# Kit lens for weddings



## SabrinaO (Dec 31, 2010)

What's the big deal using a kit lens if flash is allowed? I just don't get why people are so against using a kit lens for a wedding. I have a 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 that I'm gonna be using along with my sb600 speedlight (with a diffuser of course). I have a 35mm 1.8 but I'm probably not gonna use it, because I think it's unnecessary because again... flash is allowed. I guess ill use it for portrait type shots for a nice creamy blurred background. But is there something I'm not getting? If so please explain why a kit lens is bad for a wedding.


----------



## enzodm (Dec 31, 2010)

SabrinaO said:


> But is there something I'm not getting? If so please explain why a kit lens is bad for a wedding.



As you perhaps know, aperture is not only light but also DoF. 
Additionally, optical quality of kit lenses usually is basic (sharpness, CA, etc), but if you never noticed the difference, is not a problem.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Dec 31, 2010)

I suspect its due to its intended use and quality. A lot of these kit lenses are decent. They are not exceptional. So I think it boils down to the level of equipment being used.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 31, 2010)

Your ambient light will be most likely really dark unless you keep jacking the ISO and drag it a little.  So your wedding is coming up soon eh?


----------



## John Mc (Dec 31, 2010)

If you take two shots of the same thing today,at the same focusing distance(both at 35mm) and at the same aperture, and compare the shots,you'll see why people prefer to get rid of their kit lens.it is designed for you to use for basic stuff.but i much prefer a prime to a zoom,and it only has to deal wih one job


----------



## sobolik (Dec 31, 2010)

SabrinaO said:


> What's the big deal using a kit lens if flash is allowed? I just don't get why people are so against using a kit lens for a wedding. I have a 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 that I'm gonna be using along with my sb600 speedlight (with a diffuser of course). I have a 35mm 1.8 but I'm probably not gonna use it, because I think it's unnecessary because again... flash is allowed. I guess ill use it for portrait type shots for a nice creamy blurred background. But is there something I'm not getting? If so please explain why a kit lens is bad for a wedding.



People who make a big deal out of it simply do not know what they are talking about. But talk they must. The internet forums are full of such.  There have been a few phrases invented to match this phenomenon.  "posers" "fake it till you make it"

I used far worse quality Sigma lenses and did a wedding. The Nikon kit lens is 100 times better quality than what I used. 

Kit lenses are just fine unless you think you can purchase your way into being a great photographer - YOU CAN'T  

You can't take great photos by buying expensive lenses  any more than buying expensive golf clubs will make you a great golfer.

People name drop their expensive cars, golf clubs, clothes (they are still unattractive) or CAMERA LENSES all the time as if it makes them special.  When in reality great photos taken with a kit lens can be special.

Fast glass (lenses) is like a fast race car. Useless to the vast majority of the human population.


----------



## nonamexx (Dec 31, 2010)

sobolik said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > What's the big deal using a kit lens if flash is allowed? I just don't get why people are so against using a kit lens for a wedding. I have a 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 that I'm gonna be using along with my sb600 speedlight (with a diffuser of course). I have a 35mm 1.8 but I'm probably not gonna use it, because I think it's unnecessary because again... flash is allowed. I guess ill use it for portrait type shots for a nice creamy blurred background. But is there something I'm not getting? If so please explain why a kit lens is bad for a wedding.
> ...



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

Nobody cares what you shoot with. The equipment should not really matter at all. 

I feel even a decent P & S will probably suffice so long as your photos come out great. Nobody asks you what lens you used after looking at the pics, unless they're photography nuts.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 31, 2010)

Unfortunately people do care what equipment you are shooting with. A lot of couples do ask what equipment you will be using for their wedding (even if they have no idea about photography).


----------



## nonamexx (Dec 31, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> Unfortunately people do care what equipment you are shooting with. A lot of couples do ask what equipment you will be using for their wedding (even if they have no idea about photography).



Seems rather a waste of money to impress a few people buying a new lens for one occasion (if you have no other specific requirement for it).

Of course, you all know my tight-fistedness by now. I think a hundred times before spending a single rupee (or dollar) and my motto is "maximize what you have".


----------



## John Mc (Dec 31, 2010)

I Agree with Schwetty. im shooting my uncles wedding,and although he doesent know about photography.he's still offered to compensate me if i need to hire better lenses.which i plan on doing.

