User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  3
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Lenses for outside weddings

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    05 Oct 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    178
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lenses for outside weddings

    I primarily use the 24-70/2.8 and pair it with either the 16-36/2.8 or the 70-200/2.8 depending on the spread of the wedding layout. But low light lenses aren't really needed for outside weddings in Australia, unless it's heading into twilight. I primarily use the 24-70 and stay low, near the front. However, I could see advantages in moving back down the aisle further and shooting more with a different focal length. I was particularly considering the new 24-105/4, and wondered whether anyone was using this lens for weddings, or if photographers have found any other focal length particularly useful for outdoor weddings. Thanks!

  2. #2
    Member spootz01's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jan 2016
    Location
    Mount Barker
    Posts
    83
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The problem you can have with moving to longer focal length/narrower max aperture lenses is you lose the bokeh that a lot of people look for in a "Pro" looking shot. And you may also lose out on visual fidelity with lower quality glass elements in the lenses them selves.

    I got married a little over a week ago. We had almost all of our photos taken outside and our photographer was using a 24-70/2.8 with ND filters so he could shoot wide open. That is probably a cheaper option while still retaining the soft backgrounds.

    But hey, I shoot sports so take all of this with a grain of salt.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current Gear:
    Canon 600D | Sigma 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 | Canon 50mm f1.8 II | Tamron 150-600m f5-6.3 | Manfrotto 680B Monopod
    All kept in: Lowepro Protactic 350AW

    The GAS never ends.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  3. #3
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    14,799
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spootz01 View Post
    ...the bokeh that a lot of people look for in a "Pro" looking shot...
    Spootz. You are referring to subject separation from the background blur.

    For "bokeh", see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

    Apart from that, I agree with your post.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  4. #4
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    793
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sufran View Post
    I primarily use the 24-70/2.8 and pair it with either the 16-36/2.8 or the 70-200/2.8 depending on the spread of the wedding layout. But low light lenses aren't really needed for outside weddings in Australia, unless it's heading into twilight. I primarily use the 24-70 and stay low, near the front. However, I could see advantages in moving back down the aisle further and shooting more with a different focal length. I was particularly considering the new 24-105/4, and wondered whether anyone was using this lens for weddings, or if photographers have found any other focal length particularly useful for outdoor weddings. Thanks!
    I think that the EF 24-105mm F/4L IS MkII USM has not been released anywhere yet ??? - the expected date in USA is end October.

    I use the EF 24 to 105 L IS USM and the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8L USM, both those lenses are used mainly on 5D Series cameras: if your Profile and Biographical Information is up to date, then you'll have to apply my comments to your APS-C format camera. I suggest in your reckoning you should consider the narrower FoV for any given Subject Distance (ergo the greater Camera to Subject Distance for any given Framing) and the lesser capacity for attaining a particular amount of Shallow DoF at any given Framing.

    Those considerations mentioned, I do find that the extra 35mm of Focal Length on the 24 to 105 is quite handy in a few situations, but not an absolute necessity for Social Events work, especially because when I cover Social Events I do shoot with the Framing a little wide to always allows the flexibility to crop to various Aspect Ratios in Post Production. Also at most outdoor situations, the crowd is usually always less controlled so being closer to the main Subjects is always better, especially during the Ceremony when there are so many "must have" shots.

    On this particular point: What are the advantages you perceive in "moving back down the aisle further and shooting more with a different focal length." ?

    The difference between having F/2.8 and F/4 available apropos attaining very Shallow DoF is not a such a great burden for me either. There is very little difference in the DoF at F/2.8 and F/4 for the all typical Portrait Framings.

    Although, if you are passionate about Bokeh, and as Bokeh has been mentioned, then your 24 to 70 F/2.8L USM might please you better than the 24 to 105/4, when both lenses are used wide open or close to wide open, but that's subjective. My opinion is that my 24 to 105 can produce a very nice Out of Focus Blur.

    On the other hand my experience is that many agree that the Bokeh of EF 135/2L is "sublime and buttery" and there is also good regard for the bokeh of the EF 85 F/1.8, and not so many bad comments about the EF 50 F/1.4, As you already have that cache of Prime Lenses and the 24 to 70/2.8 to boot, it is probable that you are not primarily thinking about the 24 to 105 F/4 IS MkII for its OoF qualities.

    What I find is the most useful feature on my 24 to 105 F/4 L IS USM is the Image Stabilization.

