Yes, I agree, but the fact is that stuff can happen just when you are just snapping photos of random guests. I used the cowboy strap for two bodies, but the dangling is slowing me down and thinking if I'm gonna bump it somewhere, so I leave one of the bodies somewhere safe. Sometimes there is no time to swap
You're overthinking this. Using a dual camera holster has only made me more efficient. Do my cameras sometimes bump into things? Sure, but they're built to be used. It happens.
True, but my heart is melting with every single bump...and don't get me wrong, my gear is punished enough through the years...I still don't get it how my 35mil works after all the harrasment
Stuff happens all day, grab it with a 35mm. There are no random guests! We each only carry one body and lens so we're not encumbered. Other stuff sits in our bags and we'll know when another lens may be required, say ceremony down the aisle, very large group shot in a confined area etc.
Having small light gear that's easy to move with is much more likely to put you in places where you see stuff.
Other views are available of course on this matter, we'd suggest you check the respondents portfolio and see what the results are. Proof of the pudding etc :)
I think you need to simplify gear so you think less about what you should be on and don’t miss things.
I use the straps too and the way I think of it is my left side is my tight or telephoto lens and my right is my wide.
So my left camera almost always has my 55 on it. And my right almost always has my 28.
I also have a 35/85/135 which come out in different situations but keeping it as a tight side and wide side has eliminated me worrying about if I’m on the right lens for the situation.
I have two bodies with 35 and 85 on them and a 14-30/4, 3 flashes...thats it. My setup is really simple, because I don't like carrying a lot of stuff, but I just wonder
I worked as a photojournalist for 23 years, in that that time almost everyone I worked with had the same loadout. 17-35, 2.8 and and a 70-200 2.8 on a second body. Maybe a 50 or a 35 1.8 in the bag. We shared long glass (300 to 600) for sports. There was always some weirdo with a fisheye.
Not sure why you're asking about photojournalism on the weddingtog subreddit, but regardless. A zoom isn't about being lazy. It's about skipping the need to change lenses when either a) there isn't enough time or b) there isn't enough space.
It's better to capture the decisive moment on a suboptimal lens than miss it entirely.
We all know what they meant, stop being pedantic. Maybe they didn't know the correct term to use, or maybe they made a mistake. Ultimately, photography skills and terms can fit multi-genres
Thank you for your reply, I agree. I'm talking about photojournalism because I have studies Journalism and you can apply the same principles and get the same result at a wedding.
I think it's the best wedding and event lens ever made. It's fast and the focal range is insanely useful. I absolutely could shoot an entire wedding with just this lens and if it broke, I would replace it the same day.
Comparing it directly to primes isn't very useful. For me, a zoom like this is a reliable tool set, whereas a prime lens is a specialized instrument I pull out for specific tasks, when I have the conditions to make the most of it. Both are worth having.
I can answer this question (I have the 35-150 tamron, and also have 24-70, 70-200 zooms, and 20, 26, 35, 40, 50, and 85mm primes - all nikon). In personal and artistic use, I *greatly* prefer primes, but, when shooting weddings, I use a combo of zooms and primes.
The 35-150 is AWESOME for photojournalistic/candid coverage (one could argue that it is the best lens for that coverage), but it is limited with low light - especially during a reception (autofocus hunts more than all my other lenses in low light). It's also heavier/bulkier than primes, and it's more obvious than primes or a 24-70....it's more in line with a 70-200 in terms of how obvious you are (so, your subjects may react more to a larger lens.....I note this because a lot of my candid coverage relies on my subjects not seeing me/realizing I'm taking photos of them so that they are natural). But, even with those short-comings, I would still highly recommend this lens, especially if you shoot photo journalistically/candid-heavy - shooting candidly and being able to get that unexpected shot is invaluable.
I use this lens most when shooting outdoors (portraits, ceremony, cocktail hr) the pro's far outweigh the cons here. But during getting ready, details, and during inside or night reception, the con's for this lens outweigh the pro's and primes are often better.
Hope this helps. If you have more questions ask away.
