WEDDING (WHICH LENS)

[RICK29]

I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO SHOOT MY FRIEND'S WEEDING. I AM NOT A PRO. HE IS JUST VERY LOW ON FUNDS. I HAVE A CANON DIGITAL REBEL WHICH I HAVE BEEN USING MAINLY FOR MY SON'S SOCCER TEAM. I HAVE THE 18-55 WHICH CAME WITH THE CAMERA, A CANON 75-300 AND I JUST OBTAINED A TOKINA 12-24. CAN SOMEONE LET ME KNOW IF THIS LENSES ARE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE JOB. ANY INFO WILL BE HELPFUL. THANKS

[liza]

Not really, although the Tokina really might not be too bad for the formals and the close work. I've heard good things about it and have considered adding it to my own kit. You need something that will shoot in low light, since churches typically don't allow flash during the ceremony. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 would be a lower priced alternative.

[NBEast]

Is any of it at night or indoors? Do you have a flash or only the built in? Do you have an extra battery and how big is your CF card (do you shoot in RAW or JPEG)?

I'm no pro either, but I know these questions will be relevant. I also feel that a single prime will server you better than the kit lens for low light, consistant focusing, and probably more pleasing results.

I recently shot a wedding with my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (plus my 135L) and the results were good, but I also had a 580EX flash which helped a lot for all the night shots. The Tamron did have difficulties focusing in dim light but otherwise gave nice results.

I would strongly suggest you learn how to take white balance reference shots. Its very simple, but when you're sitting in Photoshop wondering what the colors really were, it could be a saving grace.

[RICK29]

I HAVE THE 550 FLASH AND THE CHURCH WILL ALLOW FLASH. THEY MOSTLY WANT PICTURES DONE OUT DOORS IN A PARK SOME WILL BE DONE IN A HALL PROBABLY LOW LIGHT .

[liza]

If you're going to photograph a wedding, shoot in RAW. That will address WB and exposure issues.

[Harry Settle]

The most popular range seems to be the 24-70, canon, sigma. The tamron mentioned above also. The next popular seems to be the 70-200 range.

You may "get by" with what you already have, but I would check some shots with your 75-300 for softness. As a matter of fact, take all of your lenses out and practice some people shots and check them all for softness.

I also highly recommend you shoot in raw format also.

[RICK29]

Will the tokina 12-24 work for the large group shot (22 people)

[liza]

It should, if you set a larger aperture to ensure that all members of the group are in focus. Also, when you shoot the formals, start with the largest one and work your way down to the bride and groom. It's easier that way.

[woodsie]

For shooting inside the church, if you can't use a flash, you need an f/2.8 minimum. Even then you will probably need to use ISO800-ISO1600 and use a monopod/tripod to steady the camera.

If you can use flash then get a decent external flash. This will also be handy at the reception. Even better if you get a flash bracket, which can range from a $15 cheapy to a $300 special.

Oh, and however much memory you have, buy more. I did my first wedding as second photographer on the weekend and filled nearly 6G shooting RAW+L from joining the groom in the morning as he got ready through to most of the reception. Probably going to ditch more than half those shots in PP, but there are many cool shots I'd have missed if I had been worried about running out of space.

[woodsie]

Will the tokina 12-24 work for the large group shot (22 people)
Just be careful with the Tokina at 12mm. I havn't had a chance to investigate this properly, but it does sometimes appear to produce a bit of a trapezoid effect at 12mm if people/objects are too close, making their hips/bums look wider. Though I think this is a common problem/feature with ultra-wide angle lenses.

[NBEast]

If you're going to photograph a wedding, shoot in RAW. That will address WB and exposure issues.Even in RAW, a reference shot will do wonders for getting it spot on. In fact; I don't know how it's really possible to get it right without one.

Most monitors are not color correct and, even with one, finding the correct balance between color temperature and tint is pert-near-impossible. "let's see, the complexion looks good but darn, now the grass is too green, aaaarrrg!" For sure; I don't know all the tricks, but from one novice to another, take a reference shot in each lighting situation.

If you have a photo (in the same light) of something that's true white, true black, and true 18% grey, its just a couple clicks away and it doesn't really matter what your monitor looks like, you'll know it's right. And; you'll spend about 3,000 percent less time getting that better result.

[RICK29]

Thanks for the info. I also have about $1000 to invest in lenses. Any info will help in which lens or lenses to buy for future investments.