Its not a waste of Money at all if your images are better and it get's you more work.maximise what you have yes,but this also includes what's in your pocket and will spending moeny on hiring something to improve your work be worth it in the long run,i think the answer is yes! the purchase/hire will pay for itself over time!


----------



## sobolik (Dec 31, 2010)

Schwettylens said:


> Unfortunately people do care what equipment you are shooting with. A lot of couples do ask what equipment you will be using for their wedding (even if they have no idea about photography).



Then those people are stupid. Any one with brains will ask "let me see your work. I want to see your last wedding's photos"

It is like asking a painter what brushes do you use instead of give me references to some houses you have painted.


----------



## RauschPhotography (Dec 31, 2010)

harishankar said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately people do care what equipment you are shooting with. A lot of couples do ask what equipment you will be using for their wedding (even if they have no idea about photography).
> ...



It's not just about impressing people... It's about giving your clients the best job possible, even if it does mean throwing out some cash to rent a lens. It's not a bad idea at all.


----------



## nonamexx (Dec 31, 2010)

John Mc said:


> I Agree with Schwetty. im shooting my uncles wedding,and although he doesent know about photography.he's still offered to compensate me if i need to hire better lenses.which i plan on doing.
> 
> Its not a waste of Money at all if your images are better and it get's you more work.maximise what you have yes,but this also includes what's in your pocket and will spending moeny on hiring something to improve your work be worth it in the long run,i think the answer is yes! the purchase/hire will pay for itself over time!



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.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 31, 2010)

I know sobolik.  Just telling you how it is.  You can have really great portfolio and once in a while a bride like this will ask the question.  Then she finds out you shoot with kit lens (she knows because she googled it LOL) then you lose a client.  People are being judged constantly with what they look like, what they wear, what equipment they use.  It has been discussed many times.



sobolik said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately people do care what equipment you are shooting with. A lot of couples do ask what equipment you will be using for their wedding (even if they have no idea about photography).
> ...


----------



## enzodm (Dec 31, 2010)

harishankar said:


> 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).


----------



## nonamexx (Dec 31, 2010)

enzodm said:


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



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 (Dec 31, 2010)

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 (Dec 31, 2010)

harishankar said:


> 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 (Dec 31, 2010)

John Mc said:


> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> > 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 have no idea what to google for. Care to assist?


----------



## John Mc (Dec 31, 2010)

harishankar said:


> enzodm said:
> 
> 
> > harishankar said:
> ...



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 (Dec 31, 2010)

harishankar said:


> 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 (Dec 31, 2010)

harishankar said:


> 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 (Dec 31, 2010)

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 (Dec 31, 2010)

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 (Dec 31, 2010)

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 (Dec 31, 2010)

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 (Dec 31, 2010)

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 (Dec 31, 2010)

harishankar said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 31, 2010)

Enzodm, Nice Reference.


----------



## nonamexx (Dec 31, 2010)

enzodm said:


> harishankar said:
> 
> 
> > When did the debate become zoom lenses vs. prime lenses?
> ...



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.


----------



## Dao (Dec 31, 2010)

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 (Dec 31, 2010)

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 (Dec 31, 2010)

Nice snapshots! :thumbup:


----------



## schumionbike (Dec 31, 2010)

Light Artisan said:


> Nice snapshots! :thumbup:


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


----------



## iamacyborg (Dec 31, 2010)

Light Artisan said:


> Nice snapshots! :thumbup:



Snapshots indeed.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 31, 2010)

iamacyborg said:


> Light Artisan said:
> 
> 
> > Nice snapshots! :thumbup:
> ...




He said he didn't want C&C


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

Dao said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2011)

ababysean said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


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



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


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

Dao said:


> sobolik said:
> 
> 
> > Dao said:
> ...



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


----------



## enzodm (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2011)

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 (Jan 1, 2011)

enzodm said:


> sobolik said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 1, 2011)

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 (Jan 1, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## enzodm (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> ababysean said:
> 
> 
> > the kit lens of today and entry level dslr of today are far superior then cameras and lenses of yesteryear.
> ...




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 (Jan 1, 2011)

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 (Jan 1, 2011)

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 (Jan 1, 2011)

heyjoe said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



"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 (Jan 1, 2011)

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 (Jan 1, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> Light Artisan said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...



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 (Jan 1, 2011)

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 (Jan 1, 2011)

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?



sobolik said:


> 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.
> ...


