Wedding photographers - is 28-75 long enough?

Nikon 28,50,105,75-150...sometimes think a 24 would be good for cramped
situations....and a different view of things......however flash coverage
could be a problem...I havent done a lot of weddings ...mostly family...
Have found the 28 and 105mm to be my most useful tools.....manual focus ....
Merv
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Bill Tuthill wrote:
For most weddings, do you think a 35mm-equivalent zoom max'ing out
at 75mm is long enough? Seems like 28mm is more than wide enough.

That's it, thanks.

Back in the days when I did weddings I use only 75 mm on a 2¼. Had I
started a year earlier I would have been using 4x5. One lens did it all.
I
can say that the results today with a wide range of 35 mm equipment are
really no better than what we did back in the dark ages using one lens and
real flash bulbs.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

For most weddings, do you think a 35mm-equivalent zoom max'ing out
at 75mm is long enough? Seems like 28mm is more than wide enough.

That's it, thanks.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 21:05:43 -0000, Bill Tuthill
wrote:

For most weddings, do you think a 35mm-equivalent zoom max'ing out
at 75mm is long enough? Seems like 28mm is more than wide enough.

That's it, thanks.

28-300 zoom. The prints and enlargements come out great; Fuji Reala
is a good choice. That's what these a

http://www.jamesphotography.ca/AG_hands.jpg
http://www.jamesphotography.ca/AG_full_portrait.jpg
http://www.jamesphotography.ca/AG_kiss.jpg


The purists will be digging out their flame throwers and molitov
cocktails... Good thing for "fire"walls... ;-)




(Jim dons his asbestos suit...)




jim h


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.jamesphotography.ca

-free downloads
-scanning service

Even a bit of humour...

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...
For most weddings, do you think a 35mm-equivalent zoom max'ing out
at 75mm is long enough? Seems like 28mm is more than wide enough.

That's it, thanks.


For me, I wouldn't use a zoom. However, that said, I wouldn't photograph a
wedding.
I would be somewhat disappointed if a professional wedding photog turned up
with a zoom lens though - I'd expect medium format and some decent primes.

Chris.

Chris B wrote:

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...

For most weddings, do you think a 35mm-equivalent zoom max'ing out
at 75mm is long enough? Seems like 28mm is more than wide enough.

That's it, thanks.



For me, I wouldn't use a zoom. However, that said, I wouldn't photograph a
wedding.
I would be somewhat disappointed if a professional wedding photog turned up
with a zoom lens though - I'd expect medium format and some decent primes.


Chatting recently with a wedding photog (in his office lined with
about 40 - 50 large prints) he stated that the formal full figure
shots of couples in an appropriate setting were done on MF
(Hassy, but recently he's switched to Contax), but the closeups
of the couple as individuals are done on his 35mm Nikon... simple
reason is that the printed images at large size (14x11 or 20x16)
from the MF were TOO sharp, revealing minute blemishes, makeup
errors, etc. (I don't know if he used a zoom on the Nikon).

Cheers,
Alan


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
Chris B wrote:

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...

For most weddings, do you think a 35mm-equivalent zoom max'ing out
at 75mm is long enough? Seems like 28mm is more than wide enough.

That's it, thanks.



For me, I wouldn't use a zoom. However, that said, I wouldn't photograph
a
wedding.
I would be somewhat disappointed if a professional wedding photog turned
up
with a zoom lens though - I'd expect medium format and some decent
primes.


Chatting recently with a wedding photog (in his office lined with
about 40 - 50 large prints) he stated that the formal full figure
shots of couples in an appropriate setting were done on MF
(Hassy, but recently he's switched to Contax), but the closeups
of the couple as individuals are done on his 35mm Nikon... simple
reason is that the printed images at large size (14x11 or 20x16)
from the MF were TOO sharp, revealing minute blemishes, makeup
errors, etc. (I don't know if he used a zoom on the Nikon).


Good point. Too much detail can be a bad thing! That said, if using a 35mm
camera, I'd want to use primes only. I guess if you know the characteristics
of a particular zoom, you could use it - but you'd have to be very confident
with your knowledge of your equipment.
I personally would not shoot weddings, as I shoot for my own enjoyment and
I'd consider wedding photography to be sheer stress and not much enjoyment
(at least that's what I'd get from it!). Not my idea of fun.

Chris.

Bill Tuthill wrote:
For most weddings, do you think a 35mm-equivalent zoom max'ing out
at 75mm is long enough? Seems like 28mm is more than wide enough.

That's it, thanks.

Back in the days when I did weddings I use only 75 mm on a 2¼. Had I
started a year earlier I would have been using 4x5. One lens did it all. I
can say that the results today with a wide range of 35 mm equipment are
really no better than what we did back in the dark ages using one lens and
real flash bulbs.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Bill Tuthill wrote in message ...
For most weddings, do you think a 35mm-equivalent zoom max'ing out
at 75mm is long enough? Seems like 28mm is more than wide enough.

That's it, thanks.

I don't think 75mm is nearly long enough. My favoirate people shots
are candid type shots, I prefer a longer lens for that. 28-105mm would
be better.

James

Subject: Wedding photographers - is 28-75 long enough?
From: Alan Browne
Date: Wed, Jun 16, 2004 8:01 PM
Message-id:

Chris B wrote:

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...

For most weddings, do you think a 35mm-equivalent zoom max'ing out
at 75mm is long enough? Seems like 28mm is more than wide enough.

That's it, thanks.



For me, I wouldn't use a zoom. However, that said, I wouldn't photograph
a
wedding.
I would be somewhat disappointed if a professional wedding photog turned
up
with a zoom lens though - I'd expect medium format and some decent primes.


Chatting recently with a wedding photog (in his office lined with
about 40 - 50 large prints) he stated that the formal full figure
shots of couples in an appropriate setting were done on MF
(Hassy, but recently he's switched to Contax), but the closeups
of the couple as individuals are done on his 35mm Nikon... simple
reason is that the printed images at large size (14x11 or 20x16)
from the MF were TOO sharp, revealing minute blemishes, makeup
errors, etc. (I don't know if he used a zoom on the Nikon).

Cheers,
Alan


Hi Alan:

What film does he shoot with for his 35mm shots of individuals for 11x14" and
16x20" - I'm wondering if grain (if not sharpness/tonality) would be a concern
here for these large 35mm wedding prints...

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***

ospam (Lewis Lang) wrote:

What film does he shoot with for his 35mm shots of individuals for 11x14" and
16x20" - I'm wondering if grain (if not sharpness/tonality) would be a concern
here for these large 35mm wedding prints...


The guy's a complete idiot. Has he never heard of Softars?

If you don't use one at the shooting stage you can still soften a
print enough to hide blemishes.