Kit lens for weddings

[enzodm]

But please stop telling beginners that they "need" to buy theses lenses.

Really, here I see people telling beginners not to buy gear (except tripod) before they know what they already have. And in this specific case, the OP has also a prime lens, but she does not know when to use it.

 

[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?

No disrespect intended...

You are absolutely correct you don't have the skill. And you are also clueless about the 2.8 and 1.8. WHY DO THOSE THAT FREQUENT PHOTO FORUMS INSIST ON PEDDLING FAST GLASS. it just completely baffles me. There was one guy on a forum that answered every post he ever did reply too with two words "fast glass"

So You walk outside on a bright day with your lens locked on 2.8 and then proceed to crank up the shutter speed and ISO. FOR WHAT? So you can convince yourself that the expensive fast glass that you bought was required that's for what.

No disrespect intended I'm just trying to figuratively whack you upside the head so you get off this fast glass thing. You will be better off. Rarely is fast glass actually "needed" Useful is a more accurate term, since it is never really "needed" Much less always needed as you have somehow managed to convince yourself.

But then again. I don't really care. It is your money and your predicament.

No disrespect intended...

No disrespect taken.
I am not talking about going outside and taking a picture. I am talking about being indoors at the back of a church, when no flash is allowed inside. That is when I need those extra fixed values.

 

[ababysean]

and I am not talking about going out and buying a 2800 dollar lens. She has a 35mm 1.8. I suggested that she use that, since it is in a home, which I am assuming she will be able to get fairly close to the couple.

 

[heyjoe]

I agree with enzodm. There are LOTS of instances on here when a newb asks what type of lens to get, and veterans tell them to hold off with the nice glass until they understand how to lenses properly, and until they understand what type of lenses they NEED.

When nicer glass is suggested, it's usually because the OP describes their limitations and somebody will suggest something faster.

Then, often a cheap prime like a nifty fifty is suggested.

I don't really understand this 'shove steak down their throats' rhetoric.

 

[sobolik]

I agree with enzodm. There are LOTS of instances on here when a newb asks what type of lens to get, and veterans tell them to hold off with the nice glass until they understand how to lenses properly, and until they understand what type of lenses they NEED.

When nicer glass is suggested, it's usually because the OP describes their limitations and somebody will suggest something faster.

Then, often a cheap prime like a nifty fifty is suggested.

I don't really understand this 'shove steak down their throats' rhetoric.

"I don't really understand this 'shove steak down their throats' rhetoric."
Well then pay attention and be observant to what goes on in the forums.

A beginner will ask something like: "what do I need to do to get good photos of my family"

Inevitably someone will chime in with something like: "you should sell the slow lens and get a 70-200mm 2.8 as the extra speed blah blah blah"

IN ESSENCE WHAT THIS SAYS IS: IF YOU SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS YOU WILL TAKE BETTER PHOTOS. Duh, Money can't buy you love, a better golf game nor will you take better photos of your kids.

"I don't really understand this 'shove steak down their throats' rhetoric."
Well then pay attention and be observant to what goes on in the forums.

 

[Light Artisan]

You have your opinion, and apparently nobody else is supposed to chime in with what they believe if it goes against your "kit lens is all you need theory" - is that what I'm reading?

It's not just about extra speed, there is build quality that goes along with it. Sorry, but I have and will continue to recommend good glass over kit lenses - but I'm usually one of the first to tell people to wait on buying more gear until they know what it is they want to shoot and what focal range they need.

 

[sobolik]

You have your opinion, and apparently nobody else is supposed to chime in with what they believe if it goes against your "kit lens is all you need theory" - is that what I'm reading?

It's not just about extra speed, there is build quality that goes along with it. Sorry, but I have and will continue to recommend good glass over kit lenses - but I'm usually one of the first to tell people to wait on buying more gear until they know what it is they want to shoot and what focal range they need.

"is that what I'm reading?"

Yes that is exactly correct, it is what YOU are reading - Completely wrong interpretation clouded and distorted by your fast glass knee jerk stubborn stance - but yes that is exactly correct, it is what YOU are reading.

Those that buy something that cost one or two thousand dollars more than a comparable item seem compelled to forevermore proclaim it's superiority.

Is a Lexus really "superior" to a Ford? The mission is to drive to the grocery store. "You need to sell the Ford and buy a Lexus it's better"

Is a f2.8 really superior to a f4? The mission is to take photos of family members. "You need to sell the f4 and buy f2.8 it's better"

I KNOW I AM WASTING MY TIME CONVINCING THE FAST GLASS KNEE JERK CROWD BUT I'M SURE OTHERS READING THIS ARE GETTING QUITE A CHUCKLE.

