I used to use an excellent 28-85mm zoom for full frame 35mm film and that covered about 95% or more of what I needed and quickly. I always carried a 24mm and a 135mm "just in case" but hardly ever needed them. With a wedding you are really pressed to work fast, and there is no time to be changing lenses, repositioning the camera, or repositioning the people. I would never attempt to do it with multiple primes or zooms unless I used multiple bodies. Get the very best "supernormal" zoom you can find and just go with that. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:54 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: OT - Wedding photography advice solicitation I have to concur. I personally like primes better, but - when I was shooting 67II's for weddings, all I had were primes. It was very difficult at times to get the shots needed and timing of things - having to switch lenses so often. On digital for weddings I now shoot an A 35-105/3.5, DA 16-45/4 and A 70-210/4. It has made things much easier and coverage is a better with less work. -- Bruce Wednesday, January 31, 2007, 6:39:27 AM, you wrote: pcn> I wouldn't try to shoot an event like a party or wedding without a pcn> zoom. At any size 11 x14 or smaller, there's no visible difference pcn> between a shot taken with the FA35/2 and one taken with the DA pcn> 16-45/4. I used the latter at the reception of the wedding I pcn> recently shot. It was perfect, and I needed a variety of focal pcn> lengths. At the ceremony, I used the DA 16-45/4 on one camera and pcn> the DA 50-200/4.5-5.6 on the other. I had to shoot available light pcn> in this venue (a courtroom), and both lenses worked well. I used pcn> the longer one on the K10D so that I'd have shake reduction. pcn> Although I shot excluisively with primes for my first 25 years of pcn> photography, I now consider zooms indispensible and quite good. A pcn> single focal length at a reception could exclude shots like large pcn> tables and even big groups. Paul pcn> -------------- Original message ---------------------- pcn> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Scott Loveless" Subject: Re: OT - Wedding photography advice >> solicitation >> >> >> >> Ferget multiple lenses. Keep your equipment to a minumum. >> >> Personally, I'd recommend just a standard lens. It'll keep you >> >> from being caught flat footed, by having a lens off the camera >> >> when something happens, or from wedging a lens when trying to >> >> change it quickly. >> > >> > I can do that. By "standard lens" I'm assuming you mean a 28-80 >> > zoom or something similar. Or did you mean a 50? I'm not sure I >> > could do an entire wedding with a 50. Some might be able to, but I >> > doubt I could make it look good. >> >> I tend to treat zooms like as if they have leprosy. I've made a >> couple of exeptions in the recent past to get focal lengths that I >> want, but there are too many compromises in zoom lensrs to allow me >> to love them. If you are shooting digital, something in the 28-35mm >> range should be your do everything lens, perhaps add something longer >> to do individual portraits with. The 50mm focal length is a tad >> short, but very workable as a portrait length lens on digital. If you >> are going to insist on using a zoom, try for one that has a fixed >> aperture to keep your flash shots looking the same from FL to FL >> >> William Robb >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
