The Professional's Source
800.606.6969 / 212.444.6615
items - 
To Zoom or Not to Zoom: Choosing Lenses
When push comes to shove, a good photographer can make do with almost any lens he or she has at hand. Depending on the lens, there may be a few impossible shots or angles, but the job will be completed and delivered as agreed upon. Fortunately, any photographer worth his or her salt almost always has a bag full of optics that allows them to handle anything that comes their way, indoors or out.
Optics come in two flavors: zoom and fixed focal lengths. The “ideal” lens arsenal should be a mix of both types.
Zoom lenses are handy in that they save you a great deal of leg work by enabling you to frame tight shots from a fixed position, which in a crowded wedding environment can be a life (and leg) saver. The down side is that with the exception of a pair of Four Third format zooms from Olympus sporting maximum apertures of f/2.0, the widest aperture you’ll find from all other lens manufacturers is f/2.8, which is fine for outdoor shooting but less than optimal for indoor shooting. How can you get around this lens-speed issue?
We’re glad you asked. The saving grace for shooting with zooms indoors and in low light is that many of them are available with image stabilization (IS), which depending on the make and model, enables you to shoot handheld at shutter speeds three to four stops (!) slower than one would be able to handhold a comparable, faster fixed focal length lens. Combining this three-to-four stop advantage with the ability to expand the ISO range of most all DSLRs to ISO 6400 and beyond, it’s suddenly possible to capture sharp, relatively noise-free image files in very dim lighting conditions without having to rely on flash. Just keep in mind that while image stabilization enables sharp handheld photographs of static, non-moving subjects at low shutter speeds, moving subjects will still appear blurred, especially if you’re not tracking your subject.
Fixed focal length optics require a bit more running to and fro in order to frame tight shots, but with maximum apertures as wide as f/1.8, f/1.9, f/1.4—and wider—zooms pale in comparison. Besides a brighter image in the viewfinder, wider aperture fixed focal length lenses focus quicker; establish light readings quicker and more accurately and in many cases, can focus closer to your subject than comparable zoom lenses.
“Zooms make it easy to frame tight shots
from a fixed position”
Wider-aperture, fixed focal length lenses also allow you to employ selective focus techniques, in which the foreground and background can be knocked out of focus, which makes the subject pop out as the center of attention. Fast wide-angle primes worth considering for wedding photography include Canon’s EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM, EF 28mm f/1.8, EF 35mm/f2.0 and EF 35mm f/1.4L USM. Nikon’s fast wide-angle offerings include the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G ED and AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G.
Fast, short telephotos, which are ideal for portraits and tight low-light detail imagery, include Canon’s super-fast 
EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, Canon’s EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.0 USM and EF 135mm f/2.0L. Nikon’s fast telephoto lineup includes the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D. Regardless of whether you’re shooting with a full-frame or APS-C format DSLR, you’ll have little trouble finding uses for a fast 50mm lens, which from Canon include the EF 50mm f 1.8 II, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and super-fast EF 50mm f/1.2L USM. From Nikon, we have the Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G, AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D, AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G, and for shooting in the lowest of light levels—albeit in manual focus only—the Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AIS.
Nikon’s DC-series lenses (the AF DC Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D and AF DC Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D) go one step further by offering a fast (f/2.0) maximum aperture as well as the ability to adjust the angle of focus by shifting the alignment of the front lens element. 
Depending on the degree of the shift and the positioning of the front element, you can further alter the degree of focus fore, aft or to the sides of your subject(s), which makes for interesting picture possibilities.
DC optics aside, no wedding photographer worth his or her salt should head off to a wedding without a fast, mid-range telephoto lens in their camera bag. For full-frame DSLRs this means a fast (f/2, 1.8, 1.4, or 1.2) lens in the 85mm to 105mm range, or in the case of compact DSLRs, an equally fast 50mm and 85mm lens.