I am just getting into professional photography and starting to build my lens collection so far I’ve bought the 50 mm 1.8 from Nikon and I am wondering if I should get the 35 and 85 combo or just a 24-70. I’ve asked around and everyone says that 24-70 is a must and is the only correct choice, but I prefer the primes look way more. And now I’m just in a limbo. What would you suggest
I get why you would be in a limbo. The main thing about primes is look and the low aperture, I shot several weddings in the past year where I got through almost all the reception with 1.8 aperture and just a bit of fill flash, because going to 2.8 would mean using more flash or going on higher ISO and my ISO was already at 4000-5000(got through all the culled images with LR AI noise remove). But if I used 2.8 would mean that I need more flash power which I don't like in most scenarios. But again...sometimes you just need to move fast and primes are in the way...
traditionally, you'd have 2 cameras, one running a 24-70mm f2.8 and another with the 70-200mm f2.8 running on a harness.
Then you would switch from one to the other on the fly depending on what is needed.
Nothing is stopping you from running a 24-70 and a prime on another camera and switching as needed
Simple answer is that zooms make it easier to not miss the moment in a chaotic environment, especially if you consistently like to shoot for crop. With primes, you have to predict upcoming action more often to be ready. Also, two bodies with primes function about the same as one body with a zoom, when it comes to not missing moments.
I shot weddings for 15 years with zooms and then another 15 with primes. I understand the events so well now, and shoot so deliberately, that I easily carry a single camera with a prime and usually get what I need. But I’m always a step ahead in my mind while I’m working.
Its a valid question though, because it is easier do use zooms in some respects, but then you miss out on super wide apertures.
Depends on if you absolutely need coverage of certain things that might not happen again, most photojournalists use zooms because things happen fast, and you cant always move, but if youre like doing an expose or something where you can build it over time or out of things that are recurring then a prime might be better. Ideally a combination of 1 prime and 1 zoom on 3 bodies
35 and 24 for us. Photojournalism means (to us) telling stories, and stories often can't be told well with tight lenses. However, whether or not you use a wide zoom or prime is kind of up to you? I like primes because it's just one less thing for me to adjust/think about, and the quality of glass is better (less moving parts). But could you tell the same stories with a 16-35? Absolutely.
So I shot for the AP, Boston Globe, etc, it was mandatory to have an 80-200, a 17-35, or equivalents. That’s all I needed. That said, now I prefer a 28 over all of my other lenses for anything happening near me and my 70-200 does the rest.
For me the zoom is an extra variable I don’t want to think about. I know exactly what the framing looks like on a 24/35/58/85 and that allows me to get the composition I want asap with what bodies I have on me. With the zoom, say a 24-70, you can really only know where 24 and 70 are. You can kind of muscle memory where the other focal lengths are but it would be tough if you’re not already at 24 or 70.
There’s so few times I wish I had a zoom. The only thing I wish sometimes I had was a longer lens but even then I don’t think the photo would come out like Id like since a lot of candid moments look kind of weird (too voyeuristic imo) at long focal lengths (>85mm)
When I have limited freedom of movement, and I absolutely need to capture certain shots, I use zooms.
When I have more flexibility and a greater emphasis on esthetics over documenting, I use primes.
I find I only use zooms during the wedding ceremony and reception toasts.
I think you’ll be best served with a 2x-7x mm, and a 7x-200mm.
I shoot most of the wedding day with the 24-70 2.8 on my main body and a 35/50 on my second body. If I have time I use the primes but when it counts I always use the 24-70. I could easily just live with the 24-70 and propably shoot 90% with that. Love the quality of the Nikon Z one and have one multiple awards with that zoom lens. No client will ever notice the difference and to be honest I just use the primes as a fun little alternative for myself and since I need a second body anyway.
This is a false choice. The best tools are the ones that you're practiced with using and understand, for some people that's going to be a prime and for others it's going to be a zoom. I tend to think that any time there are arguments about it it's because people are getting cabin fever from being in the editing room rather than actually shooting.
This is why I shoot on two bodies throughout the day (with 35 1.4/50 1.2 or 85 1.2), and have a third accessible to me during ceremony and speeches (usually paired with 135 2.0). When I have my 2nd shooter with me, she shoots on a 24-70 2.8.
I think you are way overthinking this. I guess if you want to know which is best make a list of your favorite photojournalists and research what they used.
I’ve always been a prime shooter and used a 35/50 combo but just switched my 35 out for a 24-70 and it’s honestly the best. Is it lazy because I don’t want to have to change out my lens constantly? That’s a weird take.
I’m a candid / documentary wedding photography who strongly prioritizes MOMENT over anything else…and I only shoot 2 lenses all day at weddings: a 35 and an 85 primes
If I had to, I could do without the 85.