----------



## Dao (Jan 1, 2011)

enzodm said:


> sobolik said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 1, 2011)

Light Artisan said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				Light Artisan said:
			
		

> 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 (Jan 1, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> 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"

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 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> heyjoe said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 1, 2011)

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


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

gsgary said:


> sobolik said:
> 
> 
> > heyjoe said:
> ...




"if you check the settings you would see it's imposible"  

What settings I find no EXIF data in this photo

"imposible" ?????   Double the ISO with a kit lens and you have this shot.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 1, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


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



What when i was shooting at 300mm at 1/125 (non IS)


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> "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.
> 
> ...


 
You know what, you are 100% right, no one should ever by pro level glass and all of you should immediately throw away all the pro level glass you already have. Then while you are at it, would you be so kind as to tell your customers that no one on the planet uses pro glass except me and have them PM me here 

You really are naive enough to think that jacking up the ISO at a wedding is an acceptable tradeoff so you can use a kit lens? 

You really believe a kit lens can get you the amount and quality of bokeh that a pro lens can? Really?

Not to mention build quality (because no one ever whacks their lens into anything when they use it daily to earn money), weather sealing (because no one ever splashes or spills anything at weddings, and it never rains, or the sprinklers never come on, etc), and of course the glass is not better or coatings better (that's all just a myth, ignore all the tests and benchmarks and photoshop plugins designed to try and fix all the distortion of the kit lenses etc). 

You certainly are entitled to your opinion but to me your opinion ranks right up there with the people who were abducted by aliens.  (hey, prove they _weren't_ abducted by aliens!)

Allan


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

You knee jerk fast glass types are now just getting to be tantrum trowing liars that make up what ever you want to believe, to include fabricating and putting words in other peoples mouths.  (i.e liars)  And other just stupid juvinile tantrum antics "to me your opinion ranks right up there with the people who were abducted by aliens"

Take a step back and ask yourself. Do you really learn. Do you really improve or do you just seize upon a crutch (fast glass) and stagnate forever.

Stop the tantrums and move on.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 1, 2011)

You're so sure of yourself, yet can't produce 1 sample photo.

And now I'm a liar for ever recommending fast glass when I felt it would help?


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> Take a step back and ask yourself. Do you really learn. Do you really improve or do you just seize upon a crutch (fast glass) and stagnate forever.



I don't see high quality glass as an issue for a beginner if that is their desire, and I dont see it as a crutch. Speaking of sharpness that many higher end lenses are capable of, that IMO is an important tool to eliminate the question of  a soft focus or a lack of sharpness found in some lower end lenses.

If in the end the glass that has the tested credentials to provide tack sharp shots, provides shots that are not tack sharp, the the guy behind the camera is doing somehting wrong. For the beginner, the question of is it the lens is eliminated right off the bat, its not the gear, its the guy (generally speaking)

The biggest crutch _for everyone_ is post processing as far as I am concerned.


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> You knee jerk fast glass types are now just getting to be tantrum trowing liars that make up what ever you want to believe, to include fabricating and putting words in other peoples mouths. (i.e liars) And other just stupid juvinile tantrum antics "to me your opinion ranks right up there with the people who were abducted by aliens"
> 
> Take a step back and ask yourself. Do you really learn. Do you really improve or do you just seize upon a crutch (fast glass) and stagnate forever.
> 
> Stop the tantrums and move on.


 
That's OK, at least I don't just group everyone who things fast glass has it's place in one large group, call them names, insult them, say they are wrong, and provide not one single answer to their questions or shred of evidence. Were you abducted? :lmao::lmao::lmao: Did the aliens use a kit lens on you? :mrgreen:

Allan


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 1, 2011)

Awesome read!


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> You're so sure of yourself, yet can't produce 1 sample photo.
> 
> And now I'm a liar for ever recommending fast glass when I felt it would help?




Dude, give it up. Take a time out and the tantrums will subside.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 1, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> You're so sure of yourself, yet can't produce 1 sample photo.



I know, right!


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Light Artisan said:
> 
> 
> > You're so sure of yourself, yet can't produce 1 sample photo.
> ...


 
Wait a minute, Bitter and I agree on something? Was 1/1/11 really when the world was going to end? Has _that place_ frozen over finally? I don't know what to say!

Allan


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

OH MY gOD ART WOLFE USE AN f4 LENS! GASP!

Given the remote locations that Art travels to, he ensures that he  has backups of his equipment while also keeping an eye on volume and  weight given the amount of hiking involved. "On many of these  international trips, we are limited by the airlines as to how much we  can carry, so we are always trying to find ways to reduce our load,"  said Wolfe, "but we also don't have a way to get replacement gear  easily, so we have to be prepared for the worst." For the South Georgia  trip, Art carried the following camera gear:


Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II body
Canon EOS 5D body
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L USM lens
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens
Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift lens
Canon 400mm f/4 DO IS USM lens
Travels to the Edge with Art Wolfe: Behind the Scenes


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

LOL, thanks very much for helping our cause, I see 2.8, 2.8, 2.8, 2.8 and f4 for only the 400mm (still a $6000 lens!). Not a kit lens one in the bunch, not even close.

Allan


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

flea77 said:


> LOL, thanks very much for helping our cause, I see 2.8, 2.8, 2.8, 2.8 and f4 for only the 400mm (still a $6000 lens!). Not a kit lens one in the bunch, not even close.
> 
> Allan


"Not a kit lens one in the bunch, not even close."

And Art Wolfe is no where close to being a beginner asking for advise on how to take better photos of the dog and the kids. "not even close"


----------



## gsgary (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > sobolik said:
> ...




This was shot at ISO3200 300mm F2.8 1/125 you would have to more than double it


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> flea77 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, thanks very much for helping our cause, I see 2.8, 2.8, 2.8, 2.8 and f4 for only the 400mm (still a $6000 lens!). Not a kit lens one in the bunch, not even close.
> ...


 
Ummm, then I have to ask, why did you post his equipment list?

Next, if you check the OP's other post http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...lery/228931-shooting-wedding-8-days-help.html you would see she is getting paid "MAJOR money" which means she is holding herself out to be a pro, just like Art Wolfe. Once you take a paying gig you are no longer "a beginner asking for advise on how to take better photos of the dog and the kids" as you said, you are doing it for a job. As a pro, you should have pro equipment, just like Art Wolfe. 

Allan


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 1, 2011)

Ahh, her... the self admitted chain jerker.

Makes complete sense now.


----------



## bigtwinky (Jan 1, 2011)

Skimmed throughh most of this, always love seeing these internet debates...amusing really.

Can newer cameras give great high iso?  Sure.  A nikon D3s or Canon 1DIV do great at ISO 6400.  Technically its true.  But in reality someone shooting with a kit lens is probably not someone who shoots with a kit lens.  So saying they can keep their kit lens and get a camera that does great high ISO is pointless IMO.


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

gsgary said:


> This was shot at ISO3200 300mm F2.8 1/125 you would have to more than double it


 
I could still do it! Instead of spending $4500 on that lens, I will just spend $7500 on a D3x and use a 70-300 VR! 

Allan

Wait a sec, did I just spend more money than if I had just bought the lens and still wound up with low quality glass with distortion and abberations at 300mm? CRUD!:lmao:


----------



## bigtwinky (Jan 1, 2011)

Does upping your camera's ISO help with the focus speed in low light of your lens as much as having a wide aperture does?


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

bigtwinky said:


> Does upping your camera's ISO help with the focus speed in low light of your lens as much as having a wide aperture does?


 
Aww now, quit trying to make sense! If you keep throwing out reasoned and logical questions like that you might hurt someone's feelings. 

Allan

PS. For those who don't know, the answer is no. And no, your focus assist light will not reach that far either. :mrgreen:


----------



## RyanLilly (Jan 1, 2011)

HaHaHa...this is a funny thread, but I think I'm now more stupid (stupider?) for reading the last 6 pages.

I have seen photos from several of my friends weddings shot with a kit lens(by "professionals") and quite frankly, the photos still would have sucked, if they had the top of the line gear. That does not mean that the gear cannot help make a better photo, they just need to learn how to use it.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 1, 2011)

It's 2011.. This forum is still like back in 2010    Drama... drama ... drama


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 1, 2011)

This thread is more popular than erose.


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

[quote


This was shot at ISO3200 300mm F2.8 1/125 you would have to more than double it[/quote]

   ISO 3200   f2.8   1/125
= ISO  6400  f4      1/125 (doubled ISO to get the same exposure)

But since we now know (claimed anyway) that it was a 300mm lens then f4 is not the number to work with. Rather f5.6 is the typical kit lens aperture at 300mm.

therefore:
    ISO 3200    f2.8     1/125
=  ISO 12800   f5.6     1/125 (Doubled and doubled again)

If you reduced shutter speed to 1/60th (likely adequate) then you are roughly back to doubling ISO needing 6144 ISO to give equal exposure.

