Manual Focusing For Weddings?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gingerweasel
  • Start date Start date
G

gingerweasel

Guest
Set the scene:

A bag full of primes (24, 35, 50, 85, 135)
Two body setup
Focus screens to assist with manual focus

Would you shoot a wedding with manual focus primes?

There are some awsome manual focus primes out there at the moment and they are selling for peanuts (you could get all of the above for less than one f2.8 zoom).

I understand it would be more of a challenge but would it be practical?

Interested in peoples thoughts.
 
without a focusing screen - no

when it is a bit darker - no
 
Yes - but TBH I would probably concentrate on the Canon f1.8 50mm for my 1Ds II as it's FF.

Because when I WAS shooting weddings many years ago that's what I mostly used with a 2 1/4 sq. backup and never found I really wanted more (apart from my Mecablitz 502 flashgun and power pack).

And in those days most of us took manual focussing for granted because that's all there was (aided by a split screen focusing circle for maximum accuracy).

.
 
I don't think we can compare a modern DSLR against a camera which was designed to be focussed manually.
Even with a bright screen you're still
losing light through the mirror, and if we're talking about crop cameras, there's no comparison to a 35mm MF camera.

Then we start to think about medium format focussing screens with pop up magnifiers.

In answer to the OP, I could shoot a wedding with that kit, but it wouldn't produce the same results I get from the af camera with USM motors. It's a completely different gig. My 7d fitted with a decent lens will focus in conditions I wouldn't even consider MF in.
 
Manual focus lenses have a much better distance & dof scale that AF lenses so I would choose AIS lenses over AF any day.

Being able to judge distance seems to be a forgotten skill with the way photography had been dumbed down with modern all singing all dancing cameras & lenses.
 
Some interesting replies, thank you.

I asked because I recently started to consider photography as a future career but I don't have £10,000 to invest in kit.

There are some amazingly awesome primes out there which put the professional zooms to shame for sharpness and would deliver a finished product which I'd be happy with for less than a third of the cost.
 
gingerweasel said:
Set the scene:

A bag full of primes (24, 35, 50, 85, 135)
Two body setup
Focus screens to assist with manual focus

Would you shoot a wedding with manual focus primes?
Click to expand...

I did just that yesterday - Pentax LX and 50mm f1.4 augmented by Olympus OM2 and 24mm and 135mm f2.8s. I'll have the results within the week, but it felt like it went well.

I'm expecting some focussing errors though, even with a proper split focus screen, excellent viewfinder and f1. lens it's still difficult to nail low light shots.
 
gingerweasel said:
Some interesting replies, thank you.

I asked because I recently started to consider photography as a future career but I don't have £10,000 to invest in kit.

There are some amazingly awesome primes out there which put the professional zooms to shame for sharpness and would deliver a finished product which I'd be happy with for less than a third of the cost.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately if you're going to consider it as a profession that's the level of investment which would probably be required.

I consider that I have a reasonable kit but it is nowhere good enough for professional use - apart from requiring at least one second camera as backup - and that doesn't even begin to cover editing programs, insurance, premises etc.

.
 
Used to use an FM2 to do my reportage/candid shots with a 50f1.4
 
petersmart said:
Unfortunately if you're going to consider it as a profession that's the level of investment which would probably be required.

I consider that I have a reasonable kit but it is nowhere good enough for professional use - apart from requiring at least one second camera as backup - and that doesn't even begin to cover editing programs, insurance, premises etc.

.
Click to expand...

I have seen photographers start with lot less,also I have seen photographer,from an proper studio,sent out with only an SLR body or an old TLR,maybe they were only for small wedding,but the job was still done :)
 
simonblue said:
I have seen photographers start with lot less,also I have seen photographer,from an proper studio,sent out with only an SLR body or an old TLR,maybe they were only for small wedding,but the job was still done :)
Click to expand...

Perhaps it was but what if something had gone wrong with the one camera?

And small wedding or not, it only takes one bad report in a paper to kill a studio's reputation dead.

Apart from any litigation that may result.

.
 
Okay, here's another question.

I've been looking at split prism focus screens and I'm a little confused. How can I accurately focus on say a brides eye using a split prism? The split prism appears in the centre of the viewfinder so I'd have to focus an recompose? But I'd imagine that would result in quite a bit of missed focus at say f1.4?
 
gingerweasel said:
Okay, here's another question.

I've been looking at split prism focus screens and I'm a little confused. How can I accurately focus on say a brides eye using a split prism? The split prism appears in the centre of the viewfinder so I'd have to focus an recompose? But I'd imagine that would result in quite a bit of missed focus at say f1.4?
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's what we always did. So it's not an exact science, and lots of less experienced photographers seem to think that it ought to be*.

The keeper rate for modern cameras and lenses is so far ahead of where it used to be in difficult conditions that it's barely comparable. Which is why I don't understand why anyone would forego technology in a professional capacity; I can understand a hobbyist wanting to shoot weird film or experiment in any way at all - but when results are expected why take chances?