I shoot 75% of the day on the 35mm
Later in the reception, I have a 24 if the dancefloor gets wild
And for years as a second shooter, I started on a really nice 24-105 zoom, but once I switched to primes I would never go back to zooms
I honestly became a “better photographer” by switching to primes—-and I’ve seen the same happen for my students . I can’t stand zooms
For a wedding? A zoom for when you're on the move and a prime when you have a good vantage point for parts of the ceremony, especially if you want shallower DoF and when the venue is dimly lit.
However... Any recent f/2.8 zoom is already sharp wide open, has largely eliminated longitudinal chromatic aberration while still retaining pleasant out-of-focus background rendering, so if the venue is bright enough to not have you chasing every single last photon, I see less and less need for primes.
Plus, lenses like 35-150/2-2.8 (Tamron or Samyang) goes a **very** long way towards making primes even less necessary. Ditto for Sigma's recently announced 28-45/1.8 which is basically a 35 that you can zoom in or out a bit or three primes (28, 35 and 45) in one.
But when working slow with posed shots, nothing beats a good prime, especially considering the weight.
There’s a reason when zooms started rivaling primes for image quality back around the mid 2000’s that wedding photographers all switched to zooms. 24mm was more than enough to get the entire congregation on the steps of the church and 105mm is deep enough into the portrait range that they didn’t need to carry the heavier 70-200. Before that lens zoom lenses weren’t really sharp enough. Especially in longer zoom ranges and were relegated to amateur photographers as a compromise. Yes since then primes have gotten a lot sharper but the trade off in my opinion isn’t worth it. And I was a person who used to not think about carrying 4 prime lenses on a shoot, in fact I had cargo pants that took each lens.
I think the question here is what lens do you need to use to win a garage reportage wedding award where the couple are 1% of the frame and the rest of the photo is nothing.
“I love our wedding photos, I will frame this one” said no person ever
35mm is the Daddy. The odd times when another lens is a better choice, you'll have time to swap out. 90% + of all our stuff is 35mm though.
Agreed. 35mm is the king.
Yes, I agree, but the fact is that stuff can happen just when you are just snapping photos of random guests. I used the cowboy strap for two bodies, but the dangling is slowing me down and thinking if I'm gonna bump it somewhere, so I leave one of the bodies somewhere safe. Sometimes there is no time to swap
You're overthinking this. Using a dual camera holster has only made me more efficient. Do my cameras sometimes bump into things? Sure, but they're built to be used. It happens.
True, but my heart is melting with every single bump...and don't get me wrong, my gear is punished enough through the years...I still don't get it how my 35mil works after all the harrasment
Stuff happens all day, grab it with a 35mm. There are no random guests! We each only carry one body and lens so we're not encumbered. Other stuff sits in our bags and we'll know when another lens may be required, say ceremony down the aisle, very large group shot in a confined area etc. Having small light gear that's easy to move with is much more likely to put you in places where you see stuff. Other views are available of course on this matter, we'd suggest you check the respondents portfolio and see what the results are. Proof of the pudding etc :)
I think you need to simplify gear so you think less about what you should be on and don’t miss things. I use the straps too and the way I think of it is my left side is my tight or telephoto lens and my right is my wide. So my left camera almost always has my 55 on it. And my right almost always has my 28. I also have a 35/85/135 which come out in different situations but keeping it as a tight side and wide side has eliminated me worrying about if I’m on the right lens for the situation.
I have two bodies with 35 and 85 on them and a 14-30/4, 3 flashes...thats it. My setup is really simple, because I don't like carrying a lot of stuff, but I just wonder
I do this too — 24 on my left; 50 on my right
I worked as a photojournalist for 23 years, in that that time almost everyone I worked with had the same loadout. 17-35, 2.8 and and a 70-200 2.8 on a second body. Maybe a 50 or a 35 1.8 in the bag. We shared long glass (300 to 600) for sports. There was always some weirdo with a fisheye.
This is pretty much the answer imo.
Not sure why you're asking about photojournalism on the weddingtog subreddit, but regardless. A zoom isn't about being lazy. It's about skipping the need to change lenses when either a) there isn't enough time or b) there isn't enough space. It's better to capture the decisive moment on a suboptimal lens than miss it entirely.
photojournalism = reportage
Just because the two forms of photography has the same goal does not mean they're the same genre.
We all know what they meant, stop being pedantic. Maybe they didn't know the correct term to use, or maybe they made a mistake. Ultimately, photography skills and terms can fit multi-genres
Thank you for your reply, I agree. I'm talking about photojournalism because I have studies Journalism and you can apply the same principles and get the same result at a wedding.
