28-300 3.5 -5.6 as a wedding lens

M

mart77

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,058
Edit My Images
No
yeah so ive been thinking of rejecting all the usual thinking of what lenses make good lenses for weddings, i have a 24-70 2.8 and hate it, flares like a b****r and is just too short to be really useful at a wedding for the way i shoot. i will sell this soon. i have a 50mm prime which i really like and this will replace it for that range. so i was thinking to cover the rest of the range how about the 28-300. If i dont go down this route i will go for primes only i think opting for the 20mm2.8 and the 105 2.8 to go with it.

now i know this goes against normal thinking hence the thread. But are we really just jumping on the bandwagon lens wise most of the time.

I can easily shoot weddings in the f4 to 5.6 range with a monopod and sporadic use of my 50mm 1.8 and sometimes my sb-900 bounced so whats the point in having more than this combination.

i think its an interesting possibility, any thoughts?
 
I'd be interested to see if the quality in a "superzoom" is good enough.
 
what body are you using out of interest ..

im very much an amateur however when i see wedding togs they have some seriously good gear which warrants there skill and price they charge

you are using a 50 1.8 the cheapest lens canon sell .. interested to see what you achieve with this .. aswell as a 28-300 which your considering with a "poor" aperture ..

i would of thought most would use the 70-200 2.8 and the range on that is staggering on a crop (320mm) unless your shooting the wedding from a football pitch away .. if neccessary with a convertor

i disagree with the "bandwagon" some lenses are good and more popular than others .. they are this for a reason .. also why they cost considerably more
 
I can't work out if you're serious or not. If you are it sounds like a badly thought ourt plan
 
I found the 24-120 f4 fine for wedding use, the flare resistance is really good, not sure i'd want to use the 28-300 though, I think it's already at f5.6 by 80mm and I wouldn't get the subject isolation I want at 5.6 in that range.
 
I was always under the impression that not all churches etc allow flash photography , hence the need for "fast" lenses
 
boyfalldown said:
I can't work out if you're serious or not. If you are it sounds like a badly thought ourt plan
Click to expand...

Yeah im putting the idea out for discussion is all really. Just thinking if we are all really just following the heard and with the quality of the new super zooms could a superzoom backed up by a couple of fast primes work?
i know it sounds a bit off the wall but i can make some logic out of it as well as i can easily shoot in that aperture range for 90% of a wedding and the picture quality of the super zooms is now very good. really good in fact.

I mean if you need to go to wide apertures then you have primes to back that up which are light and easy to carry. its just a thought that i increasingly feel could work.

for the person that asked i have a d700 and as for cheap primes the 50mm 1.8 out performs the 24-70 pretty easily other than lack of zoom.
 
I can see your thinking.

I used to have a 28-300mm but in my case it was a Siggy and it made a great general purpose lens and I'm pretty sure that the Canon would offer decent quality but I suppose that the best thing to do would be to hire one and give it a good road test?

From what I've seen it's a big heavy thing though, could that be an issue?
 
It depends on the body you are using or preferably bodies.

Im guessing 2x 5dmkIIs coupled to a 24-70 & 70-200 f2.8 IS would cover most situations without having to squeeze ISO or change lenses - therefore always being ready for each shot.

Of course, people will swear by primes, others that f4 is enough due to improved ISO handling.

IMO the safest setup is in my second paragraph (in which you will also have backup lenses, ETTL flashes and a camera body in the car).

If you are happy shooting as you do and the clients are happy - who am I to tell you to change ;):thumbs:
 
CaptainPenguin said:
No but many of the shots during the service itself are when people are stationary so a slower shutter speed is not a problem
Click to expand...

Stationary is relative if you watch even a stationary person moves alot
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Makes you wonder how we managed to get any sharp shots back in the old days doesn't it.
Bronica SQA on the tripod and 1/8th of a second with Fuji 160 Pro
Click to expand...

No but what was good twenty years ago won't work now. Look how different just the expectations are
 
I did a wedding on a fuji 9500 bridge with 28 - 300 (in good daylight) and it worked out very well. If you are thinking of charging however, you do need better kit to cope with adverse conditions
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Just because a technique has been around for years does not mean it is no longer useable
Click to expand...

No but it also doesn't mean it would. Using a tripod in a ceremony today would restrict what you could deliver to the clients and be seriously cumbersome
 
mart77 said:
Yeah im putting the idea out for discussion is all really. Just thinking if we are all really just following the heard and with the quality of the new super zooms could a superzoom backed up by a couple of fast primes work?
i know it sounds a bit off the wall but i can make some logic out of it as well as i can easily shoot in that aperture range for 90% of a wedding and the picture quality of the super zooms is now very good. really good in fact.

I mean if you need to go to wide apertures then you have primes to back that up which are light and easy to carry. its just a thought that i increasingly feel could work.

for the person that asked i have a d700 and as for cheap primes the 50mm 1.8 out performs the 24-70 pretty easily other than lack of zoom.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the 24-70mm can be as bad as you say it is!

I'm guessing you're using the sigma 24-70mm and probably the cheap £200-300 one which isn't a great lens especially compared to the 50mm.
 
mastertrinity said:
I don't believe that the 24-70mm can be as bad as you say it is!

