F/Stops for Wedding photographers

[Tommyqh]

hey everyone,


This question is mainly for the am-pro and pro wedding photographers. I'm really excited to finally get the 5D MKII after months of watiing, so trying to contain my excitement and write this question lol.


I'll be starting to take on some engagement and wedding clients this June and wanted your opinion on the optimal F/Stop for outside and inside for tack sharp pics that you've used?


My lens choices are 24-70mm for outside, 85mm 1.2L & 50mm 1.2L for inside along with the 24-70mm.

[donj]

Hi Tommyqh,


Interesting question but one I feel has no correct answer. I shot one wedding in August and I do stock photography as well as some portraiture. The wedding day I used mainly four lenses - 24-70 L, 70-200 f/2.8 mkII, 50 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8. Pre-wedding shots of bride getting hair and makeup done were mainly shot w/ 50 & 85 at either about f/2 to f/5.6. I used the higher f stop when using flash. The limited depth of field were for shots that called for it. In church getting veil on before wedding were in that f/2.8 to f/5.6 area. Ceremony photos were tricky in the church. I highly, highly, highly recommend a gray card and you custom white balance your camera for the church lighting. I enountered at least 4 lighting sources that wreaked havoc. Tungston high overhead, flourescent high near alter, multi-colored light from stained glass windows and natural light from chruch doors that were opened in small church. I didn't custom wb and paid the price in post production. Ceremony photos were limited to f/2.8 and I used just 24-70 & 70-200. Find out length of ceremony and get in a good position for the kiss. Ifound very useful tipsfrom a book by michelle turner called Wedding Photography Now. The photoshop tutorials she does at end of book were very helpful. I used her "resorvoir dogs" groomsman shot and liked it. I set up the bridal party pics like she had done in one example and they turned out brilliant. For the bridal photos I brought two photoflex 650's w/ softbox to light the church and shot them at f/8, it worked brilliantly. However, as I basked in my feel good shots the bridal party got to their cars and left while I started taking down equipment. I didn't realize they were leaving. Also, important is to discuss prior w/ bride/groom the post-wedding pre-dinner married couple photos. I thought it was assumed so I didn't get that set up with them and they went barhopping for some 3 hours. And we were right next to a beautiful lake on a perfect sunny summer's day. I was pissed but I learned a lesson. Take lots of batteries for flash. I used3 sets of four andcould have used a 4th set. If you haven't much experience w/ flash, start takinglots of photos now as it gets dark in a reception hall and even a 5d mkII isn't going to do magic. I shot w/ flash at iso 400 or 800 w/ 5d.


I know answer is all over but many things to plan. The book is I mentioned is a huge asset from helping w/ contract to prewedding shot selection to bridal party to post processing. Also, I recommend you discussball park how many photos they want. I gave them like420 images, a bit over the top. I charged little because of first wedding ($500) and spentway more on the 24-70,70-200, external harddrive, additional cards, batteries, etc. Italked w/ some pros andasked about total gb'sshot andan average of 18is what I got. I shot about 14 gb worth andI had twogb to go. The bonus was some of the woman at the reception were incredibly good looking in little dresses. Dinner tips in the book were great too. When the best man and woman are telling their stories, shoot them then the reaction by the bride/groom. I got some priceless laughing their butts off and then the emotional crying ones. Lots to think about so do your homework and be prepared to stand a long, long, long time. I started at 10am and ended at 11:45pm. Remember to have them reimburse for milage and other expenses when you give them the dvd/cd/photos. Good luck.

[donj]

Opps, I sort of didn't answer your engagement question. Basically, your camera lenses will be tack sharp even at f/1.6 w/ 50 if focused correctly. Not every shot needs to be the same but generally w/ all lenses they are best from f/5.6 to f/8. Go and pick up some wedding books too. If you check fredmiranda.com and go to forum there is a specific wedding section there with wonderful photos. I also did lots of looks at pbase.com, just search wedding or even search by typical wedding lenses like ef 24 f/1.4 L. Like I said, tack sharp can be f/1.4 or f/13, it depends what dof you want.

[Tommyqh]

wow thanks a lot Don, i will need to get some time to process all these =) but just briefly reading through it, it's extremely helpful

[Daniel Browning]

F 8 N B there.[;)]

[donj]

wow thanks a lot Don, i will need to get some time to process all these =) but just briefly reading through it, it's extremely helpful
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



You are very welcome. You certainly have the right equipment for a wedding shoot. It's just all the other stuff that gets tricky. When it's over and you've done well, it feels great. Here is a link for you: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/48 ("http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/48).

[mzemljic]

Hi Tommyqh


I am pro wedding and fashion photographer since 1999. Now, I am using a pro film body Canon 1VHS and 5D body with lenses from 15 fisheye for unique perspective to 70-200f2,8 L IS for catching the "atmosphere" of event.


I am not scared to shoot wide open but also you must consider other setings depending on light conditions.In that case You should know Your equipment well.