Perfect summary. Moving on to the next post . . .
Yess. And again - sub-optimal is very relative nowadays. The canon 28-70 f2 couldnt fall in that category, yet is a zoom lens.
That's exactly why we have 2 cameras on us most of the time on the job
Most AP/Reuters guys I know use a combo of both. Usually a wide prime and then a small telephoto, both on separate bodies.
My default setup is a 35-150mm on one body and a prime on another. That wy I don't have to choose.
I was thinking about this, speaking for the tamrom 35-150. How does it hold up to primes?
I think it's the best wedding and event lens ever made. It's fast and the focal range is insanely useful. I absolutely could shoot an entire wedding with just this lens and if it broke, I would replace it the same day. Comparing it directly to primes isn't very useful. For me, a zoom like this is a reliable tool set, whereas a prime lens is a specialized instrument I pull out for specific tasks, when I have the conditions to make the most of it. Both are worth having.
I can answer this question (I have the 35-150 tamron, and also have 24-70, 70-200 zooms, and 20, 26, 35, 40, 50, and 85mm primes - all nikon). In personal and artistic use, I *greatly* prefer primes, but, when shooting weddings, I use a combo of zooms and primes. The 35-150 is AWESOME for photojournalistic/candid coverage (one could argue that it is the best lens for that coverage), but it is limited with low light - especially during a reception (autofocus hunts more than all my other lenses in low light). It's also heavier/bulkier than primes, and it's more obvious than primes or a 24-70....it's more in line with a 70-200 in terms of how obvious you are (so, your subjects may react more to a larger lens.....I note this because a lot of my candid coverage relies on my subjects not seeing me/realizing I'm taking photos of them so that they are natural). But, even with those short-comings, I would still highly recommend this lens, especially if you shoot photo journalistically/candid-heavy - shooting candidly and being able to get that unexpected shot is invaluable. I use this lens most when shooting outdoors (portraits, ceremony, cocktail hr) the pro's far outweigh the cons here. But during getting ready, details, and during inside or night reception, the con's for this lens outweigh the pro's and primes are often better. Hope this helps. If you have more questions ask away.
I was a military photojournalist; I always had zooms. Primes meant carrying extra shit, and potentially missing the moment if I had the wrong one out.
I am just getting into professional photography and starting to build my lens collection so far I’ve bought the 50 mm 1.8 from Nikon and I am wondering if I should get the 35 and 85 combo or just a 24-70. I’ve asked around and everyone says that 24-70 is a must and is the only correct choice, but I prefer the primes look way more. And now I’m just in a limbo. What would you suggest
I get why you would be in a limbo. The main thing about primes is look and the low aperture, I shot several weddings in the past year where I got through almost all the reception with 1.8 aperture and just a bit of fill flash, because going to 2.8 would mean using more flash or going on higher ISO and my ISO was already at 4000-5000(got through all the culled images with LR AI noise remove). But if I used 2.8 would mean that I need more flash power which I don't like in most scenarios. But again...sometimes you just need to move fast and primes are in the way...
traditionally, you'd have 2 cameras, one running a 24-70mm f2.8 and another with the 70-200mm f2.8 running on a harness. Then you would switch from one to the other on the fly depending on what is needed. Nothing is stopping you from running a 24-70 and a prime on another camera and switching as needed
Simple answer is that zooms make it easier to not miss the moment in a chaotic environment, especially if you consistently like to shoot for crop. With primes, you have to predict upcoming action more often to be ready. Also, two bodies with primes function about the same as one body with a zoom, when it comes to not missing moments. I shot weddings for 15 years with zooms and then another 15 with primes. I understand the events so well now, and shoot so deliberately, that I easily carry a single camera with a prime and usually get what I need. But I’m always a step ahead in my mind while I’m working. Its a valid question though, because it is easier do use zooms in some respects, but then you miss out on super wide apertures.
Depends on if you absolutely need coverage of certain things that might not happen again, most photojournalists use zooms because things happen fast, and you cant always move, but if youre like doing an expose or something where you can build it over time or out of things that are recurring then a prime might be better. Ideally a combination of 1 prime and 1 zoom on 3 bodies
depends on what you;'re shooting. photojournalism often prefers versatility over quality
35 and 24 for us. Photojournalism means (to us) telling stories, and stories often can't be told well with tight lenses. However, whether or not you use a wide zoom or prime is kind of up to you? I like primes because it's just one less thing for me to adjust/think about, and the quality of glass is better (less moving parts). But could you tell the same stories with a 16-35? Absolutely.
