On 1/31/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: OT - Wedding photography advice solicitation > > > >I wouldn't try to shoot an event like a party or wedding without a zoom. At > >any size 11 x14 or smaller, there's no visible difference between a shot > >taken with the FA35/2 and one taken with the DA 16-45/4. I used the latter > >at the reception of the wedding I recently shot. It was perfect, and I > >needed a variety of focal lengths. At the ceremony, I used the DA 16-45/4 > >on one camera and the DA 50-200/4.5-5.6 on the other. I had to shoot > >available light in this venue (a courtroom), and both lenses worked well. I > >used the longer one on the K10D so that I'd have shake reduction. Although > >I shot excluisively with primes for my first 25 years of photography, I now > >consider zooms indispensible and quite good. A single focal length at a > >reception could exclude shots like large tables and even big groups. > > For the first 20 years of my wedding career, I stuck with a standard lens > and nothing else. If I felt the shot was important enough, I got it. I > played with zooms a bit after that, and went back to primes very quickly. > Scott, by his own admission isn't experienced in this sort of photography, > why would you recommend he makes his job more difficult than it needs to be? > Too often, your advice or anecdotes are based on experiences that don't have > a solid footing in the reality that 99% of shooters have to deal with. > We don't all get to play footsie with Clint Clemons. > I really appreciate all of the advice I've received, and I certainly didn't mean to start an argument. Discussion, even with disagreements, is good, though. My initial intention was to shoot the wedding with the K100D, the kit lens, and a telephoto zoom. Not ideal, I know, but I'm not professing any ability at this kind of thing. I'm also not going to invest in new lenses to shoot a wedding for free. That will have to wait until I decide if this is a field I want to try to make some money in.
In addition to the digital rig, I had planned to bring along the MX with a couple of primes and some Neopan 1600 for a little contrast to the color images. And one other film body, just in case I have problems with the digital rig. Most of my shooting these days involves chasing two little girls around, and I'm in a "fast action" mode. The zoom lenses tend to be ideal for this. On the other hand, I've always preferred shooting with primes, but I'm not good enough for the primes to offer any sharpness advantage when shooting without a tripod. I'm not fast enough to keep up with the kids, either. So I rarely use a prime lens anymore. I read a magazine article a while back about the wedding photographer's lens kit. It was an older article from the 70s or 80s, which discussed Nikon's recommendations. The lenses were a 35, 50, and an 85 or 105 (I think). Imagine showing up to a wedding these days with a couple of old manual cameras and a few primes! It seems like most photogs I read about are carrying the latest and greatest digital rigs with IS lenses, a laptop, at least one assistant, a myriad of lights, and if they have a film camera at all it's an F5 or a Leica. Who the hell can afford to do weddings like this? On the contrary, most of the wedding photographers I actually see are either shooting with medium format or a Fuji digital body, and working their butts off because their assistant didn't show up or they didn't have one in the first place. I have a little time to prepare, and I may just decide to suck up the expense and shoot the whole thing on film. Thanks again, and keep it coming! -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
