect results id the photographer is doing their job.

    I miss my share of shots but it is never the lenses fault.

    Yes, that lens projects an image circle just slightly larger than DX, imagine how much it would cost and weigh if it were FX? About the only thing you could loose is the lack of focus breathing, that would simplify the design. How much compromise is too much?
  • KnockKnockKnockKnock Posts: 398Member
    edited February 2016
    Very wedding-heavy responses so far. Most of my shooting is inanimate objects, landscapes, food, interiors, portraiture, cats. I take my camera on my walks around the neighborhood, to 7/11 when I buy a lottery ticket. I shoot trees, sky, moon, fire hydrants, cars etc.

    So this photographer prefers to place a normal wide or telephoto on the body. I can switch lenses in about 5s. It feels better bouncing on my hip than a zoom, usually resting the LCD display on my butt. Zooms pull the face down so some angular part of the camera jabs me. As I'm walking, I see, approach subjects, sometimes step back, then pull out my camera. No hurry here.

    And, I like the look of the photos I get better. With zooms I feel like my stuff looks like everyone else's stuff. With primes my vision looks like what I was trying to capture. That isolation thing is important to me. If I want effect, I shoot at f/1.4-2.0. If I want sharpness I go f/2.4-2.8. Yes I carry a ND filter. My DX zoom is f/3.5-5.6. Yeah that 16-80 is on my wish list, but I'd rather carry a 16mm prime and the 85mm f/1.8 and switch between them, zooming with my feet, than buy that zoom.

    Right now I carry the 18-55mm VRII (collapsable) as my wide, and the 50mm f/1.4. Nice carrying kit. Light. No lens caps here. The former has no filter either. Wish I had a 16 or 18mm DX prime. That's just me.

    Of course I love the convenience of a zoom, and it takes excellent pictures. But my primes get me closer to ART.

    https://flic.kr/p/EthNxU
    Post edited by KnockKnock on
    D7100, D60, 35mm f/1.8 DX, 50mm f/1.4, 18-105mm DX, 18-55mm VR II, Sony RX-100 ii
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,443Member
    It is very pleasing that members of NR can talk sensibly about weddings without the protagonists getting banned. ( the OP was about Zooms/primes !!)

    The situation here in the UK is many 50 year olds getting re married and not wanting to spend much and couples with 5 year old kids wanting Mr and Mrs for school registration. These can be the bottom of the price range.
    Here if you want to get those high end weddings you will have to have help. ie Be a Mason or links to high society.(Ok people with money who will spend it)
    Trying to charge more than a weeks wages...say $1000 cuts your client base to just a few weddings a year.
    The simplest weddings are Polish weddings where the arty stuff is done 2 hrs before the wedding leaving only a dozen group shots + casuals for after the service.
    I always allow plenty of time but ..the bride is late (make up hair) .Car driver/minister/manager difficult to control/Bride wants a cigarette/toilet/make up touch up / Grandma has gone to the toilet/guests are booking into there rooms.
    the list goes on .
    To quote one bride who took my megaphone off me to use " If you would all do what you were told we could get to the reception a lot faster"
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    I think the main point is that there is no answer as to one type of tool being generically 'better' than another. It depends on the situation, and the skills and preference of the photographer.

    If one faces a variety of situations, than a variety of tools (and skills) may be needed.

    I personally shoot more frequently with primes than with zooms, but if I am traveling, or doing an event, the zooms come out.

    If I am looking for Eagles, it is a 400/2.8 with tc-20eIII on a tripod/gimbal head.

    For street photography it will be a 24 or 35mm prime (usually on a Leica, but lately might be a Fuji).

    'Horses for Courses'

    .... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • NikoniserNikoniser Posts: 100Member
    I will just leave this here :

    http://shotkit.com/wedding-photography-camera-gear/

    Zooms are the second to last most popular lenses in wedding photos bags, beaten by a host of prime lenses.
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    edited February 2016
    Heavily wedding oriented because that is what @pistnbroke seems to shoot. Never heard him mention any other photography.

    For general shooting I bring and use whatever I think will work best. When you have time to change lenses a zoom isn't as important. I still like the convenience of my zoom, but as @haroldp mentioned if I am shooting wildlife I have my 300 F4 on or if I am shooting macro or nature shots I like my 105. If I am in my car I have all my lenses. If I am on a 10 mile hike I might have 2. If I am shooting outdoor portraits my 105 is on my camera...inside my 17-55. My 35 F1.8 is always somewhere collecting dust. For me a all in one zoom isn't necessary. I did like my 18-200, but I have found that I don't miss the gaps between my 17-55 and primes.

    Overall I don't think it is some trick though. For me in the 17-55 range my zoom is good enough. To me it is sharp and fast. When I go to macro and portraits my 105 takes the cake and long shots which are usually wildlife I shoot my 300 F4. I wouldn't be happy with a zoom that went out to 300mm though as I know I would have if pegged at 300 and that is it's weakest point. I love what my 105 can do and it would be sharper and have better bokeh than almost any zoom...although I haven't tried the 70-200 at 105.
    Post edited by tcole1983 on
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    Nikoniser said:

    I will just leave this here :

    http://shotkit.com/wedding-photography-camera-gear/

    Zooms are the second to last most popular lenses in wedding photos bags, beaten by a host of prime lenses.

    If it is on the web it must be true !!!.

    The linked site is open only to members so it is not possible to determine the specifics.

    One liner statistical results are often misleading, intentionally or innocently.

    I have been a guest at dozens of weddings in the last 10 years (since high quality zooms area available), many of them very high end, and have not seen any where at least one of the photo team was not using a zoom. There was often one or more primes on separate bodies or with separate photogs, but always a zoom as the main event.

