Kit lens for weddings

[Light Artisan]

There's also nothing wrong with recommending fast glass. Who are we to put a value on what they should spend? It's up to the individual to make the final decision. Sorry... if someone asks about recommendations on lenses for a wedding and has no budget posted, I'm not going to say get a Nikon 18-105.

 

[Robin Usagani]

According to this guy, it is a pro gear! Look at the title!

CANON EOS REBEL XT SLR PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL CAMERA

 

[OrionsByte]

I object to people telling beginners who may have had their camera less than a month that they should go out and spend thousands on a fast lens. Or cameras.

Beginners who may have had their camera less than a month shouldn't be shooting weddings either.

So, let's toss the whole "beginner" thing out the window, even though I know your whole argument is, "people should stop telling beginners to buy faster glass." Would you agree that an experienced photographer who wants to get in to wedding photography would see better results from higher-end lenses, including ones that are faster? Because that's pretty much what everyone else is arguing, methinks.

There is no question to buy and use the best you can afford. However your other premise is wrong.

"Beginners who may have had their camera less than a month shouldn't be shooting weddings either."

Many people call upon "photographer" relatives and friends to do them a favor. They may even pay them a substantial amount of money to do it. It is not your place nor mine to proclaim them as unqualified and have no business doing it. Relatively lousy photos in my eyes may be treasured keep sakes in theirs because Uncle Bill took them. It happens all the time. Goofy bedspreads are treated like gold because some old lady in the family made it. She must have been given to strong drink seeing how warped and crooked it is. But it is not my place to put a value on it.

There is nothing wrong with warning newbies about the pit falls but a good scolding for being unqualified is not why they come to a beginners forum.

Okay just for the record, what you just did there was take my very general broad statement, turned it in to a very specific example, and refuted that. That's what we call a "straw man argument."

Just to play along though, you're telling me that if someone posted on this forum, perhaps in this very thread, and said, "I got my very first camera for Christmas, so I'm going to put an ad in the Yellow Pages as a wedding photographer," that you wouldn't jump all over them for being unqualified?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

The argument has evolved.

 

[sobolik]

According to this guy, it is a pro gear! Look at the title!

CANON EOS REBEL XT SLR PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL CAMERA

Back in the film days the difference between pro and consumer cameras was the pro's were much more indestructible and had more features. This is especially easily demonstrated by film cameras with little confusion.

Not much has changed in digital. Both may well have the same sensor technology. The pro stuff can take a sever beating and has more features.
Yesterdays Pro camera may be inferior to this years amateur camera.

"The difference between generations is so significant that the best Gen 1 camera, the D2Xs, can't make pictures as good as the cheapest Gen 2 camera, the D90, in most real picture-taking situations. " (Nikon - [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The D2X was for full time professional photographers [/FONT])
Nikon DSLR History

 

[flea77]

Not really Bitter, it is just sobolik looking for an out

Allan

 

[Light Artisan]

Now we've switched to bodies?

I think that's just one reason most people do recommend good lenses, they are built to last and will be with you longer than your camera body.

 

[sobolik]

[/quote]Okay just for the record, what you just did there was take my very general broad statement, turned it in to a very specific example, and refuted that. That's what we call a "straw man argument."

Just to play along though, you're telling me that if someone posted on this forum, perhaps in this very thread, and said, "I got my very first camera for Christmas, so I'm going to put an ad in the Yellow Pages as a wedding photographer," that you wouldn't jump all over them for being unqualified?[/quote]

Go away. You are just argumentative for argument sake. Invent your outrages and then argue them with yourself in the mirror.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

There is no question to buy and use the best you can afford. However your other premise is wrong.

"Beginners who may have had their camera less than a month shouldn't be shooting weddings either."

Many people call upon "photographer" relatives and friends to do them a favor. They may even pay them a substantial amount of money to do it. It is not your place nor mine to proclaim them as unqualified and have no business doing it. Relatively lousy photos in my eyes may be treasured keep sakes in theirs because Uncle Bill took them. It happens all the time. Goofy bedspreads are treated like gold because some old lady in the family made it. She must have been given to strong drink seeing how warped and crooked it is. But it is not my place to put a value on it.

There is nothing wrong with warning newbies about the pit falls but a good scolding for being unqualified is not why they come to a beginners forum.

Okay just for the record, what you just did there was take my very general broad statement, turned it in to a very specific example, and refuted that. That's what we call a "straw man argument."

Just to play along though, you're telling me that if someone posted on this forum, perhaps in this very thread, and said, "I got my very first camera for Christmas, so I'm going to put an ad in the Yellow Pages as a wedding photographer," that you wouldn't jump all over them for being unqualified?

Go away. You are just argumentative for argument sake.

OMG!





Here, erose...

 

[Light Artisan]

Shift change, I'm done.

 

[OrionsByte]

Go away.

Ya know what? That I will agree with. See ya in another thread.

 

[flea77]

Back in the film days the difference between pro and consumer cameras was the pro's were much more indestructible and had more features. This is especially easily demonstrated by film cameras with little confusion.

Not much has changed in digital. Both may well have the same sensor technology. The pro stuff can take a sever beating and has more features.
Yesterdays Pro camera may be inferior to this years amateur camera.

Oh boy, here we go. First off, instead of linking to KR's website, I am just going to look up at my shelf of camera's and talk about them if that is OK with you, since I was shooting film long before digital, before AF, well, that's as old as I am going to let you know about, heh.

Film cameras had one simple distinction that digital does not. Given the same lens, an old Nikon F (one of the first pro SLRs), a Nikon EM (a very cheap, auto only, POS SLR) and a Nikon F6 would all take EXACTLY the same picture. When I say exactly, I mean exact, indistinguishable, perfect duplicate, no difference of any kind what so ever. Try that with digital, even with two from the same generation, even with two with the same sensor (but different camera models).

"The difference between generations is so significant that the best Gen 1 camera, the D2Xs, can't make pictures as good as the cheapest Gen 2 camera, the D90, in most real picture-taking situations. " (Nikon - [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The D2X was for full time professional photographers [/FONT])
Nikon DSLR History

That is correct, but what does that have to do with this thread? This thread is about using a kit lens in a for-hire "MAJOR money" wedding shoot.

Allan

 

[Wilsan]

The situation in the wedding photography is not about Lens ego or my lens is better than your is about proper tools for what you are doing. Cheaper lenses or kit lenses have their very big limitations against pro lenses. I have expensive lenses but they are not on my bag to show up. Each one of them have a reason. I can achieve the almost the same result with a Cheap Lens that with an expensive lens that is true. Now difference is that with the CHeap lens it will take me a lot longer and they are going to be shots that simple not going to be able to take that is a big scarify. Is better upgrade your lenses that even upgrade your camera. Lenses have longer time of life than the cameras.

Example.
Is not the same been at the wedding day with a 85mm F1.4 that with a 18-55 F 4.5-5.6 and I explain why.

The image on the 80mm they will be very sharp and better quality that withe the 18-55.

Difference on photos? There are a lot.
1. Gradients on a prime lens are better than in the kit lens.
2. Construction on the prime lens are better than kit lens.
3. Color replication, Casting, Contrast, Sharpness, Skin Tone, Better reception for the meter are one of the few things that you should be taking in consideration in a wedding.

Why because the lighting conditios are very different from shot to shot and with an F 1.4 you have your bases cover.
However if I use a kit lens I will need to put those ISO very high and that will scarify QI.

When you start as a second camara use kit lens is fine. But if you are going to be the main photographer you should have the proper equipment.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Oh, flea, I knew you would not disappoint!

For this I thank you.

 

[PatrickCheung]

nooo! dont stop!