wedding lenses?

[awp]

I presently own Canon 70-200L 2.8 and that is what I have been using for the few weddings that I have photographed. I figure if I am to continue wedding photography I should invest in a smaller lenses. But which one?

[craigsinclair]

35, 85 & 135mm (if using 1.6 crop).

[Prox]

If you can pull it...the 200 1.8 :twisted:

Okay its not exactly small...but it more than makes up for it in its low light ability.

[robertwgross]

It depends on what style of wedding photography is used, but if I had to shoot a whole wedding with just one lens, it would be my 28-135 IS. For one thing, being able to go wider (than 70mm on a 1.6 body) allows you to get closer, which means less of a flash range issue.

---Bob Gross---

[Toogy]

Tamron 28-75 F2.8, or if you can afford it, the Canon 24-70 F2.8L
I do not know how people manage to shoot weddings with prime lens. It would drive me crazy.
The Tamron is on my camera 80% of the time at weddings I shoot.

[LightRules]

Canon 24-105 f4 L IS USM, and get some good primes like the 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8.

[Aschlaman@comcast.net]

Back when I was shooting weddings I tried to stick with primes for the group shots. This was a bit of a pain having to use my feet to zoom but the results were much better. For the candid's I would use a fast zoom.
If you do not have a lot of money to spend and are shooting flash the 17-40Lf4 should compliment your zoom. The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 should fill the gap between the other two lenses. If you have any money left over get a 35mm f1.4L.

Art Schlaman
Canon 20D, 35mm f 1.4L, 50mm F1.4. 85mm F1.8,85mm f1.2L, 135mm f2.0L 18-85mm IS, 17-40MM f4L, 135mm soft focus
300mm IS F4L, 70-200MM f2.8L IS, 100-400mm IS L, 75-300mm IS,
Tamron 28mm-75mm f 2.8, Tamron 180mm f2.8 macro, 580 EX flash, EOS3
Canon G6, EOS3
Hasselblad Xpan w/ 30mm and 45mm
Contax G2, w/35-70mm, 21mm, 28mm, 35mm, 45mm, 90mm
Contax Aria, 21mm, 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm
Fuji GA645i, GA670III
Epson RD-1 with Zeiss ZM 35mm f 2 and lots of Leica's
Epson P2000 storage device

[NBEast]

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 can have focusing issues at a night reception, but does well 90% of the time. The 17-40 does better at low light focusing. The 135L is worthless for all but head shots indoors but excels outdoors. I attempted to use the 135L indoors and missed a couple of critical shots, so switched to the Tamron, and wished I had a 17-40L - reputed for good low-light focusing.

I like the sounds of 24-105L f4 for indoor reception but its a bit unproven. 24-70L seems to be very popular albiet soft, which is OK for reception shots.

Can anyone say how the 24-105L does in low light focusing? WIll it focus in a dark cave? Dim cave? cave Entrance?

Aschlaman@comcast.net has a huge collection of lenses - doesn't seem like a guy who minds changing out for the better tool.

[SilentBob]

35, 85 & 135mm (if using 1.6 crop).


Looks good to me. Maybee throw in a 50 f/1.4 and you should be set for any low light situations that arise.

Regards,

[malla1962]

What about the 24-70f2.8L:D:D

[KevC]

Sticking with primes isn't such a good idea because it doesn't give you much flexibility. You should get the 24-70L to compliment your 70-200/2.8.

Also throw in a 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 for the low light ambient shots =)

[rdenney]

I presently own Canon 70-200L 2.8 and that is what I have been using for the few weddings that I have photographed. I figure if I am to continue wedding photography I should invest in a smaller lenses. But which one?

For the weddings I've done, i've needed basically three lenses: A mild wide for group shots in tight spaces, a normal lens for most set shots, and a short telephoto for candid portraits. The last lens was the one I could live without easiest. In the old days, I had a 55 and an 80. Currently, I use a Pentax 645 with a 45-85 zoom and a 75mm leaf-shutter lens and a Canon 10D with a 28-70 for candid portraits, and a 6x6 camera with a 180mm lens for formal portraits. The point is--you need at least a little wide-angle capability unless your weddings are shot in large and uncrowded spaces.

In the APS-C format, that would translate to something in the low 20's, something in the 30 range, and something around 50. I think I'd probably be able to cover all the bases at a wedding with a 24-70/2.8 L-series zoom. If you go with a zoom, spend the money for a really good one. Group shots will expose a poor lens in a hurry. If you don't have that money, get a good 24mm prime and a 28 or 35mm prime, and use your long lens for portraits. Those three will cost only a little over half the 24-70. But being able to work fast is helpful at a wedding, and I like zooms if they are good enough. You don't want to know what I paid for that 45-85 zoom for the Pentax.