Since my Nikon D90 only goes to 6400 ISO I would obviously choose the 1/60 shutter speed. 

Thus we see that this shot is far from "impossible" to get with a kit lens.  Furtermore thanks to software an underexposed shot with a kit lens can often be rescued rather easily.  

So the moral of the story is that the beginner has a lovely souvenir photo of a concert that was paid for with the $4000.00 dollars saved from not being talked into buying the fast glass. (300mm f4 vs 300mm f2.8 Digital Camera Lenses | Nikon Camera lenses | NIKKOR Optics)

If you are not an amateur beginner looking for souvenir photos but rather a pro expected to deliver the goods then this entire discussion is irrelevant as you will likely own the best made regardless of cost. Or an amateur who don't care about the costs of souvenir photos.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 1, 2011)

SabrinaO said:


> What's the big deal using a kit lens if flash is allowed? I just don't get why people are so against using a kit lens for a wedding. I have a 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 that I'm gonna be using along with my sb600 speedlight (with a diffuser of course). I have a 35mm 1.8 but I'm probably not gonna use it, because I think it's unnecessary because again... flash is allowed. I guess ill use it for portrait type shots for a nice creamy blurred background. But is there something I'm not getting? If so please explain why a kit lens is bad for a wedding.


 
Is this you!?


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

RyanLilly said:


> HaHaHa.........
> 
> I have seen photos from several of my friends weddings shot with a kit lens(by "professionals") and quite frankly, the photos still would have sucked, if they had the top of the line gear. That does not mean that the gear cannot help make a better photo, they just need to learn how to use it.



Exactly! Dead on bulls-eye.


----------



## RyanLilly (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> RyanLilly said:
> 
> 
> > HaHaHa.........
> ...



Yes, but when a person understands the limits of their kit lenses, and has the experience to take advantage of better and faster lenses, they can archive superior results.


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> SabrinaO said:
> 
> 
> > What's the big deal using a kit lens if flash is allowed? I just don't get why people are so against using a kit lens for a wedding. I have a 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 that I'm gonna be using along with my sb600 speedlight (with a diffuser of course). I have a 35mm 1.8 but I'm probably not gonna use it, because I think it's unnecessary because again... flash is allowed. I guess ill use it for portrait type shots for a nice creamy blurred background. But is there something I'm not getting? If so please explain why a kit lens is bad for a wedding.
> ...


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> Since my Nikon D90 only goes to 6400 ISO I would obviously choose the 1/60 shutter speed.
> 
> Thus we see that this shot is far from "impossible" to get with a kit lens. Furtermore thanks to software an underexposed shot with a kit lens can often be rescued rather easily.


 
I have a D90 (one of my backups) and I am here to say that even with the best software (which I believe is Topaz Denoise 5, which I have as well) and underexposed shot at 6400 iso has in my experience been a worthless blob of goo. I would love to see you rescue one of those and show me how.



sobolik said:


> If you are not an amateur beginner looking for souvenir photos but rather a pro expected to deliver the goods then this entire discussion is irrelevant as you will likely own the best made regardless of cost. Or an amateur who don't care about the costs of souvenir photos.


 
Then why did you jump in here and start berating us since the original poster was doing a PAID wedding, and was expected to _deliver the goods_ yet wanted to use her kit lens. 

As many here have stated, and I completely agree with, pro glass is essential, WHEN YOU NEED IT. If someone is being paid to deliver a pro product, then you need it. When someone posts a pro picture and says they want to take pictures like that, then they need it. No one here is suggesting buying thousands of dollars of glass to take better family photos or pictures of their dog to post on Facebook. No one here is suggesting that you need to buy thousands in a pro body, or thousands in pro glass to take pictures AS A GUEST AND NOT THE ACTUAL WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER at a friend's wedding.

Here is what can happen when you shoot for pay with kit lenses:lmao::





 

Allan


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> See previous poster about the photos would still suck even if they used the best equipment. The moral of the story is that you can always find people that complain and want their money back. They just need an excuse and in this case they blamed the camera. If they would have used the best they would have had to blame something else - like talent? Apparently the Judge didn't like the talent either.
> 
> I wonder if the plaintiff insisted on keeping the "lousy ruined" photos? Hmmmmm?