With the exception of the formal portraits, many wedding shots are taken in tight quarters, in which you often have to squeeze many people into the image frame. As such, you’re going to find yourself depending on wide-angle lenses during the course of the day, and don’t be surprised if your 28mm (or equivalent) lens doesn’t quite cut it for many photo ops. If anything, you’re going to find a lens in the 20- to 21mm range to be far more useful at a wedding, which is why many wedding photographers swear by 16- to 35mm zooms for full-frame 35mm DSLRs, and zooms in the 10- to 24mm range when shooting with compact (APS-C format) DSLRs.
Fisheye lenses, specifically the full-frame variety, can also be used effectively for wedding photography; 
they should be used judiciously, though (don’t stick them smack in anybody’s face!). Most full-frame fisheye lenses can capture anywhere from 160° to 180° of a given scene. Even though fisheyes inherently curve straight lines other than the center horizon line, they can be extremely effective at capturing the entirety of the ceremony, dancing and other broad tableaux that would normally require you to back up, when that space isn’t available.
What’s particularly nice about shooting with full-frame fisheyes is that it’s possible to “straighten out” these images through the use of de-barrelizing software, which narrows the angle of view to a still respectably wide 110° to 120°, minus the distortion factors common to fisheye pictures. Canon has two fisheye offerings: the Canon Fisheye EF 15mm f/2.8, a fixed focal length lens with a full-frame (rectangular) 180° field-of-view, and a new Canon EF 8-15mm f/4L USM Fisheye Ultra-Wide, which zooms from a circular 180° field of view to an ultra-wide (approx 110°) field of view.
Nikon manufactures two non-circular fisheye lenses—the Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED DX Fisheye for Nikon APS-C format DSLRs and the Nikon 16mm f/2.8D AF Fisheye for Nikon's full-frame DSLRs—both 
of which can be straightened using Nikon NX 2 software (RAW-NEF files only). There are also a number of third party de-barrelizing applications designed to correct fisheye distortions using full-frame fisheye lenses from almost all manufacturers.
One last group of optics worth looking into is macro lenses, which enable you to focus as close as life size to your subject. Macro lenses can be used to capture close details of table settings, flowers, table cards, the couple’s rings and other details that bring out the special atmosphere of the day. Macros are available in a range of focal lengths for APS-C, full-frame “35s,” and medium-format cameras.
Note: Regardless of your choice of lenses, ultimately it’s the person behind the lens who sees the image in his/her mind’s eye, composes the picture and presses the shutter release at the “decisive” moment. Although your choice of lens makes a difference in terms of sharpness and tonality, a well-composed picture that captures the right slice of time, emotion, atmosphere—even if it’s a bit blurred or a touch soft, can often have a stronger impact than a photograph that’s technically on the nose, but misses the mark in terms of composition or aesthetics.
Do you have a particular lens or set of lenses that you like to use for photographing weddings? Regardless of whether you are a professional who shoots two weddings per week, or if you only photograph the occasional wedding, most of us have very subjective preferences when it comes to the gear we use. Please feel free to share your opinions here and tell us about some of your experiences, preferences and handy workarounds.
We would love to hear from you! For any questions regarding wedding gear, technical issues or to share your experiences, B&H advisors are on hand via email at askbh@bhphoto.com, live chat, or phone us at 877-818-2225 or 212-465-0196.
Comments
Ok, this is going to be a very basic comment. I've been asked to photograph a friends wedding, with little money for a camera upgrade. So I am going to be using my Pentax K100D.
Could anybody give me advice an what lenses would be most suitable for the job?
Thanks in advance
Just to share my experience, from analog to digital photography.
I've always used two sets: two Leica M6, for low light and no flash pictures (Summilux 35/f1.4 Aspherical and Summicron 90/f2.0 Apo) and a Nikon F6 (several original Nikkors in more than 30 years, always fixed lens, but mainly 24/f2.8, 50/f1.4, 105/f2.0 DC, 180/f2.8), I do like Nikon "flash performances" with both Nikon and Metz flashes. Kodak Portra for colour or Ilford HP5 for B&W....