* the other people who believe photography is an exact science are pro's who don't push any boundaries (not a criticism btw).
 
Phil V said:
Yes, but that's what we always did. So it's not an exact science, and lots of less experienced photographers seem to think that it ought to be*.

The keeper rate for modern cameras and lenses is so far ahead of where it used to be in difficult conditions that it's barely comparable. Which is why I don't understand why anyone would forego technology in a professional capacity; I can understand a hobbyist wanting to shoot weird film or experiment in any way at all - but when results are expected why take chances?

* the other people who believe photography is an exact science are pro's who don't push any boundaries (not a criticism btw).
Click to expand...

Thanks Phil. I think this has helped me to decide that manual focus isn't an option. I guess I was trying to be frugal for the first time in my life :thumbs:

I need to start pricing the kit up and look at timeframes :bonk:



.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gingerweasel said:
Set the scene:

A bag full of primes (24, 35, 50, 85, 135)
Click to expand...

I think a full set of primes is nice, but- you can definitely get by with a 21, 50, 135
I think the 35 and 85 are specific focal lengths used for a specific purpose (reportage and portrait respectively)- I think the 50mm plus some moving back and forth can cover the 35 to 85mm range, the 21 covers group shots and wide angles, and the 135 covers portraits and distance candids

and with camera high ISO f4 is plenty fine, but 2.8 is obviously better if the light is really low, my 2 body kit would be a pair of 5d classics (£600 a piece) with a 17-40 and 135 f2 and a 50mm 1.4 (maybe a 1.8) on the other

or i'd use the 85mm 1.8 and a 35mm 1.4/35mm f2
 
mrjames said:
I think a full set of primes is nice, but- you can definitely get by with a 21, 50, 135
I think the 35 and 85 are specific focal lengths used for a specific purpose (reportage and portrait respectively)- I think the 50mm plus some moving back and forth can cover the 35 to 85mm range, the 21 covers group shots and wide angles, and the 135 covers portraits and distance candids

and with camera high ISO f4 is plenty fine, but 2.8 is obviously better if the light is really low, my 2 body kit would be a pair of 5d classics (£600 a piece) with a 17-40 and 135 f2 and a 50mm 1.4 (maybe a 1.8) on the other

or i'd use the 85mm 1.8 and a 35mm 1.4/35mm f2
Click to expand...

The lens set I was considering included the Samyang 24 (f1.4), 35 (f1.4), 85 (f1.4).
 
gingerweasel said:
The lens set I was considering included the Samyang 24 (f1.4), 35 (f1.4), 85 (f1.4).
Click to expand...

Is the 24 out now? I've been waiting to hear about it?
 
gingerweasel said:
Hi Andy, it's been officially announced but won't go on sale until November.
Click to expand...

Cheers. Might have some money by then. Any idea of the price?
 
boliston said:
Manual focus lenses have a much better distance & dof scale that AF lenses so I would choose AIS lenses over AF any day.

Being able to judge distance seems to be a forgotten skill with the way photography had been dumbed down with modern all singing all dancing cameras & lenses.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you couldn't shoot a wedding the way you focus for your street stuff.
 
petersmart said:
Perhaps it was but what if something had gone wrong with the one camera?

And small wedding or not, it only takes one bad report in a paper to kill a studio's reputation dead.

Apart from any litigation that may result.

.
Click to expand...

Theses were in the old days before litigation,i wouldnt work without a backup,but they were the one of the biggest studio around,and if you payed your money,you got the full workes :)
 
amtaylor said:
Cheers. Might have some money by then. Any idea of the price?
Click to expand...

Price to be confirmed at the moment Andy. Although people are expecting it will be priced above the current range due to the complexity of the optics.
 
The other problem with primes in a wedding environment is the lack of flexibility with the reportage shots. I can imagine many situations when a wide prime would miss a wonderful moment, for example. Messing around with 3 primes to cover the 24-70mm range would just be impractical imo.
 
simonblue said:
Shot all my wedding in manual focus,as someone has said we had to,no autofocus :)
Click to expand...

I also shot all my weddings with manual focus cameras. In fact I never used 35mm until towards the end of my career and then only for the reception shots. However, manual focus DSLR cameras were better set up for manual focus than most DSLR cameras.

HOWEVER, I would be damned if I would ever return to manual focus. I skipped the entire generation of auto focus 35mm Canon DSLR cameras (EOS film models) because I thought that I could focus faster and more accurately with manual focus than with auto focus. I WAS WRONG...

If you are making any money at all from your weddings, don't worrry about the cost of the lenses, don't try to do things on the cheap!

BTW: SURE A LOT OF PHOTOGRAPHERS USE MANUAL FOCUS FOR STREET PHOTOGRAPHY BUT, IMO, THE QUALITY OF MOST STREET PHOTOGRAPHY GENERALLY SUCKS.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top