 
You mean the previous poster who said the pictures sucked and were taken by a kit lens? That previous poster? 

Sure they sucked, sure they would have sucked with pro glass. You know why? Because they were inexperienced enough to think that a kit lens could do a pro job, which means they had no idea what they were doing. Someone with no idea what they are doing will suck with $20,000 worth of equipment. But most people with pro equipment know better, and would do better, otherwise they would not have made enough money to afford the pro equipment in the first place.

Allan


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 1, 2011)

One does not have to be a pro to afford pro gear.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 1, 2011)

How to shoot a wedding - Lesson 2


----------



## vtf (Jan 1, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> This thread is more popular than erose.


 
I'm not diggin the new erose avatar, maybe thats why.


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> One does not have to be a pro to afford pro gear.


 
 Generally speaking from many years of golf experience, nearly every beginner balks at the goofs who try to peddle them expensive pro level clubs.  But every once in a while someone bites thinking it will get them game. Then they realize that sure was an expensive lesson.
I also believe nearly all beginners on photo forums balk at the suggestions to spend fortunes on fast glass. But many are confused.

I don't object to people having expensive photography equipment. 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.  Of course anyone honestly paying attention knows my stance.  Many and I believe you are one completely reword it your own mind to say all kinds of things and then get mad. They invent their own scenario to be mad about.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 1, 2011)

This isn't golf, this is wedding photography. The only person you screw over in golf is yourself, weddings are a liability.

Title of this thread is 'kit lens for weddings', shooting weddings isn't for beginners - period, anything wedding related shouldn't even be in the beginners forum in my opinion.

Second shooter, cousin Larry, etc... sure, but main shooter? Should know better.


----------



## OrionsByte (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> 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.


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> One does not have to be a pro to afford pro gear.


 
Which is why I specifically stated "most people with pro equipment know better" and not everyone with pro equipment.

Allan


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> I don't object to people having expensive photography equipment. 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. Of course anyone honestly paying attention knows my stance. Many and I believe you are one completely reword it your own mind to say all kinds of things and then get mad. They invent their own scenario to be mad about.


 
But that is NOT what is happening in this thread. This thread was started by someone shooting a wedding for money, and "MAJOR money" so they say. If the bride and groom are spending "MAJOR money", they should be getting professional results, from a professional, using professional equipment, period.

Now why you choose to bring your rant into this thread which is not about beginners, or people wanting better pictures of their dog, or better pictures of their family, is beyond me. 

Allan


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 1, 2011)

It's how he rolls!

Troublemaker.


----------



## vtf (Jan 1, 2011)

erose86 said:


> vtf said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...


We'll accept a crappy shot boudoir Im sure.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> GeorgieGirl said:
> 
> 
> > One does not have to be a pro to afford pro gear.
> ...



Mad, me? No, not at all. Lets just put it this way. I am a Gourmet. I think that if anyone wants to improve their passion for preparations and cooking they would be better off if they used Shun knives as their tools of the trade.

I don't expect that anyone starting out can afford a set of these high end knives, but once they can get them in their hands and use them, its a different story. Similarly, I think a specific use tomato knife, which does not cost a lot at all, does an exceptional job and much better than any all purpose knife that might cost more even though its a more generic knife. 

As for golf, I do think, from my own experience that some of the better clubs will give even the beginner the edge due to the way they handle the impact of the ball. I know when I switched from wood drivers to metal drivers the imrpovement in my abiilities to drive well was obvious.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jan 1, 2011)

Im going to let Phil Mickelson use my $99 sport authority golf set.  He will kill any of you with your PING set.


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

OrionsByte said:


> sobolik said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> Im going to let Phil Mickelson use my $99 sport authority golf set.  He will kill any of you with your PING set.



Phil could use a - right hand - set and kill us.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 1, 2011)

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 (Jan 1, 2011)

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

CANON EOS REBEL XT SLR PROFESSIONAL DIGITAL CAMERA


----------



## OrionsByte (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> OrionsByte said:
> 
> 
> > sobolik said:
> ...



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 (Jan 1, 2011)

The argument has evolved.


----------



## sobolik (Jan 1, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> 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 (Jan 1, 2011)

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

Allan


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 1, 2011)

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 (Jan 1, 2011)

[/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 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> OrionsByte said:
> 
> 
> > sobolik said:
> ...



