Why do Wedding Photographers usually use Wide-Angle?

Eclipse Optics · Feb 26, 2008

I know that there's a time and a place for it. I can honestly recognize this. But when I do wedding work, I zoom in tight and that means 80-200mm or more if I have it.

But so often, I see people swearing by 50mm primes or something like the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses. And while super sharp, I really don't get that part of it because most of the time in post-processing we add noise-reduction or gaus blur because sharp isn't what we want with faces so sharp that we can see the individual pores etc.

So what's the deal here, am I missing something utterly fundemental?

--

Whether you agree with it or not; when I say something, I'm expressing my opinion. If you agree, then great. If you don't, fine.

andrewD2 · Feb 27, 2008

Eclipse Optics said:
I know that there's a time and a place for it. I can honestly
recognize this. But when I do wedding work, I zoom in tight and that
means 80-200mm or more if I have it.

But so often, I see people swearing by 50mm primes or something like
the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses. And while super sharp, I really
don't get that part of it because most of the time in post-processing
we add noise-reduction or gaus blur because sharp isn't what we want
with faces so sharp that we can see the individual pores etc.

So what's the deal here, am I missing something utterly fundemental?

The interaction and the location?

Andrew

TLE · Feb 27, 2008

I often have a 35mm on one body and the 135mm on the other. You can't do weddings wih just a telezoom, just can't. While close ups with shallow DOF are beautifull, the B&G like to see other images as well, not just faces

Eclipse Optics said:
I know that there's a time and a place for it. I can honestly
recognize this. But when I do wedding work, I zoom in tight and that
means 80-200mm or more if I have it.

But so often, I see people swearing by 50mm primes or something like
the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses. And while super sharp, I really
don't get that part of it because most of the time in post-processing
we add noise-reduction or gaus blur because sharp isn't what we want
with faces so sharp that we can see the individual pores etc.

So what's the deal here, am I missing something utterly fundemental?

john p vansteenberg · Feb 27, 2008

Eclipse Optics said:
But so often, I see people swearing by 50mm primes or something like
the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses. And while super sharp, I really
don't get that part of it because most of the time in post-processing
we add noise-reduction or gaus blur because sharp isn't what we want
with faces so sharp that we can see the individual pores etc.

So what's the deal here, am I missing something utterly fundemental?

There are 3 very practical reasons and a few idiosyncratic ones... comparing the 'kit' lenses to 'fast' lenses... assumes f/2.8 'fast' and f/5.6 'kit' specs...

1. Extended flash range. The "faster" lens allows the photographer to record flash images generally up to about 2X the distance at certain focal lengths compared to "kit" lenses.

2. Compositional flexibility and style. Particularly in small spaces. This also helps when shooing over and around objects between the photog and the subject (tables, people, etc.)

3. The ability to crop small segments of an image and maintain image quality at larger apertures is usually enhanced because the image will be sharper (permitting more enlargement before breaking down) at between f/2.8 and f/8 , or so, than will the f/5.6-8 range of the kit lens.
--
Van

Eclipse Optics · Feb 27, 2008

Good point. I'm just expressing my distaste with the 50mm prime lens and anything non-tele in general. I know that there's a place for such things, but I'm just wondering why more people to do more closeups. It seems that some people even swear by the 50mm prime. I just don't get it.

TLE said:
Eclipse Optics said:

I know that there's a time and a place for it. I can honestly
recognize this. But when I do wedding work, I zoom in tight and that
means 80-200mm or more if I have it.

But so often, I see people swearing by 50mm primes or something like
the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses. And while super sharp, I really
don't get that part of it because most of the time in post-processing
we add noise-reduction or gaus blur because sharp isn't what we want
with faces so sharp that we can see the individual pores etc.

So what's the deal here, am I missing something utterly fundemental?

Click to expand...

--

Whether you agree with it or not; when I say something, I'm expressing my opinion. If you agree, then great. If you don't, fine.

JM Tran · Feb 27, 2008

when i shoot a wedding, i have 3 bodies covering range from 10mm to 300mm for whole day and night

from what u wrote in your post, im assuming u only shoot tele and dont like wide angles? im not sure, just a bit confused reading it so i apologize if i misinterpreted it.

u need the wide angle for many many things, some of which are said already in this thread. I for one, need the shots for the settings and location, group shots, creativity and many other needs.

nobody can or should shoot a wedding with wides or teles only, u need both.

if someone shot my wedding using only tele lenses, i wont be very happy

--
http://jackietran.myphotoalbum.com/albums.php - my temporary website

Brooke A · Feb 27, 2008

Choice of lens has to do with the photographers style and vision.
--
Brooke

Scandium · Feb 27, 2008

I use wide angles for the establishing shots. These capture the venue: church, reception, etc. and the guests. My wedding shoot is a story of the event. Establishing shots are the glue that hold the closeups together. Take a look at any film. Most films start with wide establishing shots to introduce the viewer to scene. There is usually an establishing shot at each major scene change to introduce the viewer to the new venue.

Joe Federer · Feb 27, 2008

I find a 50mm on a crop body while shooting a wedding to be a great FL. It lets you get good tighter shots during the reception/dance and 'wider' shots during the ceremony. With the 75mm equiv FoV, it really works well for both 'tight' and 'wide' shots - depending on the circumstances.

That having been said - a whole wedding with one lens is crazy talk.

Eclipse Optics said:
TLE said:

Eclipse Optics said:

I know that there's a time and a place for it. I can honestly
recognize this. But when I do wedding work, I zoom in tight and that
means 80-200mm or more if I have it.

But so often, I see people swearing by 50mm primes or something like
the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses. And while super sharp, I really
don't get that part of it because most of the time in post-processing
we add noise-reduction or gaus blur because sharp isn't what we want
with faces so sharp that we can see the individual pores etc.

So what's the deal here, am I missing something utterly fundemental?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Whether you agree with it or not; when I say something, I'm
expressing my opinion. If you agree, then great. If you don't, fine.

--
JOE FEDERER
Websites:
Hiking and nature @ http://hiking.federerphotography.com
Wedding and event photography @ http://www.federerphotography.com

eggburt · Feb 27, 2008

Weddings do not always have a vast amount of light, as with any indoor photo session. The 50mm Prime lens is very great lens in low light situations. Especially the 1:1.2 and the 1:1.4.

One body should have a low light lens attached at weddings.

The 50mmm lens is a good portrait lens on a camera with a crop factor of almost all digital cameras, not so much FF.

Also In a croud of people, swinging a 70-200mm VR is sometimes awkward.

IMHO

--

If I Say Anything To Offend, I have Made Available This Video Apology Especially For You:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7mIy97_rlo&feature=related

If You Are Still Ticked At Me, Not Accepting My Apology, This Video Is Just For You:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_O-QqC9yM28&feature=related

These videos make me laugh, I hope you enjoy them. Personal history and equipment list in profile.

jdawg · Feb 27, 2008

Read this article:

http://www.wedpix.com/articles/015/wide-angle-long-lens-weddings.html

TLE · Feb 28, 2008

eggburt said:
Weddings do not always have a vast amount of light, as with any
indoor photo session. The 50mm Prime lens is very great lens in low
light situations. Especially the 1:1.2 and the 1:1.4.

One body should have a low light lens attached at weddings.

yes, on my FF bodies the 35 and 135 are my favourites. Both excellent in low-light. I'm planning to get a third 5D for the 85.

eggburt said:
The 50mmm lens is a good portrait lens on a camera with a crop factor
of almost all digital cameras, not so much FF.

That's probably why I don't use the 50 mm much

eggburt said:
Also In a croud of people, swinging a 70-200mm VR is sometimes awkward.

Very true, and one of the reasons I did away with my huge zooms...my second body would have the 70-200/2.8 IS on it and that lens is simply dangerous during weddings

Barrie Davis · Feb 28, 2008

If you are anything like the typical professional photographer, you will find yourself migrating to shorter f-length lenses as you grow more experienced. This increased appreciation of wider angle lenses, that incorporate MORE detail into shots instead of less, is something that seems to come quite naturally with increasing maturity in the camera handler!

Unless you are female.... in which case it all happens rather quicker! ;-)
--
Regards,
Baz

Ryan Li · Feb 28, 2008

Barrie Davis said:
If you are anything like the typical professional photographer, you
will find yourself migrating to shorter f-length lenses as you grow
more experienced. This increased appreciation of wider angle lenses,
that incorporate MORE detail into shots instead of less, is something
that seems to come quite naturally with increasing maturity in the
camera handler!

I think you've nailed it Barrie. (I rather like wide angle too

)

To quote Robert Capa: "If your photos aren't good enough, you're not close enough." Implying that to get your photos as good as possible, you go as wide angle as you can get away with, and get in close.

Barrie Davis said:
Unless you are female.... in which case it all happens rather
quicker! ;-)

Also unless you're a wildlife photographer (although of course Andy Rouse once shot some angry elephants using a 16mm lens)

--
Ryan Li / Travel and wedding photographer
I collect romantic tales.

ActionAid charity print sale - http://ryan.li/

RedFox88 · Feb 28, 2008

Closeup shots of a person's face might be appealing to you, but couldn't that picture be taken almost anywhere? Wide angle shows the event and captures the context of the image. Plus most women don't like just their face to be in the picture as, like you said, no one needs to see her pores and sweaty makeup.

deuxcent · Feb 28, 2008

Eclipse Optics said:
It seems that some people even swear by the 50mm prime. I
just don't get it.

I use a f/1.4 50 mm prime (and sometimes the equally fast 30 mm Sigma lens) at pretty much every wedding. They both excel at shallow-depth-of-field shots of details -- a flower, the bride's bouquet, her slipper, the wedding cake, calligraphed place cards and invitations, party favors, and so on. Those lenses are also good for quick people shots during and right after the meal, especially if dusk is setting in and you'd like to shoot with existing light.

But you know -- pro photographers have a well-filled lens case for a reason. I also use a 70-200 VR, a 17-55, a LensBaby 3G, a 24-70, a 12-24, even (sometimes) an 18-200 VR if I don't quite know how the situation will unfold and I might have to go from wide to tele at a moment's notice with no time to switch cameras. Oh, and a 10.5 mm fisheye. LOVE the fisheye.

There's some deliberate redundancy and overlap there -- I want to have fallback options if a piece of gear should fail -- but really, each lens has its strengths and preferred uses. It's all about what you see in your head, then picking the right tools to capture it so that other people see it too.

smuphoto · Feb 28, 2008

Eclipse Optics said:
Why do Wedding Photographers usually use Wide-Angle?

I'm a full-time wedding photographer and I use everything from a 10.5 to a 300. It depends entirely on the venue and what my objective is for a particular scene. I love my 70-200, and use it quite a bit, maybe 40% of my shots. But most group shots require something in the 17-55 range. Likewise the cake cutting, bouquet toss, and shots from the dance floor. And of course most churches don't allow flash during the cememony, which means you need high ISO AND fast glass, i.e., something wide. These are practical issues --- style, composition, DOF, etc. are additional factors in the equation.

So, I wouldn't say I "usually" use wide angle --- I use whatever I need to get the shot, and about half of the time it's something wide and fast. As for your apparent irritation, you posted a question to a pro forum, and some of the folks here have been shooting weddings for a lot longer than you have --- just because you disagree with their answers doesn't mean they're wrong!

aimpic · Feb 29, 2008

--
Peter

Persuasive Marketing Systems -
inc Copywriting, Design & Photography

Richard Katris · Feb 29, 2008

50mm isn't wide even on FF, and many are now using crop bodies which makes it a nice portrait length short tele anyway. They are much faster than any zooms available and at considerably lower investment cost, and allow a closer working distance (most 50mm lenses focus to about 17-18 inches).

Remember you are often competing with guest candid shooters, and you want to be in front of them, not vice versa. Shorter glass will keep you there. You can fight with the guests about stepping back out of your way, or you can take a step forward reframe and take the shot.

The really wide view will also differentiate your shots from the amateur's shots. Most guests at the wedding will not have a PS camera that goes wider than 35mm (a few may go to 28mm), so even if distorted a truely wide angled shot will show so much more of the overall scene than what they will take, that this will often stand out as being one big difference in what the 'pro' can record that would be missed if they hadn't hired one. 10x zooms are now a dime a dozen in PS cameras.....
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan

Paul Cheang · Feb 29, 2008

PC writes:

I don't know about other photographer but I use 24-70mm, 16-35mm, or 50mm more often in the wedding than I do with the 70-200mm. With limited space and a hundred people can come between me and the subject, 70-200mm is basically useless most of the time in this kind of environment.

Sure superzoom is good for blurring out the background but what do you get? The couple's face only all the time? What about their guests and families in the background having fun and smiling at them and all?

Anyway, my 70-200mm usually is used for bridal, church, and a few posed photo of the couple...it has no place in a crowded wedding reception hall.

Thanks,
Paul.

Why do Wedding Photographers usually use Wide-Angle?

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts