85/1.4 vs. 28-70/2.8

[RaidenCraig]

why not get the Beast? This is one application where the bullet-fast focus of the 28-70 shines, and a key reason it was engendered. Changing lenses at a wedding can be a killer... as sublime as the 85 1.4 is, Frank noted above that having taken it and the 28-70 to a wedding as a test, he missed some shots with the 85 due to slower focus speed-- a fact that some might not expect given its ap speed.

Many report taking two cameras to weddings... when Frank wakes up on the Left Coast, he can easily nail this question, but I know he will say that lighting can be so essential, especially at your typical reception. I like the sweet and petite 35/2 and sublime prime 85 1.4, but neither is fast enough for low ambient light, nor versatile enough for many shots at a wedding. That said, note how Frank's "lightning in a bottle" shot of the bride above was with the 85 1.4-- I would not leave it at home. Good luck!

--craigh

I have a wedding to shoot in two week for which I'm getting paid..

I have to make up my mind tomorrow to either keep the 18-200 vr +
35 2.0 + 50 1.8 + 85 1.4
or
go for the 17-55 or the 28-70..

my first choice would be the 17-55

what would you do ?

much appreciated.
regards
Lionel P

--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.

 

[pierre1]

I don't comment often UF, but the emotions conveyed through
this lovely bride's moist eyes really hit me just as if I was there !!!
You've now mastered the 85 1.4 as well as the 28-70!

Kindest Regards,
Pierre

 

[stupormundi]

it sure makes you wonder how photogs managed before AFS...

They had to be better photographers, and relied on technique
instead of technology.

Reading the forum, it's clear that we have a new generation of
photographers that feel they can't take a decent picture unless
they have AF-S and VR .

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

Hi,

I want to bragg for a moment - and that seems the perfect place to do it...

I just got my first mulit-day sport job - based on photos I took with the 90€ 50 f/1.8 - the cheapest and simplest piece in my kit...
That was money well spend!
--
Best Regards

Thorsten
-----------------------------
http://home.fotocommunity.de/helmerichs

 

[qcpro]

thank you very much for your much needed advice..

I'm sure that Uncle Frank would say the same thing..

Only thing about the beast is it's weight..
I'm still struggling with my 80-200 2.8 .... so...

I have to decide today which one to buy !!!
I might just rent the beast for the wedding and see what gives...

kind regards
Lionel P

 

[hartcons]

Are weddings more about hitting occasional home runs or about just having a good batting average? I'm not a wedding photographer (have done some portraits) but it seems like you'd want some hero shots and if the 85f1.4 is the lens for that then you'd just have to live with some missed shots as well (or have two bodies and/or two shooters). It seems like there are lenses that flatter the female face and have good "wedding" bokeh and lenses that do not.

 

[RaidenCraig]

like much else with this avocation can become a trade-off conundrum. I think I know what Frank means about missing some wedding shots-- how do you get that perfect slice of life fast record shot of the garter throw, say, without bullet-fast focus? Or the wedding couple running under the rice/rose petals? Also, I love my 85 1.4, but sometimes some brides are not best served by its super sharpness!

Frank's last shot above is nothing sort of magical-- a reason some of us pursue this sometimes daunting, pricy, problematic passion-- hoping to capture that lightning in a bottle now and then. Perhaps a bit like great sex-- as best I can remember!

--craig

Are weddings more about hitting occasional home runs or about just
having a good batting average? I'm not a wedding photographer (have
done some portraits) but it seems like you'd want some hero shots
and if the 85f1.4 is the lens for that then you'd just have to live
with some missed shots as well (or have two bodies and/or two
shooters). It seems like there are lenses that flatter the female
face and have good "wedding" bokeh and lenses that do not.

--
Craig in Ga. (USA)
As you go thru life, don't forget to stop along the way to smell the roses.

 

[Cultured Vulture]

it sure makes you wonder how photogs managed before AFS...

They had to be better photographers, and relied on technique
instead of technology.

Reading the forum, it's clear that we have a new generation of
photographers that feel they can't take a decent picture unless
they have AF-S and VR .

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

I am sure Matthew Brady would say the same thing. "Why the heck do they need roll film, if you can't capture the moment in one shot, you don't know what your doing." LOL
--
Regards,

JR

 

[Uncle Frank]

Frank's last shot above is nothing sort of magical-- a reason some
of us pursue this sometimes daunting, pricy, problematic passion--
hoping to capture that lightning in a bottle now and then. Perhaps
a bit like great sex-- as best I can remember!

Wow! Please don't be upset if you catch me using some of those phrases in the future. In fact, I'm going to print it out and save it to cheer me up on a rainy day .

Thanks, Craig.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

 

[James H.]

Uncle Frank,

You capture great photos with these lenses. I love taking portrait photos and am inspired when see such beautiful photos from ones such as yourself.
Your gallery is full of these wonderful photos. Thanks for sharing.

I also read your profile and the lenses you currently have. I am curious as to whether these are D lenses that you use or non-D. If non-D, then I guess the D versions really aren't that important in capture special moments like you have.