Now, even if I still have one M6 and the F6, I use a Leica M8 (waiting for a M9...) and a D700; same lenses plus a Zeiss Distagon T 18/4.0 for the M8 and a Zeiss Distagon T 18/3.5 ZF2 for the D700 (here, sometimes, I miss the autofocus).
Besides, as cleverly stated in the article, the main thing is not the stuff but the photographer's eye and sensibility.
Just to share my experience, from analog to digital photography.
I've always used two sets: two Leica M6, for low light and no flash pictures (Summilux 35/f1.4 Aspherical and Summicron 90/f2.0 Apo) and a Nikon F6 (several original Nikkors in more than 30 years, always fixed lens, but mainly 24/f2.8, 50/f1.4, 105/f2.0 DC, 180/f2.8), I do like Nikon "flash performances" with both Nikon and Metz flashes. Kodak Portra for colour or Ilford HP5 for B&W....
Now, even if I still have one M6 and the F6, I use a Leica M8 (waiting for a M9...) and a D700; same lenses plus a Zeiss Distagon T 18/4.0 for the M8 and a Zeiss Distagon T 18/3.5 ZF2 for the D700 (here, sometimes, I miss the autofocus).
Besides, as cleverly stated in the article, the main thing is not the stuff but the photographer's eye and sensibility.
The photographer's eye always has been mightier than the sword... or in this case, the camera, lens, and flash system!
Not all photographers use Canon or Nikon cameras, including wedding photographers. The complete exclusion of any reference to other makes and how they also have lenses and stabilization systems well-suited to wedding photography is unfortunate, to say the least. In fact, some of these other systems, with their in-camera stabilization systems, which are able to work with any lens, including fixed focal length and wide-angle lenses for which their are no IS or VR counterparts from Canon or Nikon, might arguably make them even better suited to wedding photography. For example, Sony's 16-35/2.8 Zeiss, 24-70/2.8 Zeiss, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 Zeiss and 135/1.8 Zeiss lens are all stabilized on an A900 FF body and provide outstanding optical performance. Sony's 70-200/2.8 G also is an excellent lens and is the only one for which there is a comparable IS or VR lens from Canon or Nikon. Olympus, which also features in-camera stabilization, has some high quality faster-than-normal zooms of similar effective ranges, though the 4/3 format does have more compromises for high ISO shooting.
The continual emphasis, focus, orientation, or whatever other descriptive word you want to use, on Canon or Nikon to the exclusion of their competitors, only serves to misinform the reader/consumer and perpetuate an oligopolistic system that makes it even harder for worthwhile competitors.
Mr. Weitz does a disservice to his readers and to B&H customers in limiting his discussion of lenses appropriate for weddings to only Canon or Nikon. While he certainly is not the only industry writer to do this, that doesn't make it right. It is, unfortunately, an all too common occurrence in the industry and trade press.
Not all photographers use Canon or Nikon cameras, including wedding photographers. The complete exclusion of any reference to other makes and how they also have lenses and stabilization systems well-suited to wedding photography is unfortunate, to say the least. In fact, some of these other systems, with their in-camera stabilization systems, which are able to work with any lens, including fixed focal length and wide-angle lenses for which their are no IS or VR counterparts from Canon or Nikon, might arguably make them even better suited to wedding photography. For example, Sony's 16-35/2.8 Zeiss, 24-70/2.8 Zeiss, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 Zeiss and 135/1.8 Zeiss lens are all stabilized on an A900 FF body and provide outstanding optical performance. Sony's 70-200/2.8 G also is an excellent lens and is the only one for which there is a comparable IS or VR lens from Canon or Nikon. Olympus, which also features in-camera stabilization, has some high quality faster-than-normal zooms of similar effective ranges, though the 4/3 format does have more compromises for high ISO shooting.
The continual emphasis, focus, orientation, or whatever other descriptive word you want to use, on Canon or Nikon to the exclusion of their competitors, only serves to misinform the reader/consumer and perpetuate an oligopolistic system that makes it even harder for worthwhile competitors.
Mr. Weitz does a disservice to his readers and to B&H customers in limiting his discussion of lenses appropriate for weddings to only Canon or Nikon. While he certainly is not the only industry writer to do this, that doesn't make it right. It is, unfortunately, an all too common occurrence in the industry and trade press.
Not all photographers use Canon or Nikon cameras, including wedding photographers. The complete exclusion of any reference to other makes and how they also have lenses and stabilization systems well-suited to wedding photography is unfortunate, to say the least. In fact, some of these other systems, with their in-camera stabilization systems, which are able to work with any lens, including fixed focal length and wide-angle lenses for which their are no IS or VR counterparts from Canon or Nikon, might arguably make them even better suited to wedding photography. For example, Sony's 16-35/2.8 Zeiss, 24-70/2.8 Zeiss, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 Zeiss and 135/1.8 Zeiss lens are all stabilized on an A900 FF body and provide outstanding optical performance. Sony's 70-200/2.8 G also is an excellent lens and is the only one for which there is a comparable IS or VR lens from Canon or Nikon. Olympus, which also features in-camera stabilization, has some high quality faster-than-normal zooms of similar effective ranges, though the 4/3 format does have more compromises for high ISO shooting.
The continual emphasis, focus, orientation, or whatever other descriptive word you want to use, on Canon or Nikon to the exclusion of their competitors, only serves to misinform the reader/consumer and perpetuate an oligopolistic system that makes it even harder for worthwhile competitors.
Mr. Weitz does a disservice to his readers and to B&H customers in limiting his discussion of lenses appropriate for weddings to only Canon or Nikon. While he certainly is not the only industry writer to do this, that doesn't make it right. It is, unfortunately, an all too common occurrence in the industry and trade press.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the feedback. As for your comments about our negating camera manufacturers other than Nikon and Canon, I must acknowledge your point, and the reason is because although other manufacturers do in fact produce excellent cameras and lenses, a majority of wedding photographers use Nikon and Canon products compared to others in the industry. Regardless, we will make a concerted effort to broaden our product range in the future when writing on topics such as these.
Sony Alpha 850. Thinking about buying a really good lens, so far have been making do with vintage minolta which are great, mostly. Still miss my film Konica T-3, can't use the lenses, sadly. Agree with poster about RAW. I now use Capture one 6.3 for most of my importing/editing, start with RAW its amazing what the software can do. For fine adjustments in B and W I go to photoshop and Nik Silver Efex Pro 2. like I said amazing.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the feedback. As for your comments about our negating camera manufacturers other than Nikon and Canon, I must acknowledge your point, and the reason is because although other manufacturers do in fact produce excellent cameras and lenses, a majority of wedding photographers use Nikon and Canon products compared to others in the industry. Regardless, we will make a concerted effort to broaden our product range in the future when writing on topics such as these.
Allan,
Thanks for your follow-up comment. While it is undeniable that most wedding photographers use Canon and Nikon products, not all do (including me, and there are many others of us, even if we are a minority). But, your article is not necessarily aimed at the established wedding photographer who presumably has most or all of what they need, and is knowledgeable, at least to some extent, about what he or she needs and what is available from their system manufacturer. Given the relatively basic information conveyed in your article, one has to assume it is targeted more towards the aspiring pro or part-time wedding photographer, perhaps someone who is not yet well-established with a particular brand or system.
It also is not unheard of for established part-time or pro shooters to switch brands (which actually is good for B&H as such photographers are looking to buy new equipment - you don't sell as much product to a photographer who already has what he or she needs). Many established system shooters don't pay as much attention to what a competing brand might offer them. I would imagine there are more than a few photographers that might be interested in having a stabilized 24-70/2.8, 50/1.4, or 135/1.8 lens, to mention just a few. Combined with higher ISOs, these can be fabulous low light combinations. How will photographers learn about these other excellent products if they are not discussed in articles such as yours?
There also are some noteworthy lenses from independent lens makers well suited to wedding use, such as Sigma's 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 HSM lenses, in addition to their zoom lens offerings. Tokina and Tamron also offer lenses similar to some of those you discuss.