[NBEast]

Will the tokina 12-24 work for the large group shot (22 people)
Again from the eyes of a fellow novice ...

Might I suggest you practicing your shots. If you have a few weeks, get some advice and samples of the various shooting situations you expect to find, the lens you plan to use, and give it a try. Better to make the gross mistakes on a trial run.

If there's a rehearsal and rehearsal dinner, that's a good final practice ground.

For example; Using a 12-24 for ANY people shots can be decieving. You'll look through the viewfiner and say "ahh great, I see everyone, OK now, smile!" When you get home, first everyone's fat because you were too close, second you put their heads in the center of the frame and didn't notice that you chopped off about $2000 in dresses and tux slacks not to mention the wedding gown that was arranged so nicely, and finally that some tall guy is poking up in the center of the lineup like a weed.

For the long shots - lets say you decide to rent a 135L and say "gee, f2.0 will give me lots of light for catching the advancing bride, proudly escorted by here gleaming dad". You get home and discover just how very difficult that lens is to catch advancing people in focus, because even at 50 feet the depth of field is about 1 foot (or seems like).

You won't become a pro in 2 or 3 weeks, but you can work out a lot of the major kinks and discover some of the more difficult situations you are probably better off avoiding.

As to lenses; if you're not opposed to getting a slightly heavier lens, the Canon 24-70 f2.8L (about $1200 new, $1000 used) would probably be on your camera about 70% of the time.

A good alternative is probably going with the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and Canon 70-200 f4. Only this route if you have time to mess with a potential bad copy of the Tamron (even Canon L's can have bad copies, but this Tamron has a 1 in 10 ratio for getting a bad one). For that matter, sell your 75-300 and buy a 70-200 f2.8 since the f4 will only be marginally useful indoors. Later you can get a 1.4 TC and have way better pics than your 75-300 (albiet no IS).

When you scope out the wedding site you'll probably decide if the 75-300 will be good for anything. Its a pretty slow lens so it'll depend on the light.

For the flash; learn to use it! The Canon flash system works best when you strobe your subject first to get the settings right. Also; read this entire article:
http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html#confusion

You might even think about making a checklist of little things not to forget. You'll be distracted enough without having 20 pieces of advice to remember.
- use higher ISO for night shots
- strobe the flash shots for best exposure
- bounce the light if possible
- take grey card and white paper shots for reference in every lighting situation
- check my LCD to inspect the photos
- change memory cards if nearly full and critical moments are approaching, such as finishing the ceremony
- schedule when various formal shots will take place and inform everyone in advance. Discuss in detail with B&G beforehand.
- etc.

Finally; of course; for your outdoor sessions avoid direct sunlight and backlit situations.

There; now I hope you can benifit from many of my recent mistakes:oops: and a few of the things I'm glad I thought about.

[tim]

I agree with the 12-24 lens, it's a good lens but be very careful taking photos of people with it, and if you don't know why then you shouldn't be using it. The Sigma 24-70 would be a better choice, or the Tamron 28-75 I use.

Practice, practice, practice.

[robertwgross]

Will the tokina 12-24 work for the large group shot (22 people)

I should think so.

For shooting big family groups at weddings, I never had to go wider than 20mm.

The advantage of sitting back farther and shooting it with 24mm or higher is that your flash will cover the group flatly. But then that takes some flash power. The advantage of sitting up closer and shooting it with 12-16mm is that you can cover the center of the scene with less flash power. However, sometimes the flash does not cover the far corners of the group so well.

---Bob Gross---

[Jon]

It should, if you set a larger aperture to ensure that all members of the group are in focus.
OBTW that's a smaller aperture.

[liza]

Depends on how you look at it. Perhaps I should have said wider instead of larger. Smaller number, but larger (wider) aperture.

[KevC]

Try the Sigma 18-50/2.8. I know the covers the same focal length as the kit lens, but it's WAAAYY faster (f/2.8 compared to 3.5-5.6). 18mm will be wide enough for group shots and I found that focal range on a 1.6x crop body VERY useful.

Sigma 18-50/2.8 and a 50/1.8 will be great for a wedding. Take the 75-300 along for the reception. Also you MUST bring a tripod for the formal portraits. Camera shake is INEXCUSABLE for a wedding, keep it tied to a tripod and you'll do great!