 

[ababysean]

You have your opinion, and apparently nobody else is supposed to chime in with what they believe if it goes against your "kit lens is all you need theory" - is that what I'm reading?

It's not just about extra speed, there is build quality that goes along with it. Sorry, but I have and will continue to recommend good glass over kit lenses - but I'm usually one of the first to tell people to wait on buying more gear until they know what it is they want to shoot and what focal range they need.

"is that what I'm reading?"

Yes that is exactly correct, it is what YOU are reading - Completely wrong interpretation clouded and distorted by your fast glass knee jerk stubborn stance - but yes that is exactly correct, it is what YOU are reading.

Those that buy something that cost one or two thousand dollars more than a comparable item seem compelled to forevermore proclaim it's superiority.

Is a Lexus really "superior" to a Ford? The mission is to drive to the grocery store. "You need to sell the Ford and buy a Lexus it's better"

Is a f2.8 really superior to a f4? The mission is to take photos of family members. "You need to sell the f4 and buy f2.8 it's better"

I KNOW I AM WASTING MY TIME CONVINCING THE FAST GLASS KNEE JERK CROWD BUT I'M SURE OTHERS READING THIS ARE GETTING QUITE A CHUCKLE.

I think there is a HUGE difference in suggesting to get a 70-200 2.8 and USING HER 35 1.8 THAT SHE ALREADY HAS!
Plus that 35 is 200 bux. or a 50 is 100??

so where is this you MUST spend thousands again??

 

[vtf]

Our weekly wedding glass thread.
Very simple, $10,000 in photography services better match portfolio.
$5000 in photography services better match portfolio.
$1000 in photography services better match portfolio.
$500 in photography services better match portfolio.
$000 in photography services better match portfolio.
Thats the expectation of the customer, not the lens that they know nothing about.

 

[Light Artisan]

You're funny... You obviously don't know me at all so I will just dismiss your post in its entirety. If you've read any of my past posts you'd realize just how off the mark you really are.

For what it's worth, I shoot mostly low light wildlife photography so your kit lens theory can fly right out the window for me unless I want nothing but blurry, out of focus shots with so much noise it's unbearable not to mention any chance of sharpness being dismissed.

Low light weddings can be very difficult to shoot, I've seen some wonderful shots ruined by too slow of glass causing motion blur which can't be fixed in post. If you can't go from f/5.6 to f/2.8 or more your only options are adding light, increasing ISO or descreasing shutter speed. I'd much rather have the most room to play with as possible, especially if doing paid jobs. This doesn't even begin to take into consideration of the added quality of the glass, not just the faster speed.

I won't argue that with proper light you could pull off shooting a wedding with a 'kit lens', someone who knows that they are doing definitely could do a fine job - but a mechanic usually won't use the allen wrenches that came with their creeper to fix an automobile, they'll use their professional grade tools for the job because they know they can rely on them.

What exactly is it you are trying to prove with your posts anyway? That people shouldn't recommend good glass to beginners?

Yes that is exactly correct, it is what YOU are reading - Completely wrong interpretation clouded and distorted by your fast glass knee jerk stubborn stance - but yes that is exactly correct, it is what YOU are reading.
Completely off base.

Those that buy something that cost one or two thousand dollars more than a comparable item seem compelled to forevermore proclaim it's superiority.
Ever think some people may be speaking from experience between their new pro glass and their old entry level glass?

Is a Lexus really "superior" to a Ford? The mission is to drive to the grocery store. "You need to sell the Ford and buy a Lexus it's better"
I don't care for either, actually.

Is a f2.8 really superior to a f4? The mission is to take photos of family members. "You need to sell the f4 and buy f2.8 it's better"
It can be, which lens are you referring to exactly? There are many f/4 lenses that are better optically than f/2.8 lenses.

I KNOW I AM WASTING MY TIME CONVINCING THE FAST GLASS KNEE JERK CROWD BUT I'M SURE OTHERS READING THIS ARE GETTING QUITE A CHUCKLE.
I guess if that was your goal, congrats?

 

[Dao]

Come on now! List the ones that cannot be taken with a kit lens. I just marvel at the lousy BS advice thrown at beginners on forums. List the ones that cannot be taken with a kit lens.

Most likely this one (the first I found): Vanessa and Greg | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

No need to find a photo for him. He believe he can take all the photos in kit lens. How can you argue about that. LOL

No no no .. we should not tell beginners that there are lenses out there better than kit lens. A fast prime lens .. nah .... Beginner do not need it. And in fact, the beginner is always a beginner. So kit lens is all they need.

 

[Dao]

You're funny... You obviously don't know me at all so I will just dismiss your post in its entirety. If you've read any of my past posts you'd realize just how off the mark you really are.

