The one-lens wedding

[JDArt]

Excuse me if this has been asked or answered already. If you're choosing just one lens for a wedding, which would it be? The 24-70 variety? Or something more/less versatile?

Thanks.

[CyberPet]

I'd say yeah... the 24-70 or similar would be a great allround lens, probably used about 90-95% of the time by me.

[Kevin Barrett]

24-105

[deluco]

Tamron 24-135
I saw a Nikor 18-200 IS lens a week ago. f3.5-56. Very small and light, too. I'm sure it's very expensive but that would be excellent if it's in the budget and it focuses at 200mm (300 on some camera's).

[Mark McCall]

Tamron 28-200 F3.8-5.6.
(I know, I know.....but it's so darn sharp, and includes every focal length I need).

[Uncle Frank]

Originally Posted by JDArt

Excuse me if this has been asked or answered already. If you're choosing just one lens for a wedding, which would it be? The 24-70 variety? Or something more/less versatile?

It's tempting to get something with a wide zoom range, but it's important to have a fast lens for the receptions, which are normally held in halls with poor lighting.* Even if you are going to use flash, an f/2.8 zoom has an easier time focusing in low light.* And the wide aperture lenses offer possibilities to seperate the subject from the background by setting up for narrow DOF.

I've used the 28-70/2.8 Nikkor for 95% of the shots in my last 3 weddings.

[Uncle Frank]

Posted in error.

[Narsuitus]

I recommend a normal prime lens or a midrange zoom lens for the one-lens wedding.

I have photographed many a wedding with only an 80mm f/2.8 normal lens on a 6x6cm medium format camera.

I know many photographers who shoot weddings with only a 35-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens on a 35mm film camera or a 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom lens on an APS sized digital camera.

[Narsuitus]

For shooting available light wedding candids, a 50mm f/1.4 or a 35mm f/1.4, or an 85mm f/1.4 on a 35mm film camera is hard to beat.

[TonyK]

For me it was the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 Di lens. I had the 28-200 F3.8 to 5.6 and traded it in for the 28-75. The 24-105 was not out a couple of years ago. It would be a contender if I was buying now.

[rpcrowe]

The Rpcrowe Law of Wedding Photography is an "Anti Murphy's Law" practice. The Rpcrowe Law states: "Always have redundancy in equipment when shooting a wedding". There is no way in the world that I would EVER shoot a wedding with one camera body. That is just asking for old Mr. Murphy to activate His Law and bite you on the "you know where".

The principal wedding photographer (paid or unpaid) must have at least two camera bodies. Since you need two cameras, you might as well have at least two lenses and more preferably - redundancy again. Accepting a gig as a wedding photographer requires that you accept the responsibility for delivering a good product. "My camera or lens went down" isn't any excuse.

IMO; probably the best 3-lens and 2-body set-up with Canon gear (I am sure Nikon has some comparables) would be the 16-35 f/2.8L; 24-70 f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lenses with 2 full-frame bodies. There certainly are other similar combinations but, this is what I would use if I started to shoot weddings again. I have in past years been asked to produce some pretty big prints of weddings I shot - these lenses on a f/f camera would allow me to produce those big prints. I would actually prefer to have two 24-70L lenses alomg with the other two. However, with those three lenses - if one goes down, you could get by using the other two lenses.

Can you shoot a wedding using a 1.6x crop camera? Sure you can but, if you are doing it professionally, the added weight and cost of the full frame system should not be a limiting factor.

Heavy - yes! Expensive - heck yes! But, the ceiling of the Cistern Chapel wasn't done using a paint by numbers set.