For example:


15 @ f2,8 will destroy any zoom wide open but You should not overdo with this lens!


50 f1,4 @ 2-3,5 great results


85 f1,2 L II @ 1,2-1,8 Unique DOF but be carefull...Shallowness, etc.


135 f2 L @ 2 is sharper then 70-200 @ 2,8 but can miss "the moment"


16-35 f2.8 L II @ 2,8-8 (sharp inough in center @ 2,8) very useable lens in pair with 135 or 70-200 for more impresive perspective.


24-70 L @ 2,8-4 but mostly f3,5 for IQ of prime 50


70-200 f2,8 L IS @ 2,8-3,5 so called "my precious" lens allways do fine!


I hope this will be of useable info but remeber, Do Not lay on my personal opinion and my shooting style.... I live in almost perfect weather conditions.


For end of writing watch the power of 85 L @ 1,2... Isn't she a creamy princess?


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.91/waf_2D00_studio_5F00_Krnjic105.jpg

[Tommyqh]

wowwww that picture is great. your post is very detailed, thanks.


For the "24-70 L @ 2,8-4 but mostly f3,5 for IQ of prime 50". What did you mean by 8-4? The wider focal length the more open the lens needs to be?


again, thanks for your guide

[Todd Reichman]

We only shoot weddings and mainly shoot at 4.0 and under. I generally keep in the 2.0-3.2 range most of the time. We only use L series primes because the image quality is great at those apertures - I have to stop my L zooms down to 5.6-8 to get similar image quality which is too restricting.


- trr

[mzemljic]

HiTommyqh


I think many Canon users will agree if I say EF 24-70 f2,8 L is not such a perfect lens how forum community claims. In regard to "L" build quality... The Lens perform little sharper if it's not wide open. So I ment f/2,8-4 but mostly used aperture in my case is @3,5 for best results. (But I also use narrover aperture if I need to)


Old school rumors said, narrow the aperture 1 step/ and watch the real lens quality.


Not the rule for Hasselblad Zeiss Lenses. All Hasselblad Zeiss lenses perform outstanding wide open in my opinion.


Regards, mzemljic

[MVers]

Not the rule for Hasselblad Zeiss Lenses. All Hasselblad Zeiss lenses perform outstanding wide open in my opinion.


Regards, mzemljic
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





They also cost a lot more, all are MF and some don't even have auto aperture. So while they may be sharper wide open, their performance on Canon bodies are completely hindered. If you shoot still lifes and landscape--sure, but for PJ and event work you would either have to be naive or extremely skilled to use manual glass--specifically when shooting in poor lighting. As for the Sony/Zeiss 24-70/2.8, while its extremely sharp the bokeh quality is horrid, as are most Zeiss lenses IMO. The 24-70 isn't perfect but it is very usable wide open and it's bokeh quality is as good or better than any comparable lens. Another thing to keep in mind is sample variation, which there seems to be a lot of concerning this specific lens--some great, some not so much. I know this may be speculation but I've got a gut feeling Canon has a 24-70II (with IS, possibly) in the works and if its improved at all it will be extremely attractive.


As to the OP, your lens selection is a good one...you may also want to consider the 35L, 70-200/2.8IS and a second body (5D) as well.

[mzemljic]

Hi MVers


I agree with You... for manual focus lenses.Yes 24-70 is better then Sigma, but I pay for "L" not Sigma, Tamron or else.I tested 3 copies of 24-70 f 2,8 L 's from my colleges before I bought my.I tested it on 1Ds Mk II and two different 5D's. Results were always very similar.All my lenses perform well on my 5D from 15 fisheye, 16-35f2,8 L II, 50f1,4, 85f1,2 L II, 70-200f2,8 L IS but...24-70 is another story.So, if it is not true, why is Canon considering Mk II ?I would realy like to test an improved 24-70 MkII with or without "IS" ?!


Kind Regards

[MVers]

Hi MVers


I agree with You... for manual focus lenses.Yes 24-70 is better then Sigma, but I pay for "L" not Sigma, Tamron or else.I tested 3 copies of 24-70 f 2,8 L 's from my colleges before I bought my.I tested it on 1Ds Mk II and two different 5D's. Results were always very similar.All my lenses perform well on my 5D from 15 fisheye, 16-35f2,8 L II, 50f1,4, 85f1,2 L II, 70-200f2,8 L IS but...24-70 is another story.So, if it is not true, why is Canon considering Mk II ?I would realy like to test an improved 24-70 MkII with or without "IS" ?!


Kind Regards
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I don't want to go off track with this but first: I have no idea what Canon is considering. Second: the 24-70 could use an update, specifically when looking at what Nikon, Sony/Ziess and Sigma (New HSM) did with their versions. All are smaller and lighter than the L and the Nikkor and Sony/Ziess certainly have some attractive features (sharpness). But as far as color/contrast, bokeh, versatility and good sharpness wide open the current 24-70 is still very much worth it. You say you're not happy with your copy, have you MA'd it or sent it in for calibration?