--
James

Nikon D70s
Nikon D-50
Oly C2100Uzi
Oly C-3000z

 

[Uncle Frank]

Are weddings more about hitting occasional home runs or about just
having a good batting average? I'm not a wedding photographer (have
done some portraits) but it seems like you'd want some hero shots
and if the 85f1.4 is the lens for that then you'd just have to live
with some missed shots as well...

If you accept the job of prime at a wedding, you can't go swinging for the fences. You've committed to covering all of the critical moments, plus a complete set of candids of the attendees. It's a hard job, one that requires you be at the plate for six to eight hours straight. I usually take about 1,000 swings (shots), which results in 300 hits (unique keepers) if I had a good day. Lots of singles and doubles, but I find a couple will clear the fence, even if I'm not taking heroic swings.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

 

[Uncle Frank]

Thank you for the compliments and encouragement, James! I'm a hobbyist, just like you, trying to improve my craft, and learning as I go. It's always a treat when a fellow photographer tells me they enjoy my pictures.

Nikon converted all of their production to "D" versions in the 1992-1995 timeframe. Since my lenses are of recent vintage, they're all D's.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

 

[Uncle Frank]

Only thing about the beast is it's weight..

I'm afraid you'll have to deal with a heavy lens no matter which way you go. The 17-55 only weighs 4 1/2 ounces less than the 28-70, and is just 1/2 inch shorter.

You need to make your decision based on your personal shooting style. Analyze your archives, and if you find you favor the longer focal lengths for people pics, get the 28-70; if you favor wider focal lengths, get the 17-55.

But imho, neither is a "one lens solution". You need a wide angle lens to complement the 28-70; my choice was the 20/2.8. And you need a long lens to complement the 17-55; many choose the 85/1.4 or 85/1.8.

The 17-55 has the advantage of better sharpness wide open. I try not to shoot the 28-70 wider than f/3.5. The 28-70 has slightly better bokeh, and is able to provide a degree of selective focus at its long end.

It's a tough decision, Lionel. I'm a 28-70 fan, but the 17-55 is probably the easier choice.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

 

[Norwen]

Plus,they all want to shoot wide open,WHATS with that?

And they look more at the boke then the actual subject which is in focus... Incredible.

 

[Norwen]

I have a wedding to shoot in two week for which I'm getting paid..

I have to make up my mind tomorrow to either keep the 18-200 vr +
35 2.0 + 50 1.8 + 85 1.4
or
go for the 17-55 or the 28-70..

my first choice would be the 17-55

A week ago you called me crazy...

 

[qcpro]

thank you uncle Frank for your comments and advice..

I just bought a used 28-70 2.8 in mint condition (less than 2 years old)
to go on a D1X..
and, luckily, the same guy sold me his 20 2.8, almost brand new !

on the long end, I have a 80-200 2.8 and a 85 1.8...
I can also rely on my 35 2.0 and my 50 1.8..
Two flashes : the SB-600 and 800
backup : D70s

so, as you suggested, I think that covers all the bases for a good wedding assignment..

Fortunately, my wife and daughters will give me a hand with the equipment

I will give you a feedback of the pics...

I sure appreciate your help..

Thank you very much, uncle Frank

kind regards
Lionel P

 

[Uncle Frank]

20/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.8, 28-70/2.8, 85/1.8, 80-200/2.8.

That's a handsome and useful collection of glass, Lionel! There's not much you couldn't do with it.

I'll look forward to seeing your reaction to the 28-70. I hope you and the Beast bond quickly.
--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

 

[Dan Wagner]

Photo bride with tears is a home run -- once you get a shot like that you almost feel like packing up and going home because you wont get a better one.
--
Nikon D2x, Nikon Lenses 10.5, 12-24, 28-70 2.8, 70-200 VR, 85 1.4 Sigma 30 1.4
Nikon TC-17E II 1.7x, Fuji S3,Two SB800's, Three Quantum T4d's, & More.

 

[victor beato]

makes you wonder how photogs managed before AFS, heck if I am not
mistaken the first PJ style lens to have it was the 80-200 in Dec.
of 1998. When you think about it AFS has not been around very long
at all

--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

in 1981, my wife and i spent all our savings (meager) for pro photographer while both our families paid for the wedding. we had 200 8x10 and 100 5x7 beautiful pictures in 3 linen albums. even now, i have not seen an album comparable to ours (humbly speaking). there was one photographer (a 60 something guy) with 2 young assistants holding 2 back up cameras both with only prime lenses. the 3rd camera with another prime lens was with the main guy. he rotated the 3 cameras. they were all moving in perfect sync and did not cause any distraction to the ceremony. thanks.

 

[gmosc]

James,

I'm pretty sure I remember that the D only works in matrix metering mode. I have a feeling he didn't shoot in matrix mode. But of course as he said, if it's a D then it is newer.

Guy Moscoso

 

[Jens Dyrløv]

In the end, my favorite shot of the day was taken with the 85/1.4 .

I agree with you, that it is a great shot, full of emotion and clearly shows how moved the bride is during the speech.

The CA in the glass bothers me, but can easily be corrected in post-procesing. Use the formula in this link.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=13685559

--
Jens Dyrløv