Kit lens for weddings

[nonamexx]

Agree. In the end it's a piece of super-shiny, well crafted bit of glass.

different lenses have different features (at least aperture) that give different features to your pictures. A good photographer may take good pictures inside the limits of a bad lens, because he/she knows what the limits are. A bad photographer cannot be saved by a good lens. In the middle there is a lot of average people that may avoid to ruin their pictures with a crowded background if having some larger aperture (to say one thing).

So more expensive equipment is the answer to covering up flaws? I wouldn't agree with this philosophy and even if I did, it's just a bad one.

Seems like I'd personally work on improving my skills rather than try to cover it up.

Yes, some people NEED the extra features and I agree with your general trend of thought. Whether the OP needs it is open to question.

 

[ababysean]

the kit lens of today and entry level dslr of today are far superior then cameras and lenses of yesteryear.
The question is would *I* use a kit lens and the answer is no, because I've not the skill. I need that extra light, I need that fixed 2.8, or 1.8, at this time.

The question you should ask yourself is do YOU need those extra stops? at this time? with your level of skill? and knowledge of light and exposure?

 

[John Mc]

I would love an example of two similar images shot with different lenses with exactly the same camera settings and how one of them is better.

I ask out of curiosity and not in a sarcastic way. I genuinely want to know.

I also want to know whether the difference in quality makes up for the extra cost and whether the client would have noticed the difference anyway.

You have the Power of the internet at your finger tips,by all means do so.

I notice the better colours,sharper images using my 50mm prime then my kit lens,and ive had Clientel and friends notice the better work aswell.so yes,people notice the difference.

 

[nonamexx]

I would love an example of two similar images shot with different lenses with exactly the same camera settings and how one of them is better.

I ask out of curiosity and not in a sarcastic way. I genuinely want to know.

I also want to know whether the difference in quality makes up for the extra cost and whether the client would have noticed the difference anyway.

You have the Power of the internet at your finger tips,by all means do so.

I notice the better colours,sharper images using my 50mm prime then my kit lens,and ive had Clientel and friends notice the better work aswell.so yes,people notice the difference.

I have no idea what to google for. Care to assist?

 

[John Mc]

Agree. In the end it's a piece of super-shiny, well crafted bit of glass.

different lenses have different features (at least aperture) that give different features to your pictures. A good photographer may take good pictures inside the limits of a bad lens, because he/she knows what the limits are. A bad photographer cannot be saved by a good lens. In the middle there is a lot of average people that may avoid to ruin their pictures with a crowded background if having some larger aperture (to say one thing).

So more expensive equipment is the answer to covering up flaws? I wouldn't agree with this philosophy and even if I did, it's just a bad one.

Seems like I'd personally work on improving my skills rather than try to cover it up.

Yes, some people NEED the extra features and I agree with your general trend of thought. Whether the OP needs it is open to question.

Thats not the point i think a few of us are getting at. The Glass in Better,and more costly lenses are better quality.theres less inperfections.

It's like diamonds.you pay for clarity.you pay less for a duller diamond then one thats so clear it looks like nothing's there. Same principle with lenses, the better the Glass,the better the image quality.

I agree that skill is more a factor,it is the factor.but i know that a better quality image will sell for more.and if your trying to make a living doing this subject.your best to spend the money.

You wouldnt tell a Sports photographer your Canon 500D with 3.9fps and kit zoom lens works just aswell,and there 7D that shoots 8fps and there 400mm 2.8 lens was a waste of £12k. When they would be getting around £600-1000 a weekend from covering events for there shots. and you might only get £100-200 if your lucky. Equipment has a Big factor to do with alot of things in photography aswell.

I personally,would not let a Photographer take photographs of my Wedding with a Kit lens,regardless if there Portfolio was Amazing

 

[John Mc]

I have no idea what to google for. Care to assist?

Hmm,Try Kit lens vs prime comaprison. Logic would have told you thats what your looking for anyhow

 

[enzodm]

So more expensive equipment is the answer to covering up flaws?

never wrote this. You may improve as much as you want, but you can't take a picture not allowed by the features of your lens. If your lens give more freedom, you can play something more.

 

[nonamexx]

When did the debate become zoom lenses vs. prime lenses?

I have some understanding of optics and primes seem to have both negative and positive points. So is your suggestion that a prime lens is better suited to this occasion?

I also understand that quality variations are inevitable and expensive lenses are constructed with quality and offer greater flexibility.

I'm a bit confused by people making so many recommendations and that's why I ask. We are all making assumptions as to what the OP needs. I am asking how you come to the conclusion that a better lens than a kit lens is needed and what kind.

 

[John Mc]

I appologise for the mis understanding. what i would google then,is Kit lens Vs (your choice of high class quality lens) a simular one i would choose is 24-70/2.8.

 

[Dao]

2 restaurants.

Restaurant #1 looks really bad. Paint on the wall chips, ceiling vents are dark, waiter or waitress are...... you know .... But the food is not bad.