An article that seeks to inform the novice, intermediate, and even the advanced photographer would be far more beneficial if it covered all of the options, or provided a fair sampling of all the options, rather than focusing on just two brands. It also would be more beneficial to B&H. It's not like B&H doesn't sell these other brands. Rather, it's a matter of not falling into the Canon/Nikon trap when writing about various categories of products. I appreciate the effort to try to broaden the product discussion in future articles.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the feedback. As for your comments about our negating camera manufacturers other than Nikon and Canon, I must acknowledge your point, and the reason is because although other manufacturers do in fact produce excellent cameras and lenses, a majority of wedding photographers use Nikon and Canon products compared to others in the industry. Regardless, we will make a concerted effort to broaden our product range in the future when writing on topics such as these.
Allan,
Thanks for your follow-up comment. While it is undeniable that most wedding photographers use Canon and Nikon products, not all do (including me, and there are many others of us, even if we are a minority). But, your article is not necessarily aimed at the established wedding photographer who presumably has most or all of what they need, and is knowledgeable, at least to some extent, about what he or she needs and what is available from their system manufacturer. Given the relatively basic information conveyed in your article, one has to assume it is targeted more towards the aspiring pro or part-time wedding photographer, perhaps someone who is not yet well-established with a particular brand or system.
It also is not unheard of for established part-time or pro shooters to switch brands (which actually is good for B&H as such photographers are looking to buy new equipment - you don't sell as much product to a photographer who already has what he or she needs). Many established system shooters don't pay as much attention to what a competing brand might offer them. I would imagine there are more than a few photographers that might be interested in having a stabilized 24-70/2.8, 50/1.4, or 135/1.8 lens, to mention just a few. Combined with higher ISOs, these can be fabulous low light combinations. How will photographers learn about these other excellent products if they are not discussed in articles such as yours?
There also are some noteworthy lenses from independent lens makers well suited to wedding use, such as Sigma's 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 HSM lenses, in addition to their zoom lens offerings. Tokina and Tamron also offer lenses similar to some of those you discuss.
An article that seeks to inform the novice, intermediate, and even the advanced photographer would be far more beneficial if it covered all of the options, or provided a fair sampling of all the options, rather than focusing on just two brands. It also would be more beneficial to B&H. It's not like B&H doesn't sell these other brands. Rather, it's a matter of not falling into the Canon/Nikon trap when writing about various categories of products. I appreciate the effort to try to broaden the product discussion in future articles.
And on our part we appreciate informed, real-world feedback such as yours, as it certainly rounds out our efforts in producing broad range topics such as wedding photography.
This article on wedding photography is excellent. I just wanted to add that I shoot weddings and most of my work comes from word of mouth advertising. I get great images with cheap Nikon lenses. My rig consists of a D80 camera with the 18-135 ED zoom that came with the camera. A 50mm 1.8D lens, and a SB 800 flash. I also have a SD 8A battery pack for quick flash recycles so not to miss a moment due to slow flash recycling. Anyway my 18-135 sees the majority of the workload. This lens makes some of the most sharpest, colorful pictures I've ever seen. And when It's time for outdoor portraits there's nothing out there that can touch this $100.00 50mm 1.8D lens. It's super light, has great bokeh. All I do is take my D80 off of matrix metering set it to center-weighted metering, move in to frame it tight and presto photos that look like a $1200.00 lens made the shot. A wedding photographer dosen't need a big heavy bag of gadgets. I've been using my set-up for five years now and counting. My D80, 18-135 zoom, 50mm 1.8D, SB 800 flash. And every now and then a tripod. I just wanted to inform those who may be thinking that It cost a fortune to get started in this kind of photography that it dosen't have to be. By the way the D80 can only take a 4GB SD card as a maximum capacity. This is still plenty of memory for the pictures that I take which are always in JPEG FINE mode. That setting gives me 530 pictures with dead on color accuracy where any kind of RAW photo retouching is simply unnecessary. I've found with my D80's white balance set to cloudy, wedding images come out perfect even with flash. No need to go RAW!!! Hope my two cents helps those who might've thought they couldn't do this. You can.