//edit: Wider aperture would give you NARROWER DOF, which means that not AS many people will be in focus. Are you sure you want that? I'd say NARROWER aperture, WIDER DOF.

[NBEast]

Depends on how you look at it. Perhaps I should have said wider instead of larger. Smaller number, but larger (wider) aperture.
But to get everyone in focus, a narrower but higher number is needed. Was that your intent?

I have no experience with ultra-wide shooting but at 14mm, shouldn't the DOF be pretty long even with a wider aperture? If so maybe its sort of a mute point. I would think perspective would be the larger issue (no pun intended). In fact, height of tripod is probably equally important for ultra wide (just my inexperienced guess).

[Jon]

Depends on how you look at it. Perhaps I should have said wider instead of larger. Smaller number, but larger (wider) aperture.
You'll find that a larger, wider aperture gives you less depth of field, so it'll be harder to get everyone crisply in focus.

[JMHPhotography]

Thanks for the info. I also have about $1000 to invest in lenses. Any info will help in which lens or lenses to buy for future investments.

$1000? Well my professional friend with whom I'm backing up and assisting at a wedding this weekend, uses and swears by the 28-135mm IS lens. In fact she has two. She is shooting film so that would be the 17-85mm IS for the digital body. But I think with the Tokina, you have that wide angle range covered and should be fine with the 28-135. That IS will help out as the camera starts to get really heavy. Then get yourself a nice fast lens. On the D-Reb, the 50 f/1.4 would make a nice portrait lens or if you want more distance... the 85 f/1.8

[JMHPhotography]

I just shot my first wedding last night as a second shooter/assistant to main photog and I can tell you that only one lens was needed, and that was the 28-135mm IS USM. A wider lens would have been nice in some of the large group shots and there were a few, but luckily we had room to move back. There were some shots I would have liked to have gotten but couldn't because I didn't have room to move backwards and I didn't have a wider lens. I was using my 20D so I think if I had the 17-85mm version of that lens, I would have been ok. But the main photog was shooting with film, and she mentioned she would have liked a little wider in places, so maybe the 11-22 for the 20D or a 17-40 for a full size sensor body. In addition to the one I mentioned. I didn't even pull the 75-300 out of the bag.

[tim]

Good to hear it worked out for you, you'll probably want more lenses if you graduate to main shooter yourself. Wide lenses are handy for prep in peoples homes and tight spots, but avoid using them if at all possible because of the distortion. Long is good for candids when people aren't aware you're around.

[JMHPhotography]

Good to hear it worked out for you, you'll probably want more lenses if you graduate to main shooter yourself. Wide lenses are handy for prep in peoples homes and tight spots, but avoid using them if at all possible because of the distortion. Long is good for candids when people aren't aware you're around.

Thanks. I did manage to zoom in and sneak a few candid shots with the longer end of the 28-135mm. I got one shot and it was a classic. Two young boys playing gameboy while trying to hide behind a Christmas tree that the function hall had put up. They had NO clue I took the shot. A few people discovered them later on and their fun was spoiled. I'll have to post that one up when I finish the PP work. I find as I go through all my shots that there is going to be a huge difference in the number of keepers vs. the number of "just blah". I'd love to say it was a 90/10 or even an 80/20 but I think it's going to be more like 30/70. But it was my first time and I wasn't going in with very high expectations. I ended up taking 230 pictures.

[NBEast]

I'm thinking the 28-135 has a nice reach, but when the party moves indoors its a bit slow on the long end. Also; the likes of the 70-200Ls f2.8 and f4.0, 24-70L f2.8 and of course primes, will produce more shockingly gorgeous bokeh, color, contrast, as well as sharpness. The IS is certianly wonderful to have (as I'm learning on my 24-105L) and that does fix the one fairly unfixable aspect of an image (focus) but I would not discount these more expensive lenses for some future purchase.

I've also noticed that being forced to use f4.0 (rather than f2.8) sometimes makes the DOF a little too wide. Here's an example where a passer-byer is now growing out of my subject's head, but with my f2.8 lens (or even better my 50mm set at f2.0) that person would have been just background:

http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/47142263-M.jpg

I envy you for having a pro to follow. I'm sure he/she puts more stock in composition and savy than in some slightly "better" lens. Just wanted to point out that a faster lens has other advantages just not possible with the 28-135.

