As you read the title of this, you might think that this photographer is crazy, but indeed, he abhors the (almost) universally revered 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for wedding photography. Check out his reasons why in this quick video essay.
Coming to you from Taylor Jackson, this video breaks down why he avoids using a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for wedding work, instead opting for primes. Of course, the 24-70mm is the standard bread and butter lens of the industry, but Jackson does make a few valid assertions. In fairness, while such a lens is indeed heavy and expensive, a bagful of primes probably challenges the zoom on both fronts. Nonetheless, he makes some very interesting points about developing a consistent style and some of the other advantages of primes. On the other hand, a 24-70mm f/2.8 is about as pragmatic as a lens can get, and if there's any genre of photography that demands a pragmatic mindset for success, it's likely weddings. Still, many successful wedding photographers shoot with primes, so it really comes down to what works for you.
What do you think? Does the 24-70mm f/2.8 have a place in your bag?
The 24–70/2.8 lens: not short enough on one end, not long enough on the other, extremely bulky, and very obviously crossing over a nasty zoom area that makes its design a bucket of compromise. I'm not generally a fan of the format, especially compared to something like the older Tamron 28–75/2.8 (XR Di LD, and I'm very curious about how the new Sony version of that lens will do) which is *so much* more compact and lightweight that one would almost accept the quality issues and bring a wide prime or even something nasty like a 12–24 for the short end.
Zooms are great. Primes are great. Film is great. Digital is great. Nikon makes amazing cameras. So does Canon. SLRs? Outstanding. Mirrorless? Incredible.
Y'all need to chill with the tribalism. We can sum up this video and most of the comments with the following image:
Exactly. Use the tools you want to achieve the results you want or need. If you prefer primes only, great. If you want to use zooms only, that's fine too. A mix of both, as I do? Fantastic.
Ultimately, it is a matter of preference and what conditions demand anyway.
Amen!
Total nonsense.
While he's fooling around in his bag of primes changing out lenses, i've already gotten 15 photos, both close up and far away, of all the critical things he just missed missed. Bride and groom just did a pose that's magazine worthy, but you missed it bc you had your 50mm on and were just too far away to get them in that split second? That's cool. Canon 85mm L II =$1850. Canon 24-70 L II = $1699. I'll need to email him to find out where he's getting his lenses, since he says the 24-70 is more expensive than primes.
Anyone ever carry a backpack chock full of primes and had your back scream at you because of the weight of them? What about introducing dust into your camera sensor bc you had to change out primes so much? No big deal, until you go over all your wedding photos and a few giant specks that will now cost you an additional 40 hours of removal via photoshop.
If he cant seem to find a style with a zoom lens, the problem isn't his equipment, it's with his abilities. I'll happily shoot a wedding with him using my zooms against his primes and not feel one bit intimidated or challenged because i have inferior equipment.
Let´s talk a little about facts. A client will never see or ask you about a certain bokeh created at f/1.2 or 2.8. Unless he´s our peer. The couple wants beautiful and moody images to remember during their life together. That´s the goal, seeing what exactly they want.
That said, I love both prime and zooms. The Canon 24-70 is a stunning focal range for that kind of job. You have a decent zoom, sufficient light from that 2.8 and a great image quality. To perform more artistic moments something like a 85 or macro 100 will fit perfectly.
A last thought. People today are spoil with the amount of gear in the market. And I´m an addict to that too, or at least I was more. The array of lenses is so big that we wish we could use them all. Though in real life you need something that can check the most boxes possible and get those important moments to your client.
If this peer wants to shoot another way, fine by me. In my experience I prefer the assurance of a general lens on my hands then a dedicated. It´s always his prerogative.
Always nice to discuss this matters.
You hit the nail on the head exactly on all points. Sadly, the guy's obtuse logic will cost him so so many missed shots. I carry one camera with a 24-70 and the other with a 70-200. And have a 35 and 50 prime for things where i have enough time to use it, i.e. the rings and other smaller things. I don't need extreme DOF or bokeh so strong, you dont know what's in the background. At 5.6, i get plenty of sharpness and dof. More importantly, with just the 2 zoom lenses, i can shoot at 35 if i want to. Or 50. Or 85. Or 120. Or any size a prime can offer. Though the author will lead you to believe you're just a bland photographer if you dare use a zoom.
The only thing that matters to me is if the glass sharp. Fast apertures are nice but I almost never shoot below f4 for my work anymore unless I'm doing BTS photography on a film set in low light.
Ever shoot a fast moving event at 1.4? Yeah, me either. I guess i could, but i could guarantee you, most of the eyes and faces won't be sharp, least of all tack sharp, with a razor thin dof. If that guy can shoot with his primes at 1.4 (from how he talks, that's what he likes to use), more power to him, and he has ninja focusing skills i'll prob never have.
Word. When I started photography I was pretty ignorant about all the settings what they meant. All I understood was that the fast aperture lenses were "the best!" and you HAAAD to have them. I got my first fast aperture the Nikon 85mm f1.8D and was wondering why I could NEVER nail focus then I did more research and digging and practicing and learned that for my work, fast apertures don't really matter. But your right if he can some how by the magic of Odins beard nail focus at f1.4 then awesome sauce haha. Plus I need to practice on paying attention to what is in my back grounds rather than just blurring the heck out of them until nothing has shape lol.
I don't believe it either. You're not going to be able to nail sharpness unless you're working in a controlled environment where your subject is perfect still. And by that, i'm referring to one person. If you add a second person in, someone is going to be out of focus unless they're in the same plane of field as the first person. It's a nice aperture, but not one i'd ever use for the run and gun nature of a wedding.
I generally shoot primes, but I have bought 24-70 for a few reasons,
If I have a lens go down I have a back up
if I am using a second shooter who is missing a lens they now have that focal length.
sometimes you end up shooting a variety of shots that you need the zoom for
as a travel lens to live on my body
sigma 24-105 way forward
It have a place in my bag and mostly stay in the bag. Useful when you don't know what is going to happen. But 90% of my wedding production are done with 50&85mm primes 👌🏼