    I understand that the newer version of the lens will have an enhancement in this regard and that can only be good.

    I see value and flexibility at (indoor) Events to have a lens to make cutaway or scene setter or response shots using Available Light and then use the same lens, (usually with Flash as Fill), for the Main Subjects - but IS is not usually as 'necessary' for outdoor shooting - but IS still does offer flexibility and IS is quite useful to have available.

    Image Stabilization across FL range of 24mm to 105mm is the main reason for me having the EF 24 to 105 F/4L IS USM lens available for me to use for Events work.

    On the other hand, considering ONLY Available Light Events Coverage when shooting OUTDOORS: I would never (and I did not) replace my EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L USM with any other zoom lens, not even the MkII version. The EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L USM is unique in its Lens Hood design and its Zoom’s functionality as it allows the maximum protection at all the zoom’s Focal Lengths.

    So, if you are considering using the new 24 to 105/4 INSTEAD OF using the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L USM for “outside weddings in Australia” – I would advise you to consider seriously the value and the efficiency / inefficiency of the two Lens Hoods.

    ***

    BTW, it is an interesting comment that for all the outside photos a Wedding Photographer would use a 24 to 70/2.8 with ND Filters for the purpose of shooting wide open: I wonder if the purpose for using ND Filters, (especially if there were more than one), was actually to get to use X-Flash Sync, at F/2.8?

    At a typical location, on a sunny day, using ISO100, if he were using only Available Light, one would expect his cameras capable of a fast enough Shutter Speed (1/3200s) to allow a shot of Subjects in full front lit sun, when shooting at F/2.8.

    WW

  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    05 Oct 2009
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    178
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi William
    Thanks for the detailed response! Yes, I was considering purchase of the new 24-105 upon its release. I was thinking that being further back, which a lens with greater focal length would enable me to do, would give me the opportunity to vary my composition more, without needing to move around so much. However, some one else due to my attention that this lens can be difficult to use outside, when a wedding is held in a rotunda which can be much darker inside than the outside sunny ambient. So maybe not such a great option after all. Interesting point you make too about the lens hood on the 24-70 mark 1 vs the mark II.

  6. #6
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    793
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You are very welcome.

    *

    Quote Originally Posted by sufran View Post
    . . . I was thinking that being further back, which a lens with greater focal length would enable me to do, would give me the opportunity to vary my composition more, without needing to move around so much.
    I think that is a common thought, but I cannot envisage a shooting scenario where that would be achievable because it’s mathematically impossible, except for only one Re-composition technique, which does not require much moving around anyway.

    *

    Consider that if we keep the SAME Subject Distance, then there are three ways to recompose The Shot:

    1. Keep the Camera Viewpoint static and Twist the Camera
    2. Move the Camera Viewpoint parallel to the Plane of Sharp Focus
    3. Move the Camera Viewpoint around an arc, to get a different angle on the Subject

    Situation 1. When we are further away from the Subject and we are using a longer lens - it is only if we remain in a static position and twist the camera to re-compose, that we move the camera less distance. But I think that if we are simply twisting the camera to re-compose The Shot then most would agree that any more or less twisting is of an insignificant consequence.

    Situation 2. When we move the Camera parallel to the Plane of Sharp Focus, we have to move the same distance irrespective of the FL of the lens.



    *

    Situation 3. Consider that the longer the Subject Distance (distance from Camera to Subject), then the larger the arc of the circumference of the circle that the Camera Viewpoint has to travel, to recompose the frame.





    Notwithstanding these facts, there is another very important issue to consider:
    When shooting in a group of people, the farther the distance from the Subject, the greater the possibility of The Shot being rendered unsuccessful, by a person wandering into the frame.

    This facts are one major reasons why Photojournalists seek to use shorter Lenses and closer Shooting Distances rather than ‘sniping’ with telephoto lenses.

    Photojournalist Cinematographers, think the same way.

    Refer to Robert Capa and Neil Davis as two extraordinary examples.

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by sufran View Post
    Interesting point you make too about the lens hood on the 24-70 mark 1 vs the mark II.
    Not ONLY compared to the EF 24 to 70F/2.8 L USM MkII: I don’t know of ANY other zoom lens with the same Lens Hood functionality.

    If anyone comes across one, I would like to know.

    WW

    All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2016 WMW 1965~1996

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •