Do You Need L Glass for Pro Weddings/Portraits?

This is a sincere question. I’m not trying to generate controversy. I am planning to purchase some L lenses for professional shooting, however, I’ve read a number of posts where people claim that the quality difference isn’t evident.

Thus my question. Do you need the L glass to shoot weddings/portraits? Do you need it more for professional appearance (which is important) and/or will the client notice the difference in the quality of the resulting images?

Thanks!

Jimmer said:

This is a sincere question. I’m not trying to generate
controversy. I am planning to purchase some L lenses for
professional shooting, however, I’ve read a number of posts where
people claim that the quality difference isn’t evident.

Thus my question. Do you need the L glass to shoot
weddings/portraits? Do you need it more for professional
appearance (which is important) and/or will the client notice the
difference in the quality of the resulting images?

Click to expand...

There are many non-L lenses, from Canon and from other manufacturers, with optical quality matching or exceeding many L lenses. A good copy of a 50/1.8 costing $70 will beat or match any L with the same focal length within its zoom range. L's are expensive because they push the envelope: many of them are complex designs, needed to get that extra stop of brightness or extra reach or width, yet they maintain the excellent optical characteristics of simpler, less ambitious ones.

So, while it would generally be a bad idea to shoot professionally with a cheap, consumer zoom, you don't need L's to get L-class optical quality.

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

It depends on what style of wedding you shoot. For the formal shots, a set of primes (if you're shooting digital with 1.6X multiplier, maybe a 50, 85, and 100mm) are going to give better results than any L zoom -- and I'm not sure you'll notice the difference between regular primes and L primes when shooting formals. But some would argue that even for formals, the flexibility of a zoom is more important than absolute image quality.

It gets more interesting if you shoot a lot of candids. There, it's pretty clear cut that a zoom is going to get you better pictures, and equally, the typically faster f-stop of L-zooms is going to let you get shots you can't get with a slower lens. And the faster autofocusing speed of the L glass is a plus for candids too.

And if you shoot a lot of flash beyond the Canon dedicated units, you'll find that the constant aperture zooms like the L series are easier to use for flash than a variable aperture zoom.

One last thought -- I've never thought of razor-sharpness and ultimate contrast as attributes that necessarily benefit wedding photography. I used soft filters a lot when I was shooting weddings -- not sure I would have thought about "L" glass as a necessity from an image quality point of view -- but for constant aperture and fast f-stops, they are a wise choice.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

Jimmer said:

This is a sincere question. I’m not trying to generate
controversy. I am planning to purchase some L lenses for
professional shooting, however, I’ve read a number of posts where
people claim that the quality difference isn’t evident.

Thus my question. Do you need the L glass to shoot
weddings/portraits? Do you need it more for professional
appearance (which is important) and/or will the client notice the
difference in the quality of the resulting images?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the educated reply. I agree that the 1.8 50mm is a great lens for the price (I got one of those real quick). Aside from fixed length lenses, could you suggest a reasonable alternative zoom (compared to the Canon 28-70 L). Also, can you look “professional” with “lesser” lenses. How important is this to the client?

Petteri Sulonen said:

There are many non-L lenses, from Canon and from other
manufacturers, with optical quality matching or exceeding many L
lenses. A good copy of a 50/1.8 costing $70 will beat or match any
L with the same focal length within its zoom range. L's are
expensive because they push the envelope: many of them are complex
designs, needed to get that extra stop of brightness or extra reach
or width, yet they maintain the excellent optical characteristics
of simpler, less ambitious ones.

So, while it would generally be a bad idea to shoot professionally
with a cheap, consumer zoom, you don't need L's to get L-class
optical quality.

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

Click to expand...

Jimmer said:

Thanks for the educated reply. I agree that the 1.8 50mm is a
great lens for the price (I got one of those real quick). Aside
from fixed length lenses, could you suggest a reasonable
alternative zoom (compared to the Canon 28-70 L). Also, can you
look “professional” with “lesser” lenses. How important is this to
the client?

Click to expand...

Well, first off -- it's the photos that sell your stuff, not the gear. The client will look at your past work. If it's good, they couldn't care less what you used to shoot them; if it's not, the best gear in the world won't help. Most non-photogs won't be able to tell the difference between a pro lens and a non-pro lens anyway.

Check out Sigma's EX line of lenses for alternatives to L's. With some exceptions, they're optically in the same ballpark, although build-wise they're not as good. Another lens worth considering is the Canon 28-135IS -- it's slower, but optically excellent, and the IS goes a long way to offset the lesser brightness.

If I were into zooms, my choice for a general-purpose lens would probably be the 28-135IS.

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

In my opinion, there's a certain confidence one gets when you know you have great equipment -- you know it's not going to stand in the way of doing a superb job. But that's a mental game. A little red line around the end of your lens isn't going to say "professional" to your wedding clients.

How you dress, how you interact with them, how you put them at ease on a stressful day, how artful you are in getting the picture setups you need while dealing with constant interruptions, how unobtrusive you are shooting candids during the ceremony, how sensitive you are to getting the specific pictures the bride and groom and their families want you to get -- these things will all determine how professional you look to a much greater extent than the black box hanging around your neck. Seriously, I know pros who shoot with a banged up old Rolleiflex TLR with 1 lens, who are 10X as pro, and bill 10X as many $$$ as people with ten grand worth of the latest Mamiya autofocus stuff. It's attitude, man!

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

Jimmer said:

Petteri Sulonen said:

There are many non-L lenses, from Canon and from other
manufacturers, with optical quality matching or exceeding many L
lenses. A good copy of a 50/1.8 costing $70 will beat or match any
L with the same focal length within its zoom range. L's are
expensive because they push the envelope: many of them are complex
designs, needed to get that extra stop of brightness or extra reach
or width, yet they maintain the excellent optical characteristics
of simpler, less ambitious ones.

So, while it would generally be a bad idea to shoot professionally
with a cheap, consumer zoom, you don't need L's to get L-class
optical quality.

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Pontification: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/ ]

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm no professional, but the pictures I took this past weekend at an outdoor wedding (10D and 28-135IS) show the amazing sharpness and flexibility of this lens:





See more pics here:

http://www.dereckwillis.com/photogal/thumbnails.php?album=6

-Dereck

Jimmer said:

This is a sincere question. I’m not trying to generate
controversy. I am planning to purchase some L lenses for
professional shooting, however, I’ve read a number of posts where
people claim that the quality difference isn’t evident.

Thus my question. Do you need the L glass to shoot
weddings/portraits? Do you need it more for professional
appearance (which is important) and/or will the client notice the
difference in the quality of the resulting images?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

--
Visit My Website!
http://www.dereckwillis.com

One of the advantages of L lenses is having a wider aperture for lowlight. If you use flash, you don't need that. But some people hate flash. Most L lenses have better contrast. I love mine.

Petteri Sulonen said:

Well, first off -- it's the photos that sell your stuff, not the
gear. The client will look at your past work. If it's good, they
couldn't care less what you used to shoot them; if it's not, the
best gear in the world won't help. Most non-photogs won't be able
to tell the difference between a pro lens and a non-pro lens anyway.

Click to expand...

The last sentance is very true, although anyone who's watched any sports match on TV knows that pro photogs shoot huge ( usually white ) lenses with hoods, and all that.

You aren't selling your photos -- you're selling your services . Your client is hiring you because you're going to capture photos that he himself wouldn't ( okay, if it's the bride or groom, then replace it with their friend ). Even though the best equiptment doesn't bring you skill ... that's a bit of a secret. You can't just show up with an Olympus point-and-shoot; if the client has the same camera, they're going to start to wonder why they hired you...

You have to give them results they can't get themselves, but first you have to convince them you can get results they can't, to even get the job.

I have 24-70L and the colors it renders are so "juicy" - I've never seen anything like this before. Also the performance wide open is outstanding and background blur (bokeh) is very nice and easy to achieve in all situations.

Having said that, I doubt many of your clients know a lot about photography. To them 24-85 looks just as professional as 24-70 (even though 24-70 is scary) and photoshop can fix some of the color saturation/clarity issues of the lower end lens.

With 24-70L photoshop only screws things up. You apply auto levels and realise that the original picture was better. Sharpening doesn't make the picture much sharper - it's already sharp right out of the camera. I've heard someone say it makes the picture look better than what you see with your own eyes. This is true.