Restaurant #2 looks great and in good shape. Waiter or waitress there looks great, clean, tidy and polite. Food quality is ... about the same as restaurant #1, but cost is about 5 - 10% higher.



I personally will go to restaurant #2 more often than restaurant #1.



I know, photography and restaurant business are different. But if someone think photography as a business, professional image is also important. Besides the end result, it is also a tool to market yourself.

You do not expect going to Starbuck to buy a coffee and they give you a plain white foam cup, do you? It is the same coffee, but if the coffee is served in a plain white foam cup, it may TASTE different. (You know what I mean).

Do you know why people think bottle water taste better? (Even when water bottling companies such as Pepsi use the same tap water people drink at home)




Of course, the expensive lens usually build better (less likely to fail when being used professionally.) And they are usually better optically.

 

[Light Artisan]

Well shoot, I'm going sell all my expensive glass and get the 18-200 then! Ken Rockwell was right after all!

Thanks for the great advice, I had no idea good glass had nothing to do with better photos, only 'features' only the best photographers can appreciate and use without compensating for something.

What a relief this thread has been. And here I was worried about sharpness, good depth of field, creamy bokeh and the like, when all I needed was a cheap flash and a kit lens.

 

[OrionsByte]

What kind of flash are you using, and how are you using it? If you're just putting it on the shoe and pointing it straight at them, you could probably get away with f/8 or so, but if you're bouncing it or diffusing it at all (which you really ought to do) you're going to have to open up a stop or two.

That means that at the far end of your zoom range, you're going to be at the maximum aperture for your kit lens, and no lens is going to produce their sharpest photos at their maximum aperture, even the f/1.8 ones.

So the biggest advantage to using a non-kit lens would be the quality of the photos at f/4 or so, which would give you nice pleasing DOF and enough light gathering potential to use indirect flash.

I'd recommend going out to the venue if you can; bring along someone to stand in so you can take some test shots. A direct comparison between your kit lens at f/4 and 35mm, and your prime lens at f/4, should tell you whether or not you think the kit lens will be sufficient for you.

 

[enzodm]

When did the debate become zoom lenses vs. prime lenses?

I have some understanding of optics and primes seem to have both negative and positive points. So is your suggestion that a prime lens is better suited to this occasion?

I also understand that quality variations are inevitable and expensive lenses are constructed with quality and offer greater flexibility.

I'm a bit confused by people making so many recommendations and that's why I ask. We are all making assumptions as to what the OP needs. I am asking how you come to the conclusion that a better lens than a kit lens is needed and what kind.

this is the thread of the OP. She asked why to use her 35/1.8 if she can use the flash with her kit zoom. She has both kit lens and a faster prime lens, but she does not know why it's not only matter of amount of light.

Here two samples of a very quickly prepared wedding scene.

Kit lens (not the worst: Canon 18-55IS, in fact picture quality is not bad):


Rokinon 55/1.4 prime lens (not the best: in fact picture quality is not excellent):


You cannot take a picture like the second with kit lens, simply because aperture does not allow you that DoF. On the other side, you indeed can replicate the kit picture with the prime lens. So, more freedom. I'm not a wedding photographer, but I suspect that in a crowded day like that, isolating the couple from the rest can be useful.
To stop any cost consideration, I bought that prime lens for 39€ including delivery.

 

[John Mc]

Enzodm, Nice Reference.

 

[nonamexx]

When did the debate become zoom lenses vs. prime lenses?

I have some understanding of optics and primes seem to have both negative and positive points. So is your suggestion that a prime lens is better suited to this occasion?

I also understand that quality variations are inevitable and expensive lenses are constructed with quality and offer greater flexibility.

I'm a bit confused by people making so many recommendations and that's why I ask. We are all making assumptions as to what the OP needs. I am asking how you come to the conclusion that a better lens than a kit lens is needed and what kind.

this is the thread of the OP. She asked why to use her 35/1.8 if she can use the flash with her kit zoom. She has both kit lens and a faster prime lens, but she does not know why it's not only matter of amount of light.

Here two samples of a very quickly prepared wedding scene.

Kit lens (not the worst: Canon 18-55IS, in fact picture quality is not bad):


Rokinon 55/1.4 prime lens (not the best: in fact picture quality is not excellent):


You cannot take a picture like the second with kit lens, simply because aperture does not allow you that DoF. On the other side, you indeed can replicate the kit picture with the prime lens. So, more freedom. I'm not a wedding photographer, but I suspect that in a crowded day like that, isolating the couple from the rest can be useful.
To stop any cost consideration, I bought that prime lens for 39€ including delivery.

Good illustration. Thanks.

I understand that kit lens are not the best at DoF.

About wedding photography: I must admit really have no idea of Western weddings and how the photographer is expected to take pictures.

The reason for my asking questions is not to challenge the collective wisdom of people here but to learn. I am somebody who doesn't accept things at face value and wants explanation and I think you've provided a good example of it.

Once again, it's not my intention to challenge or annoy but to learn.