    There are simply too many approaching or receding sequences at a wedding to cover it optimally any other way, though many including myself will use primes in addition for specialty shots.

    I am sure there are some out there shooting only with primes, but they would need :

    - to be very skilled
    - to have customers with very specific expectations (or low expectations).
    - to have a partner shooting with a zoom
    - to be shooting only available light for the 'look' (see second point)

    .... H

    As an aside, 83% of statistics used in forums online are made up.
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    @ tcole1983

    Nikons 105/2 DC is one of my favorite portrait lenses.
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,742Member
    haroldp said:

    Nikoniser said:

    I will just leave this here :

    http://shotkit.com/wedding-photography-camera-gear/

    Zooms are the second to last most popular lenses in wedding photos bags, beaten by a host of prime lenses.


    I have been a guest at dozens of weddings in the last 10 years (since high quality zooms area available), many of them very high end, and have not seen any where at least one of the photo team was not using a zoom. There was often one or more primes on separate bodies or with separate photogs, but always a zoom as the main event.
    Haroldp, as a guest of weddings, most higher end then lower end, I have often seen set ups like this that incorporated primes. However, I recall that there was always a zoom on a body.
  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    Lots of good info in this thread.
    The last event I shot I started with primes for the artsy decorations and moved to two bodies D810 with 24-70 and D750 with 70-200 F4 on black rapid strap. Both had speedlights bouncing from the ceiling.

    I was asked to do candid coverage but the family decided to do group shots instead. So I had to put the primes away because some groups shots ranged from 2 to 20 people. Having my settings dialed in and distance the best was to keep the zoom handy and this was useful for some low shutter ambient light shots with zooming in and out. SO to make a point events change constantly and being prepared is more important to do a good job vs doing good artsy photographs.

    If I had a an assistant that day I would have just used a prime and have the assistant move the light stand or be the light stand so the light was how I wanted it to be.

    With the 70-200 I was still able to get the candids.

    towards the end of the event I switch to primes 58mm 1.4g to get creative. One of the photos became the person who hired me their favorite photo.

    You can do an event with primes and zooms there is no magic formula because both work. If you can use both you have an advantage.

    One Wedding the 14-24mm saved the day because we were in a very narrow bridge and the only want way to get the photo was with the zoom or a prime either 14mm or 20mm.

    Oh and for the it doesnt matter if the budget is 500-10,000 the day revolves around them and sometimes they can't even do anything about the things that change.

  • Vipmediastar_JZVipmediastar_JZ Posts: 1,708Member
    edited February 2016
    Zoom
    Zoom

    Prime

    Dj Mando

    The DJ shot was not intentional. I was focused on his eye but he extending his arm and moved so my focus point now was over his finger. I have another few shots but he loved this one.
    Post edited by Vipmediastar_JZ on
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    I think I have trailed off from the OP.

    Why would someone be complaining about the lack of DX primes. As people have mentioned at other times. There are FX primes that can be used. I have a few, but they aren't always optimal for DX. That being said to me there is still usefulness in using primes. They have speed, bokeh and sharpness that still aren't matched to the zooms. But I think something that @pistnabroke didn't mention in his original post is cost, which he has mentioned time and time before. In that case it doesn't and won't exists. The best zooms are expensive. They are heavy and don't cover 300mm. The 17-55 is great, the 24-70, 70-200 and even they 24-120 is pretty good from what I hear. However for DX there are more limited options for high quality zooms that cover an appropriate range. I think one could shoot the 17-55 and 70-200 with good results and great range. Two bodies with those lenses would cover just about everything for events. However it will set you back ~$3000 for the lenses only. Again if you are charging lots of money for a wedding...might be worth the investment...many have made it. I still don't see something like the 16-80 or 18-140 as a comparable to the 17-55.

    So in my opinion if one isn't willing to spend the money or at this time use the 17-55 there isn't much one can do to get an appropriate kit that covers a range from wide to 200 mm. Without using the 17-55 there aren't really any other quality lenses that would give you the wide to normal view in the appropriate focal lengths for DX and be a high quality F2.8 lens. There are other lenses that could cover the 55-XXX length, but that would be up to the shooter and what they needed. One could piece together a kit with say the 14-24 and then 24-120 or something, but again cost is even more there. Just my $.02.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,186Member
    edited March 2016
    Re the 17-55 being the only hi quality option... yes it was the case for many years .. such a pain.. I am not a wide wielder (:-) ) so it does not effect me.. However I do sympathize with them. still there are the sigma and tamron 17-50 F2.8 (OS VC) options that are not too shabby

    Still in recent times its getting better especially from third party lenses. It just shows that the vacuum exists and thus being filled..

    1) the 16-80 F2.8-F4 is great step in that direction from Nikon. I guess the D500 absolutely needed it.

    2) Nikon's 10.5mm f/2.8 DX Fisheye, 40mm Macro and 12-24 F4( I am happy with mine but then I dont use wide much anyway :-) )

    3) The Sigma 18-35 F1.8 .. what an awesome item ! and their old but well regarded 10-20 f4-5.6 and new f3.5 and 8-16 fisheye, 12-24, 4.5mm fisheye

    4) Bunch of samyang glass .. 10mm F2.8, 16mm F2.0, 8mm F3.5 Fisheye, 21mm F1.4. They also have wide FX lenses that can of course be used on DX like the 12mm F2.8 FX Fisheye, 14mm F2.8 FX.
    All Manual focus but on the wide end autofocus is less required.

    5) Of course Tokina has their well regarded wide zooms like the new 14-20 F2 ! .. and their other wide zooms, 11-20 F2.8, 11-16 F2.8, 12-28 F4, 10-17mm F3.5 - 4.5 Fisheye

    PS : I forgot the tamrons .. ohwell ... and others ...
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

Sign In or Register to comment.