Has anyone ever tried shooting a complete wedding with only one prime lens?

[amykarp]

I could play a round of golf with a putter, but why? It would make me better at the putter only. Maybe I could only afford to buy a putter?

A variety of lenses helps to document more effectively, but having only one lens will greatly handicap what you are capable of doing. ie....seeing the ring exchange from the back row of a dimly lit church.

[lucian]

As has been mentioned, back in the day ...

When I was doing my aprenticeship we shot weddings using the Graflex 23 or XL with just the normal lens (90mm or 105mm). The only zoom Charlie let us use was the TLZ (two-legged zoom).

When I went out on my own my first wedding camera was a Ricoh TLR and later a Yashica Mat (nomral lens was 80mm).

A few years later when I was "richer" I got the Mamiya Super 23 with a 105mm lens.

[cooltouch]

I really never did an apprenticeship -- just worked as an assistant for a rather well-known wedding photographer down in the LA area. Come to think of it, all he shot was a Hasselblad with normal lens and sometimes I got to play second camera with a Bronica SQA with normal lens. He was moving constantly and used his feet as a zoom.

But I have done a fair amount of medium format portraiture and most of it was with TLRs -- Yashica Mats and Rolleiflexes -- and I'll wager there's been many a wedding shot with no more than such. In fact, that reminds me -- I just did a bridal shoot a couple weeks ago, and guess what -- I shot film, and the only lens I used with my Bronica ETRSi was its 75/2.8.

[pbyd]

I think this is showing that in the "OLD" days we used professional equipment and today we still use professional equipment, just the same only different.