50, 85, or 2.8 zoom?

So here's my potential new predicament- a friend of mine told me that a couple she was referred to as a dancer for their last-minute-planned wedding is looking for a photographer and referred me despite my general lack of experience in this particular field. I talked with the groom and told him that I don't have specifically wedding experience, but shot plenty of people and events; told him to look over my page to get an idea of my ability and to email me their itinerary if they want a rate if they'd consider hiring me. Everything is honest and up front.

Now, IF and only IF they agree, my dilemma comes that I lack monster-bokeh and low light lenses for my 600 aside from the 35/1.8G. I could muster using it in FX mode and deal w/ VG removal / shoot in DX mode but be glued to 50mm length, but this feels a tad too limiting considering the size of the job.

So, should I scurry and get a 50/1.8G and hope using it will be able to do it for 70% of the day; buy or maybe just rent the 85/1.8 (1.4 if rent); or perhaps rent a 2.8 short zoom to have enough flexibility and enough bokeh?

You might need a flash...

Got an excellent flash. I lack a portraiture-length bokehlicious prime of sorts.

I would opt for a zoom like a 24-70mm f/2.8 along with a couple f/1.8 lens, most likely either a 50mm (or even a 40mm macro) for group photos and an 85mm f/1.8G for groom/bride photos. You'll find a zoom incredibly more useful during the dynamic portion of the wedding than is a prime. Primes work best (IMO) when everyone is static and posing and macro's are great for getting ring shots (or hand in hand shots).

Also, don't worry too much about obtaining organic bokeh, you can use Iris blur in PS to both enhance and/or create a more pleasing bokeh and I doubt very much anyone (even skilled photographers) could tell the difference, if not too overcooked, that is.

I would try the 50. Still wide enough on FX to shoot in the crowds, and in a pinch 75mm in DX crop mode for portraits. Granted you drop to 10mp, but for portraits that should be plenty.

Sent from my RM-860_nam_usa_100 using Tapatalk

I don't see any need to use any other lenses apart from those you already own, on this occasion. Zoom 24-85mm would cover, either on DX or FF, about 90% of the job. No need for extremely fast and/or monster bokehs. A 35mm f/1.8 would be a backup. You need a good flash (for the wedding, it's a MUST) like SB700/800/900/910...

Hmmm, good point on adding blur in post instead of breaking bank on primes. Else, yea, 24-85 can be quite the surprise and put out like a race horse. 35 if shot without any harsh light is pretty much vignetteless in FX and DX.

I have YN-565EX and very familiar with it, though I might grab me some styrene and cut out a nice bounce card to complete it being bare, tight square diffuser, and a lightsphere.

SkvLTD said:

Got an excellent flash. I lack a portraiture-length bokehlicious prime of sorts.

Click to expand...

you will need more than 1 flash, but that aside, I wouldnt invest in the 50. most definitely an 85 1.8g from tests I have seen, it and the 1.4 are on the same level optically. the best lens of the century next to the 50's IMO. shame for the slow AF or I would have bought it long time ago.
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G Review - Page 5 of 8

you have the 24-85 and its fine for the bulk. stop it down to f/5. u have the 35 which is a 50 so use that. the area youre lacking is the 100mm+ but if you keep your 70-300 to below 135mm, you will be fine quality wise.

just curious, what time of the day are the family formals usually done? im to the right of the map and we shoot family formals around 7pm. and basically tis very dark. I use 2 umbrellas with slaves and a backlit flash and highish iso. looks very nice.

rocketman122 said:

you will need more than 1 flash, but that aside, I wouldnt invest in the 50. most definitely an 85 1.8g from tests I have seen, it and the 1.4 are on the same level optically. the best lens of the century next to the 50's IMO. shame for the slow AF or I would have bought it long time ago.
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G Review - Page 5 of 8

you have the 24-85 and its fine for the bulk. stop it down to f/5. u have the 35 which is a 50 so use that. the area youre lacking is the 100mm+ but if you keep your 70-300 to below 135mm, you will be fine quality wise.

just curious, what time of the day are the family formals usually done? im to the right of the map and we shoot family formals around 7pm. and basically tis very dark. I use 2 umbrellas with slaves and a backlit flash and highish iso. looks very nice.

Click to expand...

You seem to have a downer on the 50mm. I love that focal length - and they are cheap, fast and incredibly sharp. Surely a nice 50mm is a good investment. Personally - I really enjoy using old CZ primes - and they are not too dear either.

Waxed said:

You seem to have a downer on the 50mm. I love that focal length - and they are cheap, fast and incredibly sharp. Surely a nice 50mm is a good investment. Personally - I really enjoy using old CZ primes - and they are not too dear either.

Click to expand...

I personally think the 50 is just a boring focal length. it mimicks our field of view and its the number one most used focal length for so long. so same ole same ole. they have their place and use. for me..as backup in the bag JIC my mid zoom goes crazy. shallow dof is not enough for isolating. its terrible for face shots and usually they are very soft open and start to get sharp from f/2.8 so its not so useful. I could use my 85 1.8 AFD at 2.8 and get fantastic shallow DOF. the focal length also isolates the subject better and aesthetically correct for portraits.

rocketman122 said:

I personally think the 50 is just a boring focal length. it mimicks our field of view and its the number one most used focal length for so long. so same ole same ole. they have their place and use. for me..as backup in the bag JIC my mid zoom goes crazy. shallow dof is not enough for isolating. its terrible for face shots and usually they are very soft open and start to get sharp from f/2.8 so its not so useful. I could use my 85 1.8 AFD at 2.8 and get fantastic shallow DOF. the focal length also isolates the subject better and aesthetically correct for portraits.

Click to expand...

Really? I am surprised. I love the focal length of between 50-60 namely 50, 55 & 58. For example - for documenting and street photography - all I use is 50. I read that Henri Cartier-Bresson only used this for his personal photography - I am new - but if it was good enough for the master!

- -

I am new to photography - and I bought some Zooms - haven't had the need, yet! But so far I haven't done anything useful either. But, I already know that I am going to be a 50-60mm photographer.

FX 50mm is different^^^^On cropped sensor the 50mm FOV is awesome...

Waxed said:

Really? I am surprised. I love the focal length of between 50-60 namely 50, 55 & 58. For example - for documenting and street photography - all I use is 50. I read that Henri Cartier-Bresson only used this for his personal photography - I am new - but if it was good enough for the master!

- -

I am new to photography - and I bought some Zooms - haven't had the need, yet! But so far I haven't done anything useful either. But, I already know that I am going to be a 50-60mm photographer.

Click to expand...

why are you surprised? I do wedding photography, I dont shoot street. and for documenting, I use 85 and up to capture emotions and document without bothering people. I dont follow photographers anymore. and if someone shoots a certain way, I should do what he does? I stopped following photogs many years ago. when I started I looked for direction and inspiration but after a while my passion inside gave me drive.

as a pro, I always try to give a wide variety of shots when I shoot a wedding. WA, midrange, tele. shot from high/low/close/far. I dont limit myself to a specific range. since way back, photographers pretty much used 50mm to document a full wedding. I think the focal length has been overdone and to me 50mm shots arent special. but everyone is allowed their opinion. if you like 50-60mm then great, go for it. 50mm is a great lens to start learning perspective and composition. better than zooms. it forces you to really think about composition.

two things a photographer should know. the artistic part and the technical part. not many who do both very well. btw, you say you know youre to be a 50-60 photography but trust me, everyoes style/preferences changes as they develop as a photog.

why are you surprised? I do wedding photography, I dont shoot street.

Click to expand...

Sorry - but I didn't actually know. Plus your comment seemed general rather than specific to wedding photography.

- -

Also - I am very interested in history of photography and what is known as "fine art photography". As a newbie not much good at anything. Just about got somewhere with manual mode to produce a halfway decent shot.

But I am not so sure that this focal range is necessarily over used. . . after all it is more about the content of what you are capturing than the style.

Here's my thought...before you narrow down your preferences, find out where the wedding will take place. AND be sure to find out if there are any restrictions regarding photography during a wedding ceremony. Some churches prohibit flash during a wedding ceremony. If that is the case, then how is the lighting in the venue? If it isn't heavily lit, then you will want a fast lens. Where will you be standing during the service, and will you be allowed to move around? Or will you have to stay in one place? Once you can answer those questions, your responses might help lead you to identify what lens will work well during the ceremony. If you are way in the back of a very long Sanctuary, a 50mm lens won't have a lot of reach which means you will be cropping a lot of photos with that lens.

How big is the wedding party? Most likely you will shoot group shots of the wedding party. If there are only 4 girls and 4 guys, that isn't too bad, but if you have 8 girls and 8 guys, then a wide angle lens may work well. During the reception, photographers can move around quite freely either getting in close to the action or staying further away. The choice of lens here isn't quite a crucial as it is during the ceremony.

Personally I'd feel more comfortable with a 24-70mm f/2.8 for a lot of the wedding party photos as well as the reception. For the ceremony, it would depend upon where I'd be standing. If I'm standing in a close enough position, the 24-70mm zoom might work, but if I'm at the back of a very long church, I'd want a longer telephoto lens. That's why the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-20mm f/2.8 lenses are so popular with pros. They offer a lot of versatility.

BUT you will do well if you check out your venue(s) ahead of time to see their lighting and size. Whatever you choose, good luck!

Waxed said:

Sorry - but I didn't actually know. Plus your comment seemed general rather than specific to wedding photography.

- -

Also - I am very interested in history of photography and what is known as "fine art photography". As a newbie not much good at anything. Just about got somewhere with manual mode to produce a halfway decent shot.

But I am not so sure that this focal range is necessarily over used. . . after all it is more about the content of what you are capturing than the style.

Click to expand...

maybe you dont frequent this part of the forum a lot. but I am pretty active here. dont put yourself down. be realistic with where you are. keep striving to be better. manual mode is great for honing down exposure control. after time you could look at a scene and know what the exposure should be more or less.

content is important but certain rules apply to conveying a feel and certain things are right and wrong. 50 is a nice FL but I prefer others before going for a 50. I prefer 20/24/70-300 before going for a 50. for chest/face shots of 2-4 people its great. full body shots its way to open. meaning, if you shoot tight vertically theres too much space on the sides to make it isolated. 85 and up will keep it tighter, blur more and be much more aesthetically pleasing. so thats why I dont really like it. for horizontal, 50 is great for group shots of 5 or more. on friday I shot a bat mitzvah and was shooting family shots at 100mm and more. even 10 people, I spread them out to the sides and made a straight line and shot them at 135mm. theyre perfectly straight, and aesthetically its much more pleasing. I prefer to go back and use a tele then to be in peoples faces with a 50 or less. it just looks so much better. 50 is ok, but I prefer other FL than that. I do have to shoot people often in the 50 range but if given the chance ill go back and zoom in. sometimes theyre even confused why im shooting from so far back. "are we going to be so small in the picture? I tell them no, youre going to look fabulous.