OMG!





Here, erose...


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 1, 2011)

Shift change, I'm done.


----------



## OrionsByte (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> Go away.



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


----------



## flea77 (Jan 1, 2011)

sobolik said:


> 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).



sobolik said:


> "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 (Jan 1, 2011)

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 (Jan 1, 2011)

Oh, flea, I knew you would not disappoint!

For this I thank you.


----------



## PatrickCheung (Jan 2, 2011)

nooo! dont stop!


----------



## syphlix (Jan 2, 2011)

a paid wedding photog who uses a kit lens should be embarrassed... though if you're just a guest who likes to take photos then who cares...


----------



## gsgary (Jan 2, 2011)

sobolik said:


> [quote
> 
> 
> This was shot at ISO3200 300mm F2.8 1/125 you would have to more than double it



   ISO 3200   f2.8   1/125
= ISO  6400  f4      1/125 (doubled ISO to get the same exposure)

But since we now know (claimed anyway) that it was a 300mm lens then f4 is not the number to work with. Rather f5.6 is the typical kit lens aperture at 300mm.

therefore:
    ISO 3200    f2.8     1/125
=  ISO 12800   f5.6     1/125 (Doubled and doubled again)

If you reduced shutter speed to 1/60th (likely adequate) then you are roughly back to doubling ISO needing 6144 ISO to give equal exposure.

Since my Nikon D90 only goes to 6400 ISO I would obviously choose the 1/60 shutter speed. 

Thus we see that this shot is far from "impossible" to get with a kit lens.  Furtermore thanks to software an underexposed shot with a kit lens can often be rescued rather easily.  

So the moral of the story is that the beginner has a lovely souvenir photo of a concert that was paid for with the $4000.00 dollars saved from not being talked into buying the fast glass. (300mm f4 vs 300mm f2.8 Digital Camera Lenses | Nikon Camera lenses | NIKKOR Optics)

If you are not an amateur beginner looking for souvenir photos but rather a pro expected to deliver the goods then this entire discussion is irrelevant as you will likely own the best made regardless of cost. Or an amateur who don't care about the costs of souvenir photos.[/QUOTE]


*Sorry but you are talking through your arse it sounds like you have never taken a picture in your life 1/60 would give you a blurry mess , every lens i have bought has paid for itself except the one i bought before Christmas
Jealousy is a bad trate
*


----------



## fredgettings (Feb 18, 2011)

A lot of these kit lenses are decent. They are not exceptional.


----------



## ghache (Feb 18, 2011)

It all comes down to knowledge and technique and experience. I am pretty sure you swap any good wedding photographer's D3s off thier hands and replace it with a d90 and a 18-200 VRII and im pretty sure he will manage to go though the day and get pretty much the same quality shots he usually gets.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Feb 18, 2011)

Seriously, this entire thread is complete nonsense. Sobolik, I suppose you only shoot with a kit lens then right? Its the only lens you need after all and is of equal quality of all other lenses.What a joke. I think you just like dipping your swizzle stick in and stirring the pot. Do you absolutely NEED a kit lens for a wedding? Under most circumstances, no. However, for certain effects ( Formal shots with DOF effects, low light shots with movement ) you absolutely do, but its not a MUST have. So in a sense, I agree that fast glass is sometimes pushed excessively. I would rather shoot a wedding with my 17-40L f/4 and 580EX, than with a 50mm 1.8 MarkII budget prime and no flash. But to say the kit lens is as good as most faster pieces of glass, is complete BS. And every higher end lens is going to have better IQ than that kit lens. Sure there are crap budget lenses that are worse, but people argue primes because they are the cheapest next step up in IQ as well as speed in most cases. Also, as everyone has failed to mention, a fast lens also allows your camera to focus better given that tha aperture is wider so the camera sees better. The aperture only closes to the chosen f/stop when the picture is taken. Sure using a flash (assuming it is capable ) can help AF if it has an assist but we don't know that.


----------



## Hardrock (Feb 18, 2011)

I have only shot one wedding and would hate to have shot it with a kit lens!!! I am far from a professional but if you plan to shoot a wedding you better have some good gear which includes FAST GLASS. You may not always be at 1.8 or 2.8 but that will allow the lens to focus faster during those fast times. But then again that is my opinion!


----------