I'm guessing you're using the sigma 24-70mm and probably the cheap £200-300 one which isn't a great lens especially compared to the 50mm.
Click to expand...
i was thinking thats weired and it was starting to make me think about buying the nikon 24-70mm
 
mastertrinity said:
I don't believe that the 24-70mm can be as bad as you say it is!

I'm guessing you're using the sigma 24-70mm and probably the cheap £200-300 one which isn't a great lens especially compared to the 50mm.
Click to expand...

no its the nikon 24-70. i just feel for the money its a total rip off, the 50mm 1.8 is imo just as sharp at the same apertures as the 24-70 and although it does not zoom its goes to 1.8 which is much faster than the 24-70.

I just have this feeling that all the 2.8 zooms are overpriced rip offs. this is after using them for some time.

Look at it like this, the picture quality on them is no longer amazing compared to the 28-300. and the real difference in terms of light is 1-2 stops but in the most usable range its 1 stop difference. 1 stop!

now if i have a a 28-300 and say a 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 in my bag and as i do i use a monopod when i shoot. I can handle more than a 24-70 70-200 2.8 combination.

Like i said this is just something that flying around in my head right now as im just not impressed by the real world performance of these 2.8 zooms. 1 stop is not a lot. Mostly weddings are slow moving and i can shoot them at f4 easily anyway.
im just trying to challenge the way we think a bit and wonder if we are really being sold the the 2.8 zoom theory as opposed to it really making a lot of sense for one stop improvement and relative no IQ improvement.
 
At 70mm you are at f/5 are you not with this lens? 110mm-120mm it is about f/5.6 supposedly. Is that going to be rivalling a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II for wedding photographers?
 
Wide aperture, high quality zoom lenses are difficult to produce and optically complex whereas primes are very simple in comparison so I wouldn't say the f2.8 zooms are 'overpriced ripoffs'. Personally I wouldn't use the 28-300mm for wedding photography as I don't think it's fast enough nor optically good enough, I find F2.8 isn't fast enough at times leaving me with the 50mm F1.4.

John
 
Any zoom that performs as well as a prime is by definition excellent, assuming the prime is a good one.

The fact that Nikon can make 24-70 zoom that performs as well as a 50mm prime is A Good Thing.

Honestly though, the idea of using a 28-300 personally is not something I'd consider. Ever. It smacks of amateur to me. Fast primes are not just about low-light.

But then I use nothing longer than an 85mm for weddings.
 
Last edited:
Radiohead yeah i think you are right there, i for sure will be ditching the zooms for primes now, i wanted to put this out for discussion though as i dont really feel the zooms offer a great deal for their price.

really they offer a one stop advantage, and for that price tag i feel ripped off, i understand it zooms, but yeah. lol
 
mart77 said:
yeah so ive been thinking of rejecting all the usual thinking of what lenses make good lenses for weddings, i have a 24-70 2.8 and hate it, flares like a b****r and is just too short to be really useful at a wedding for the way i shoot. i will sell this soon. i have a 50mm prime which i really like and this will replace it for that range. so i was thinking to cover the rest of the range how about the 28-300. If i dont go down this route i will go for primes only i think opting for the 20mm2.8 and the 105 2.8 to go with it.

now i know this goes against normal thinking hence the thread. But are we really just jumping on the bandwagon lens wise most of the time.

I can easily shoot weddings in the f4 to 5.6 range with a monopod and sporadic use of my 50mm 1.8 and sometimes my sb-900 bounced so whats the point in having more than this combination.

i think its an interesting possibility, any thoughts?
Click to expand...

got a friend that uses one attached to a 1ds mk3 and has no complaints when he shoots weddings
 
There's a Tamron 28-75 that's optically excellent, pretty much as sharp as most primes. f 2.8 throughout and only £250. Really an amazing bargain. I wouldn't want a slow superzoom personally for that kind of use.
 
If I'd booked a wedding photographer and he turned up with a superzoom, I wouldn't be impressed! Unless he was cheap. It just seems a bit amateur to me. The quality might be really good, but I'd want it to be perfect. Might be fine for group shots on a bright day. I favour the shallow dof shots for the portraits though.

Accompanying primes would let you get those, but you'd be faffing swapping a lot?

via TP Forums for iPhone
 
i would say that superzoom is almost perfect for a walkaround lens. but for wedding or event jobs, i'd stick with the 24-70.
 
i have a siggy 55-200 that gets occasional wedding use as a longer lens. (second tog, wifey has the 70-200L).
its ok outside in decent light, but is next to useless inside a dark church.
just not fast enough.
unless you like using VERY high ISO.
 
If I'd booked a wedding photographer and he turned up with a superzoom, I wouldn't be impressed!
Click to expand...

Butter olocks, If the weather is bright then it will be flexible and allow the tog to work quickly and capture all the best shots,
isnt that what you want.........................
 
You're not saying that only someone with a 28-300 can do that though are you....

And how often can you say you're going to get that weather.
 
Aye up, the wedding pros parapets are bristling....................:lol:
 
fast lenses may let light in but you lack DOF which is important for a lot of shots. not every thing is shot at f1.4 lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top