The bottom line is, you don't have to have "L" optics, but I think 24-70L is worth the money I paid for it, and boy, did I pay a lot!

Hmmm. Those look kinda grayish-brownish.

Here are the kinds of colors and sharpness you could get with an "L" lens (putting aesthetics aside):





:0)

Dereck Willis said:

See more pics here:

http://www.dereckwillis.com/photogal/thumbnails.php?album=6

-Dereck

Jimmer said:

This is a sincere question. I’m not trying to generate
controversy. I am planning to purchase some L lenses for
professional shooting, however, I’ve read a number of posts where
people claim that the quality difference isn’t evident.

Thus my question. Do you need the L glass to shoot
weddings/portraits? Do you need it more for professional
appearance (which is important) and/or will the client notice the
difference in the quality of the resulting images?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

--
Visit My Website!
http://www.dereckwillis.com

Click to expand...

I have an 80-200 2.8L but did not take it to the wedding because I would look like Paparazzi. I totally agree the L lenses are better for these applications, but in most cases only pro's will be able to see the differences. Not to mention the 28-135IS is many hundreds of $$ cheaper than any L zoom.

BTW, thanks for the constructive criticism on my pictures. I had my Sharp LCD monitor calibrated, and they look spot on to me. Anyone else notice "grayish-brownish"?

Dmitriy Belenko said:

Hmmm. Those look kinda grayish-brownish.

Here are the kinds of colors and sharpness you could get with an
"L" lens (putting aesthetics aside):

Click to expand...

--
Visit My Website!
http://www.dereckwillis.com

I agree and disagree with much that has been said here. I agree that client will most likely hire you based on work you can show them, not on different lenses. Indeed, virtually none will know the difference.

And no, one does not HAVE to have L's to shoot weddings. However, the reason that many folks have them, including me, are becuase 1) the lower light capability, e.g. f/2.8 on the 24-70, 16-25, 70-200, etc and 2) the faster focusing. Both of these issues are very important to me, and why I would be pretty reluctant to shoot weddings with consumer grade lenses.

Some folks have mentioned the 50mm f/1.8 as a nice, inexpensive lens. I agree. I have one, and occassionally use it for portraits. But I virtually NEVER use it for weddings because the focus is WAY too slow.

My $.02

--
Jamie W.
Kindness. Compassion. Understanding. Respect. Courtesy.
I try to live up to these words. Do you?
Film? What do you mean, film?

Their color depends on the angle you look at them, so you only get somewhat reliable color reproduction in the center. My monitor is calibrated, BTW. It's Sony Multiscan G500.

Dereck Willis said:

BTW, thanks for the constructive criticism on my pictures. I had my
Sharp LCD monitor calibrated, and they look spot on to me. Anyone
else notice "grayish-brownish"?

Dmitriy Belenko said:

Hmmm. Those look kinda grayish-brownish.

Here are the kinds of colors and sharpness you could get with an
"L" lens (putting aesthetics aside):

Click to expand...

--
Visit My Website!
http://www.dereckwillis.com

Click to expand...

But misses the target much more often.

As an active dpreview.com forum reader and a 10D owner, I'm pretty biased, but I did interview some wedding photographers for my sisters wedding a few months ago, so I can give you my impressions.

My parents were very concerned (as I suspect a lot of people are) when they were told that the wedding would be shot only in digital. I called the photographer to talk to him, and I was pleased to find out that he used a 1D and not a consumer level camera. At the time, I owed an Olympus e-!0, and like others mentioned above, I would have been disturbed if the photographer had the same equipment as I have as a hobbyist.

Although I wouldn't have known the difference then, if I got to the wedding and saw that the photographer was shooting primarily with a 28-135, I would have worried a little. Of course, I'm a very educated consumer, and although I love my 28-135 and decided to return my 24-70 because I didn't appreciate the difference, I still feel that if someone is a serious professional who is going to be paid a lot of money to record one of my family's most important moments, they should be serious enough to invest in good equipment.

Perhaps this view, however, is just based on the assumption that a good, busy photographer won't mind paying the several thousand dollars for top level glass and that a less busy, less professional wedding photographer would.

Finally, I agree with the person above who said that L glass gives you some self confidence. During the few days with my 24-70, I took some pictures of children at pony rides, and I definitely felt more confident that I was going everything possible to get the best shot while using Canon's best tool for doing it.