I only state this opinion for the others reading this thread.

[JMHPhotography]

I'm thinking the 28-135 has a nice reach, but when the party moves indoors its a bit slow on the long end. Also; the likes of the 70-200Ls f2.8 and f4.0, 24-70L f2.8 and of course primes, will produce more shockingly gorgeous bokeh, color, contrast, as well as sharpness. The IS is certianly wonderful to have (as I'm learning on my 24-105L) and that does fix the one fairly unfixable aspect of an image (focus) but I would not discount these more expensive lenses for some future purchase.

I've also noticed that being forced to use f4.0 (rather than f2.8) sometimes makes the DOF a little too wide. Here's an example where a passer-byer is now growing out of my subject's head, but with my f2.8 lens (or even better my 50mm set at f2.0) that person would have been just background:

http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/47142263-M.jpg

I envy you for having a pro to follow. I'm sure he/she puts more stock in composition and savy than in some slightly "better" lens. Just wanted to point out that a faster lens has other advantages just not possible with the 28-135.

I only state this opinion for the others reading this thread.

You make some very valid points. I did find myself being tempted to change to my 50mm for that very reason. But things at this wedding moved way too fast and I was afraid to miss anything.

[MrChad]

Buddy of mine loves to use a Canon 28-70L and 300D for weddings, no issues. However, several shops in my area will rent a Canon 24-70L for the weekend, have you thought about that? 50-bucks (plus deposit) will usually get you the lens all weekend.

I would also recommend an off camera flash bracket and off camera cord for the flash. Learning how to adjust for the contrast between the black tux and white dress is more crucial then any lens/gear IMO. Know your camera inside and out.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

If I had $1000, and didn't have the 24-70L already, and I was gonna do weddings, that'd be the first one I'd buy. Best lens I've ever used. Just right for just about everything! Color, contrast, sharpness..just WOW.


...now we just have to wait for Dave to chime in and say "I still haven't seen any impressive shots from the "brick". " :p

[condyk]

...now we just have to wait for Dave to chime in and say "I still haven't seen any impressive shots from the "brick". " :p

I have seen half a dozen or so now after a year of asking and getting mainly lots of hot air from hot headed owners feeling their whole raison d'etre is being debunked. Draw your own conclusions. Mainly the good ones where from one guy so I reckon most owners don't know what they're doing other than point and click and the machine gun style shoot and hope. Others post the same uninspired, dull shot each time which speaks volumes for the keeper ratio :lol: :lol:

Maybe the better off wannabee's buy the 24-70 2.8 and the less well off buy the 70-200 4.0 to join the L club. I've given up on it to be honest. I now realise many people buy gear to look good, so I'm wasting my time on this one. Other than the convenience of a single solution travel lens, like the excellent 24-105 IS L, most people will do much better with a range of primes if they want decent IQ.

So, you got any outstanding wedding shots?

[DOrtiz]

I use my trusty Canon 17-40 f/4L and it's appears to be a gem of a lens. A few shots with it ...

http://i.pbase.com/o4/88/335988/1/53864196.1740.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/88/335988/1/53866388.santa02.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o4/88/335988/1/53866389.angela01.jpg

Happy Holidays!

Regards,
Dave

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I have seen half a dozen or so now after a year of asking and getting mainly lots of hot air from hot headed owners feeling their whole raison d'etre is being debunked. Draw your own conclusions. Mainly the good ones where from one guy so I reckon most owners don't know what they're doing other than point and click and the machine gun style shoot and hope. Others post the same uninspired, dull shot each time which speaks volumes for the keeper ratio :lol: :lol:

Maybe the better off wannabee's buy the 24-70 2.8 and the less well off buy the 70-200 4.0 to join the L club. I've given up on it to be honest. I now realise many people buy gear to look good, so I'm wasting my time on this one. Other than the convenience of a single solution travel lens, like the excellent 24-105 IS L, most people will do much better with a range of primes if they want decent IQ.

So, you got any outstanding wedding shots?

First off, I was fooling around when I made that comment. Notice the smiley.

