Kit lens for weddings

[Dao]

Take a look at some wedding photos taken by one of the TPF member (Peanuts).

Weddings - a set on Flickr

You will notice some of the great photos in the Wedding set are not able to produce with the kit lens.

 

[schumionbike]

Umm, I actually shot a kit lens before with a Nikon D40 and an sb-600 flash. I was the chief photographer and was unpaid at the same time. I also acquired a 35mm f1.8, and I would say that the 35 mm is much sharper and you can see it in your results, not to mention the bokeh but I probably wouldn't shoot in a wedding only with the 35mm since it's some what restricting and not as versertile as the kit lens. If I have to choose just one lens, I probably go for the kit lens unless the wedding is gonna be in cave.

A couple from the wedding:

1.

2.

3.

Here are more recent images from ther 35 mm f1.8

Clearly there are differences in quality of the the two lenses but they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Light Artisan]

Nice snapshots! :thumbup:

 

[schumionbike]

Nice snapshots! :thumbup:

thank you but I was not looking for C&C, just giving my opinion :thumbup:

 

[iamacyborg]

Nice snapshots! :thumbup:

Snapshots indeed.

 

[gsgary]

Nice snapshots! :thumbup:

Snapshots indeed.

He said he didn't want C&C

 

[sobolik]

Take a look at some wedding photos taken by one of the TPF member (Peanuts).

Weddings - a set on Flickr

You will notice some of the great photos in the Wedding set are not able to produce with the kit lens.

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.

 

[sobolik]

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...

 

[Dao]

Take a look at some wedding photos taken by one of the TPF member (Peanuts).

Weddings - a set on Flickr

You will notice some of the great photos in the Wedding set are not able to produce with the kit lens.

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.

I will not blame you since you cannot even see the different between photos take with different aperture size.

 

[sobolik]

Take a look at some wedding photos taken by one of the TPF member (Peanuts).

Weddings - a set on Flickr

You will notice some of the great photos in the Wedding set are not able to produce with the kit lens.

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.

I will not blame you since you cannot even see the different between photos take with different aperture size.

Like I thought. Just blowing smoke at amateurs looking for actual information not smoke.

 

[enzodm]

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!

 

[Syco]

Part of the issue relates to the final product. If you're going to post the photos on the web, then a fixed focal length lens is fine, because you can crop your shots without penalty. But if your final product is prints, then the advantage of a variable focal length lens is that you can frame the original shot more tightly and preserve precious resolution.

 

[sobolik]

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!

A common kit lens can easily take this photo.

A Nikon kit lens at 55mm with f5.6 focused from 6 feet results in a 10" zone of sharpness Where a 2.8 is 5". Thus the woman in front and in back would tend to be out of focus with both. Online Depth of Field Calculator

But hey, if someone wants to spend $1,539.95 for a 17-55 f/2.8 instead of $199.95 for a 18-55 f/3.5 then go for it. Digital Camera Lenses | Nikon Camera lenses | NIKKOR Optics

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

 

[Light Artisan]

It's called a recommendation, who ever said anyone 'needed' anything?

What's with all the rants against higher quality glass the last couple days anyway? Some people do need better glass, and instead of wasting money on cheap kit lenses why not recommend good glass? I don't get your argument. The point isn't whether or not they can take a good photo, the point is good glass can and does help take better ones.

Can you really argue that?

Yes, some people would be 100% content with having nothing but an 18-55 and 55-200 their whole life, or an 18-200. I for one can tell a difference and appreciate the difference in my shots. f/5.6 on the long end vs f/2.8 is a big enough difference for me.

 

[sobolik]

It's called a recommendation, who ever said anyone 'needed' anything?

What's with all the rants against higher quality glass the last couple days anyway? Some people do need better glass, and instead of wasting money on cheap kit lenses why not recommend good glass? I don't get your argument. The point isn't whether or not they can take a good photo, the point is good glass can and does help take better ones.

Can you really argue that?

Yes, some people would be 100% content with having nothing but an 18-55 and 55-200 their whole life, or an 18-200. I for one can tell a difference and appreciate the difference in my shots. f/5.6 on the long end vs f/2.8 is a big enough difference for me.

You belong on an advanced forum. Not a beginner forum since you have a stubborn refusal to feed baby food to a baby but rather try to shove steak down their throats.