For what it's worth, I shoot mostly low light wildlife photography so your kit lens theory can fly right out the window for me unless I want nothing but blurry, out of focus shots with so much noise it's unbearable not to mention any chance of sharpness being dismissed.

You know, I bet he can do that with a kit lens.

What exactly is it you are trying to prove with your posts anyway? That people shouldn't recommend good glass to beginners?

He want to tell all the beginners to use kit lens. There are no difference.

But you know what, I really like what Josh said in this thread
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...227400-can-we-talk-f-stops-2.html#post2098271

 

[sobolik]

You're funny... You obviously don't know me at all so I will just dismiss your post in its entirety. If you've read any of my past posts you'd realize just how off the mark you really are.

For what it's worth, I shoot mostly low light wildlife photography so your kit lens theory can fly right out the window for me unless I want nothing but blurry, out of focus shots with so much noise it's unbearable not to mention any chance of sharpness being dismissed.

Low light weddings can be very difficult to shoot, I've seen some wonderful shots ruined by too slow of glass causing motion blur which can't be fixed in post. If you can't go from f/5.6 to f/2.8 or more your only options are adding light, increasing ISO or descreasing shutter speed. I'd much rather have the most room to play with as possible, especially if doing paid jobs. This doesn't even begin to take into consideration of the added quality of the glass, not just the faster speed.

I won't argue that with proper light you could pull off shooting a wedding with a 'kit lens', someone who knows that they are doing definitely could do a fine job - but a mechanic usually won't use the allen wrenches that came with their creeper to fix an automobile, they'll use their professional grade tools for the job because they know they can rely on them.

What exactly is it you are trying to prove with your posts anyway? That people shouldn't recommend good glass to beginners?

Yes that is exactly correct, it is what YOU are reading - Completely wrong interpretation clouded and distorted by your fast glass knee jerk stubborn stance - but yes that is exactly correct, it is what YOU are reading.
Completely off base.

Those that buy something that cost one or two thousand dollars more than a comparable item seem compelled to forevermore proclaim it's superiority.
Ever think some people may be speaking from experience between their new pro glass and their old entry level glass?

Is a Lexus really "superior" to a Ford? The mission is to drive to the grocery store. "You need to sell the Ford and buy a Lexus it's better"
I don't care for either, actually.

Is a f2.8 really superior to a f4? The mission is to take photos of family members. "You need to sell the f4 and buy f2.8 it's better"
It can be, which lens are you referring to exactly? There are many f/4 lenses that are better optically than f/2.8 lenses.

I KNOW I AM WASTING MY TIME CONVINCING THE FAST GLASS KNEE JERK CROWD BUT I'M SURE OTHERS READING THIS ARE GETTING QUITE A CHUCKLE.
I guess if that was your goal, congrats?

"Low light weddings can be very difficult to shoot, I've seen some wonderful shots ruined by too slow of glass causing motion blur"

Who? pray tell gets married in the dark? Where the flash is typically not allowed. Modern cameras do have this thing called ISO ya know.

And WHERE? Are these acrobats getting married that move around rapidly?

"What exactly is it you are trying to prove with your posts anyway? That people shouldn't recommend good glass to beginners?'

Exactly. (except you said good glass where I say fast and expensive glass- mistaken missquote ? or deliberate misrepresentation?)
No more than people having any sense would highly recommend that beginning violin students need to buy a Stradivarius to get good sounds.

 

[gsgary]

I agree with enzodm. There are LOTS of instances on here when a newb asks what type of lens to get, and veterans tell them to hold off with the nice glass until they understand how to lenses properly, and until they understand what type of lenses they NEED.

When nicer glass is suggested, it's usually because the OP describes their limitations and somebody will suggest something faster.

Then, often a cheap prime like a nifty fifty is suggested.

I don't really understand this 'shove steak down their throats' rhetoric.

"I don't really understand this 'shove steak down their throats' rhetoric."
Well then pay attention and be observant to what goes on in the forums.

A beginner will ask something like: "what do I need to do to get good photos of my family"

Inevitably someone will chime in with something like: "you should sell the slow lens and get a 70-200mm 2.8 as the extra speed blah blah blah"

IN ESSENCE WHAT THIS SAYS IS: IF YOU SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS YOU WILL TAKE BETTER PHOTOS. Duh, Money can't buy you love, a better golf game nor will you take better photos of your kids.

"I don't really understand this 'shove steak down their throats' rhetoric."
Well then pay attention and be observant to what goes on in the forums.

Have you ever used a top of the range lens ? i'd like to see you shoot under these conditions from the back of the theatre if you check the settings you would see it's imposible

 

[Light Artisan]

I'm sure he could get that and 4 other usable images in one photo with his 18-105.