Also, no, I don't believe that I have any "amazing" shots from any of my weddings. Some I like very much, yes, but none that would be "masterpieces". I like my 24-70L. It's by far my most used lens out of the dozen or so I've had. I don't like it because it's an L, and I don't like it because it costs about $1200. I like it because it produces shots that are, to my eye, consistently acceptable, to say the least. I like that it's built incredibly well. I like that the hood was designed to specifications that I would call perfect. The design and optics are some of the best I've seen on a zoom lens. It's a tank, and I love that. I feel like I don't have to worry about whether or not it will last, and I don't feel like I have to be overly careful with it. I am, for sure, since I couldn't afford another one just like that, but yeah. I just love it. I've seen the sigma version, and that too is very nice. However, there's things about it that I just don't care for. I don't like the way the hood was designed and how it attaches. I don't like that it's hard, because a good hit to it could mean damage to your front element. With the canon's admittedly cheap plastic hood, it will absorb most of the shock if you knock it against a wall. Also, I think the hood placement is designed better, where it's a bit longer at the tele end, as it should be to prevent flare. As you zoom "out", it covers less of the lens, as it should, to prevent shadowing and things of that nature. I would never trade my "L" for the sigma. Not to save 600 bucks, and not because the canon is an "L". It's because I think it's just quite a bit better.

As for the Tamron, I thought it felt cheap, and I didn't like the overall operation of it. If it were between the tammy and the sigma, I'd choose the sigma for sure.

Maybe I'm one of the "better off wannabe's". I admit, I do like having the "top of the line". To me, that's just common sense, if budget allows. Who really goes in and says "yep..I'm looking for the wal-mart special"? Although, I'm not saying that either the Tamron or Sigma are cheap lenses. The sigma seemed quite nice. All I know is, my customers are consistently happy. More than satisfied. That's all I'm looking for. :-)

[Andreas Evzonas]

Hello from Cyprus

Surprice them with your posing and capture the mood. Go through some wedding sites and get some ideas in posing. With what you have you ll be ok, equipment. Try to show them mood and posing and you ll be fine. Check your equipment to be in perfect working condition.
Pay attention to lighting

[F. Stop Fitzgerald]

At last week's wedding, I used an EF 5.6 28-70. It's an old lens-- pre digital age. It worked fine.

Now that I think of it, all of my in-the-church wedding work has been done with that lens since i went digital a few years ago and bought the 10D. It's like shooting through a key hole, but it works. It isn't very fast either.

I agree with those who say to use wider lenses with great caution. If you go wider than 24mm, the distortion is unacceptable in most cases.

Regarding L lenses: yeah, I'd like to own a few of them too. There is a strong argument for the L. Certain shortcomings of the small CMOS sensor pretty much demands high standards for critical work and for work which will be enlarged beyond 8x10 afor publication. In those cases, you need as much as you can get going for you.

For wedding work? L lenses? Fuggadabout it. You'd be better off saving up your money for a full-frame sensor camera and a nice graphite tripod.

[ACDCROCKS]

if I was in your position, I would rent the Canon 70-200mm IS 2.8, Canon 24-70MM2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 to do the wedding, that way it's not draingin your wallet and your getting good quality shots.

[freemanfan]

the 50mm set focal length is a must and very reasonably priced, also consider the battery grip for those long days, tamron make a nice 17-55mm good luck, cheers

[CosmoKid]

the 50mm set focal length is a must and very reasonably priced, also consider the battery grip for those long days, tamron make a nice 17-55mm good luck, cheers


nice 4 year old bump. i don't think he was planning 4 years ahead for his friends wedding. they are probably divorced by now. :)

[Ichiban]

pick up a used tammy 17-50 for around 300 and you should be good.

edit: lol just saw the 4 yr bump. That's awesome ....

[Digital Story]

if you have some money to invest i'll say - invest in something REALLY bright, like f/1.4 or f/1.8
It can be for example EF 28/1.8 for wide "standard" shots and EF 50/1.4 and/or EF 85/1.8 for tele shots. You have a x1.6 crop camera so remember about the crop factor when deciding on lenses.
Be careful with the flash (try to catch as much available light as you can, and only fill-in with the flash - use for example ISO 800 and 1/20-1/50 shutter to catch the light shooting with flash, use TTL).
Good luck on the job.

EDIT:
Haha 4yr bump... oooook... :roll: :D

[_aravena]

So by now I'd say you should have a 5DMKII and 24-70F2.8 or maybe some nice L primes....

oh...4yrs old? :p

[sctbiggs]

nice 4 year old bump. i don't think he was planning 4 years ahead for his friends wedding. they are probably divorced by now. :)

LOL