Good luck,
Dan

Jimmer said:

This is a sincere question. I’m not trying to generate
controversy. I am planning to purchase some L lenses for
professional shooting, however, I’ve read a number of posts where
people claim that the quality difference isn’t evident.

Thus my question. Do you need the L glass to shoot
weddings/portraits? Do you need it more for professional
appearance (which is important) and/or will the client notice the
difference in the quality of the resulting images?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Jimmer said:

Thus my question. Do you need the L glass to shoot
weddings/portraits? Do you need it more for professional
appearance (which is important) and/or will the client notice the
difference in the quality of the resulting images?

Click to expand...

i was just at a wedding two weekends ago...it was in the late afternoon outdoors and starting to get a little dark. there was a woman stalking the sidelines with an unknown 35mm SLR and what looked like a consumer-grade push/pull 75-300mm lens and a generic external flash snapping away...she'd occasionally go back and swap it with another small, nondescript 35mm SLR with what looked like a 50mm prime on it. my wife and i were sitting there wondering where the professional photographer was because we knew they had hired one. as it turned out, that woman we saw was the professional they hired. when i found out, i immediately felt ashamed for being an equipment snob and knowing that it's "not about the equipment" and she was probably very talented. and, everyone she asked to pose did exactly as she asked. still, in the back of my mind, i was thinking that 1) i wished i had brought my 10D! the bride's mother is a friend of my wife's and i'm sure she would have loved having a bunch of digital pictures to email and share and 2) i'm glad i didn't bring it because my 10D/BG-ED3 with even the 28-135mm not to mention my 70-200mm f/2.8 dwarfed her camera and i didn't want her feeling like i was looking over her shoulder or anything. so, i dunno. personally, if i was paying big bucks for someone to take photos, i'd expect them to be talented AND have good equipment (at least as good as what average joe blow has). i also think the L's with the big apertures are needed so you're less reliant on flash.

norm

21farms said:

my wife and i were sitting there wondering where
the professional photographer was because we knew they had hired
one. as it turned out, that woman we saw was the professional
they hired.

Click to expand...

[...]

NKH said:

she was probably very talented. and, everyone she asked to pose
did exactly as she asked.

Click to expand...

[...]

NKH said:

personally, if i was paying big bucks for someone to take
photos, i'd expect them to be talented AND have good equipment (at
least as good as what average joe blow has).

Click to expand...

Maybe it was a deliberate choice. Maybe she (the pro photographer) had found - through experience - to get better shots when using this inconspicuous equipment and NOT looking like a pro? Maybe people were more natural and relaxed around her, unaware that she was the official photographer of the day? And maybe then it became an integral part of her shooting style? Just guessing here... It REALLY isn't the gear, but the mind/vision and the final images that count!
--
Olaf

You really don't know if you've got pro results if you have something to compare them with. I think your setup would blow hers away in terms of quality of the images, but she'd probably have an edge on composition and in high contrast scenes (where digital doesn't really do well yet).

hi olaf,

actually, my experience has been exactly the opposite and i've been to a LOT of weddings (about 30 in the past 15). my feeling has been that people put on their best effort for the hired pro...as it should be, IMHO. and, of all the weddings i've been to, only a handful were not using medium format.

Olaf.dk said:

21farms said:

my wife and i were sitting there wondering where
the professional photographer was because we knew they had hired
one. as it turned out, that woman we saw was the professional
they hired.

Click to expand...

[...]

Olaf.dk said:

she was probably very talented. and, everyone she asked to pose
did exactly as she asked.

Click to expand...

[...]

Olaf.dk said:

personally, if i was paying big bucks for someone to take
photos, i'd expect them to be talented AND have good equipment (at
least as good as what average joe blow has).

Click to expand...

Maybe it was a deliberate choice. Maybe she (the pro photographer)
had found - through experience - to get better shots when using
this inconspicuous equipment and NOT looking like a pro? Maybe
people were more natural and relaxed around her, unaware that she
was the official photographer of the day? And maybe then it became
an integral part of her shooting style? Just guessing here... It
REALLY isn't the gear, but the mind/vision and the final images
that count!
--
Olaf

Click to expand...