RAW is important no matter what. If you need an image to been done correctly and have more choices, yes RAW. And no way you are getting away with 4GB you should update since you are getting so much business.
Yes, RAW is a must for weddings. No question.
They are lossless files so you'll always have your originals even after edits, and you can adjust anything you need.
Also, if you have been shooting several weddings (paid) I'm assuming, you should have at least a D7000 or D700. The D80 get grainy around iso 600. What if you have to shoot in a church and aren't allowed to use flash? Also,you should def have a backup body in case one fails.
But, I'm sure you're decent if people keep hiring you. Good luck and most of all , if it works or you, that's all that matters.
Kevin, you post is full of nonsense. (a) I've been shooting on D-80 with 8GB card for four years –it works just fine, (b) 50mm 1.8 will NEVER produce the same kind of photos as a "$1200.00 lens" as you state. I have both 50mm 1.4 and a 24-70mm 2.8. My 50mm has its own charm and low light use, but to say that it could produce the same quality as far as sharpness, contrast, color, bokeh is ...well... an overstatement.(c) RAW files are crucial when doing weddings. That is your last chance to slightly adjust exposure, white balance etc without killing pixels. With a couple of 8GBs in your pocket why would you NOT set to Large+Raw?? I would never reply to posts like yours. The only reason I do now is that I don't want someone inexperienced read your post, set ISO to cloudy and shoot the wedding even when the bride is inside under fluorescent lighting?!. Go ahead, set you D80 at cloudy and shoot a few photos under fluorescent light. How do they look? Could use that RAW file now, huh? :)
You are so right, a real pro would not take photos without using top of the line lenses.
By the way the D80 can only take a 4GB SD card as a maximum capacity. This is still plenty of memory for the pictures that I take which are always in JPEG FINE mode. That setting gives me 530 pictures with dead on color accuracy where any kind of RAW photo retouching is simply unnecessary. I've found with my D80's white balance set to cloudy, wedding images come out perfect even with flash. No need to go RAW!!! Hope my two cents helps those who might've thought they couldn't do this. You can.
I use an 8GB card in my D80 with no problem. I do shoot in RAW so I have more flexibility as far as WB and Dynamic Range. With 8GB card in RAW I get around 600 shots per card.
Glad to see you are doing so well with minimal setup, that is reassuring to many no doubt.
When I shoot weddings I typically use my D80 + 50 f/1.8 and I also rent a D90 or D7000 along with 14-24mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 (cost me about $110).
Thanks for the 411. I agree with both of you on everything BUT the renting of camera equipment. When I've attempted same, they wanted to "hold" the value of the equipment e.g., D7000 $1100.00 on the card until eq is returned. I don't have a line of credit card that high. Any suggestions?
Where I rent they charge a 3% insurance surcharge, which is usually under $5 total... If I break it, I'm not liable.
That being the case I have to ask.....are you renting from someone local or by chance is it a national chain. I live in Cleveland, Ohio and I'd assume you don't. Thanks for the feedback and reply but again I ask......any suggestions?
Thanks.
http://www.tvcnashville.com/
By the way the D80 can only take a 4GB SD card as a maximum capacity. This is still plenty of memory for the pictures that I take which are always in JPEG FINE mode. That setting gives me 530 pictures with dead on color accuracy where any kind of RAW photo retouching is simply unnecessary. I've found with my D80's white balance set to cloudy, wedding images come out perfect even with flash. No need to go RAW!!! Hope my two cents helps those who might've thought they couldn't do this. You can.
I use an 8GB card in my D80 with no problem. I do shoot in RAW so I have more flexibility as far as WB and Dynamic Range. With 8GB card in RAW I get around 600 shots per card.
Glad to see you are doing so well with minimal setup, that is reassuring to many no doubt.
When I shoot weddings I typically use my D80 + 50 f/1.8 and I also rent a D90 or D7000 along with 14-24mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 (cost me about $110).
Thanks Jason for info on the 8gig card for the D80 and renting equipment that I didn't know you could do.