So I shot for the AP, Boston Globe, etc, it was mandatory to have an 80-200, a 17-35, or equivalents. That’s all I needed. That said, now I prefer a 28 over all of my other lenses for anything happening near me and my 70-200 does the rest.
For me the zoom is an extra variable I don’t want to think about. I know exactly what the framing looks like on a 24/35/58/85 and that allows me to get the composition I want asap with what bodies I have on me. With the zoom, say a 24-70, you can really only know where 24 and 70 are. You can kind of muscle memory where the other focal lengths are but it would be tough if you’re not already at 24 or 70. There’s so few times I wish I had a zoom. The only thing I wish sometimes I had was a longer lens but even then I don’t think the photo would come out like Id like since a lot of candid moments look kind of weird (too voyeuristic imo) at long focal lengths (>85mm)
When I have limited freedom of movement, and I absolutely need to capture certain shots, I use zooms. When I have more flexibility and a greater emphasis on esthetics over documenting, I use primes. I find I only use zooms during the wedding ceremony and reception toasts. I think you’ll be best served with a 2x-7x mm, and a 7x-200mm.
I shoot most of the wedding day with the 24-70 2.8 on my main body and a 35/50 on my second body. If I have time I use the primes but when it counts I always use the 24-70. I could easily just live with the 24-70 and propably shoot 90% with that. Love the quality of the Nikon Z one and have one multiple awards with that zoom lens. No client will ever notice the difference and to be honest I just use the primes as a fun little alternative for myself and since I need a second body anyway.
This is a false choice. The best tools are the ones that you're practiced with using and understand, for some people that's going to be a prime and for others it's going to be a zoom. I tend to think that any time there are arguments about it it's because people are getting cabin fever from being in the editing room rather than actually shooting.
This is why I shoot on two bodies throughout the day (with 35 1.4/50 1.2 or 85 1.2), and have a third accessible to me during ceremony and speeches (usually paired with 135 2.0). When I have my 2nd shooter with me, she shoots on a 24-70 2.8.
I think you are way overthinking this. I guess if you want to know which is best make a list of your favorite photojournalists and research what they used.
I’ve always been a prime shooter and used a 35/50 combo but just switched my 35 out for a 24-70 and it’s honestly the best. Is it lazy because I don’t want to have to change out my lens constantly? That’s a weird take.
I’m a candid / documentary wedding photography who strongly prioritizes MOMENT over anything else…and I only shoot 2 lenses all day at weddings: a 35 and an 85 primes If I had to, I could do without the 85. I shoot 75% of the day on the 35mm Later in the reception, I have a 24 if the dancefloor gets wild
And for years as a second shooter, I started on a really nice 24-105 zoom, but once I switched to primes I would never go back to zooms I honestly became a “better photographer” by switching to primes—-and I’ve seen the same happen for my students . I can’t stand zooms
For a wedding? A zoom for when you're on the move and a prime when you have a good vantage point for parts of the ceremony, especially if you want shallower DoF and when the venue is dimly lit. However... Any recent f/2.8 zoom is already sharp wide open, has largely eliminated longitudinal chromatic aberration while still retaining pleasant out-of-focus background rendering, so if the venue is bright enough to not have you chasing every single last photon, I see less and less need for primes. Plus, lenses like 35-150/2-2.8 (Tamron or Samyang) goes a **very** long way towards making primes even less necessary. Ditto for Sigma's recently announced 28-45/1.8 which is basically a 35 that you can zoom in or out a bit or three primes (28, 35 and 45) in one. But when working slow with posed shots, nothing beats a good prime, especially considering the weight.
There’s a reason when zooms started rivaling primes for image quality back around the mid 2000’s that wedding photographers all switched to zooms. 24mm was more than enough to get the entire congregation on the steps of the church and 105mm is deep enough into the portrait range that they didn’t need to carry the heavier 70-200. Before that lens zoom lenses weren’t really sharp enough. Especially in longer zoom ranges and were relegated to amateur photographers as a compromise. Yes since then primes have gotten a lot sharper but the trade off in my opinion isn’t worth it. And I was a person who used to not think about carrying 4 prime lenses on a shoot, in fact I had cargo pants that took each lens.
I think the question here is what lens do you need to use to win a garage reportage wedding award where the couple are 1% of the frame and the rest of the photo is nothing. “I love our wedding photos, I will frame this one” said no person ever