But DON'T get a CHEAP zoom. That will not set you apart from all the Uncle Harrys whose groups shots show the bride and groom fine but not Uncle Bill and Aunt Jane standing out on the end of the group.

Rick "who thinks wide angle just as useful for photojournalism-style pictures of dancing" Denney

[rklepper]

I would suggest the 24-70 f2.8L. Great lens. You want to think twice before buying any f4 lens unless there is plenty of light.

[bolantej]

i would suggest the primes listed and a body for each. it would make things easier i think ;)

[Ronald S. Jr.]

requires a small fortune, though, no? we don't know their budget, though. For some of us, money isn't a problem.

Anyway

For the past few weddings I've done, I've found myself using but two lenses. For the actual ceremony, the 28-135 IS seems to really do the trick. Isn't exactly low-light, but two of the last three were outside, so it wasn't a problem. When we went inside for the reception, the 50 1.4 was awesome. During the "party", I never really ever needed a zoom. Only other thing I had to do was if I found opportunity for a macro shot, I pulled out my dad's 180. I'm waiting on an MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro photo. But, that's not for a month or so. and that's REAL macro. I'm going off-topic here. Anyway, as I said, those two have really cut it for me. I see myself pulling out the 70-200 2.8 in the near future. BIG CHURCH O_O

[tim]

Sigma 24-70 or Tamron 28-75. I'd not use primes for a wedding, unless I had a body for each, and even then probably not.

[BugEyes]

I agree about the range about 24-70. My Sigma 24-70 have been most useful for the few weddings I have done. Used it in the church, for portraits indoors and outdoors, dinner and party pictures.

[robertwgross]

Can anyone say how the 24-105L does in low light focusing? WIll it focus in a dark cave? Dim cave? cave Entrance?


Nearly every lens will have difficulty with autofocus in low light, and will have complete failure in a dark cave.

That is why Canon puts the autofocus assist lamp on the external flash unit. That helps the camera and the lens get it right. You can have the autofocus assist lamp running even though the main flash is disabled.

---Bob Gross---

[AjP]

in my opinion best combination for weddings

16-35 2.8
24-70 2.8
70-200 2.8

and
either 50 1.4
35 1.4
85 1.2

sometimes fisheye could be nice

[hammerman660]

My line up is quite similar - all on a 1series camera

17-40 F4
24-105 F4 (when it arrives) sold the Sigma 24-70 as it couldn't focus
70-200 2.8
50mm 1.4

Intend to get a fish eye for affect only.

I think it's way to easy to end up with too many choices. If you know how to get the best from yoor tools then a large choice is not necessary, and with the way the latest 1 series and 20d/5d handle high ISO 2.8 lenses are becoming less necessary, so save your back and move to F4

[Aschlaman@comcast.net]

It has been my experience to keep things as simple as possible. Two camera bodys with a couple of lenses, two flashes, battery packs and extra memory. I used to shoot medium format and kept it down to two lenses and perhaps my F3HP with a couple of primes. There is a lot to think about if you are shooting a wedding for money. Great results sell more prints. More prints more money. Too much gear can be confusing and is a lot to lug around.
My 5D will be here tommorrow and I am betting it will be a good camera to shoot a wedding with. Alas I only shoot weddings once in a great while now. They are too stressful. Today I just shoot for fun.
Art Schlaman

Canon 20D,5D (tommorrow) 35mm f 1.4L, 50mm F1.4. 85mm F1.8,85mm f1.2L, 135mm f2.0L 18-85mm IS, 17-40MM f4L, 135mm soft focus, 100mm Macro
300mm IS F4L, 70-200MM f2.8L IS, 100-400mm IS L, 75-300mm IS,
Tamron 28mm-75mm f 2.8, Tamron 180mm f2.8 macro, 580 EX flash, EOS3
Canon G6, EOS3
Hasselblad Xpan w/ 30mm and 45mm
Contax G2, w/35-70mm, 21mm, 28mm, 35mm, 45mm, 90mm
Contax Aria, 21mm, 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm
Fuji GA645i, GA670III
Epson RD-1 with Zeiss ZM 35mm f 2 and lots of Leica's
Epson P2000 storage device

[rdenney]

I would suggest the 24-70 f2.8L. Great lens. You want to think twice before buying any f4 lens unless there is plenty of light.

I bring plenty of light, and attach it to the bracket. I'd never attempt a wedding gig with available light, even if it was outdoors, except for ceremony pictures done on a tripod.

Old joke:

Grizzled photographer to energetic young purist: "Where's your flash equipment?"

Purist, condescendingly: "I use only available light."

Grizzled veteran: "If you had a flash in the trunk of your car, it would be available."

Rick "who uses ISO 400, f/5.6 or f/8 at largest, and enough flash to make that work" Denney