What lens do you use for weddings?

[pieq314]

I am debating the merits a Sigma 18-50mm EX over a Sigma 24-70mm EX. For 18-50mm, I am concerned if 50mm is long enough. For 24-70mm, I am concerned if 24mm is wide enough for 1.6x crop.

What lenses do you use for weddings?

[XMX]

Canon 18-75 IS. Booyah.

[pieq314]

Canon 18-75 IS. Booyah.
How much does the IS help its small aperture of f/4-f/5.6? In other words, with IS, what would be the comparable f-stop, assuming the subject is stationary?

[song4themoon]

I am really not sure if any of them is fast enough for weddings.

My most used one is probably the 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8

[newgenphoto]

24-70mm L here.... it's B-E-A-UTIFUL!!
At times it's not wide enough but it does such a great job bsides that fact. SUPER fast autofocus as well!!

[tony fanning]

50mm f1.8, Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, gonna get 70-200mm f4L soon.

[spencer87]

might help to have some information about the wedding itself. i shot a wedding saturday, kept my Tamron 28-75 on my 20d the entire time, and the 17-40 on the backup body. but both the reception and wedding were outdoors in mid-afternoon, so you may need something faster.

so, between the ones you listed I would go with the Sigma 24-70

[subtle_spectre]

Depends on the shot I want and the space. I am hard pressed to saddle up without a 24-70 mounted, though. I am partial to my 70-200, as well.

Somedays, though, I use my ef 28 1.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8.

[Papaw]

Using mostly 17-40L. Also have 35L and 70-200 f2.8 on standby. I think if its at all possible the 17-40 works best as you do have some zoom and it forces you to get closer (when possible) to the subjects, making a better picture, and it's width is very handy as people usually want lots of people in the pose. .

[mizuno]

I took all of these with a 50mm f1.8: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1490784#post1490784

I reckon you could quite comfortably do a whole wedding with just 50mm.

[XMX]

How much does the IS help its small aperture of f/4-f/5.6? In other words, with IS, what would be the comparable f-stop, assuming the subject is stationary?

Now I would tell you about a 3.5 from what I have seen however my mother uses the lens more then I do so I would have to get back to you on that one. I use a 50 1.8 alot and I love it for the price. Check that one out.

[tim]

I use every lens in my bag. The most used lenses are Tamron 28-75 (replacing with Canon 24-70L some time) and Canon 50mm F1.4. Also use Tokina 12-24 F4, Canon 70-200 IS, and 100mm macro. I could, however, shoot 90% of a wedding with the 50mm prime and get nice shots, but having wide, long, and zoom is really handy.

[jj1987]

we really need to get a search feature on this site........Oh wait we have one! :D

[pieq314]

we really need to get a search feature on this site........Oh wait we have one! :D
We need a sticky thread similar to this one:

-=Top 10=- Recommended Portrait Lenses
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58577

[AjP]

Mostly
Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG (love the macro capability)
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS
Canon 16-35 2.8

[Arnie1]

17-40 F4 L
24-70 f2.8 L
70-200 f2.8 IS L

Wish list: 85mm f1.2L

[pixelessays]

Canon 18-75 IS. Booyah.

rediculous. too slow of a lens... what kind of advice is this? bad advice.

[pixelessays]

I took all of these with a 50mm f1.8: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1490784#post1490784

I reckon you could quite comfortably do a whole wedding with just 50mm.

another piece of bad advice all around. that 1.8 has horrible focusing. period. 4-5 posts before that somebody said they want the 70-200 f4!? F4 is too slow... horrible advice.:evil:

f2.8. no slower. 24-70mm L 70-200 L IS. those are good ones. the 50mm 1.2 is great. the 85mm is fantastic too

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I only need one, and that's my 24-70L. My father often shoots with me, and he uses my 70-200L IS. They're really all I need, and all I should think anyone would need. Faster lenses can be nice, but using the 1.4 ap or whichever because it's dark gives you soft shots anyway, because the DoF is so thin. I just crank the ISO when necessary.

[newgenphoto]

Ditto what Ronald said. Great setup for weddings. I guess it's time for me to get a 70-200L. I can't believe I've gone without one this long..... It would be great to have my 24-70 L on one camera and then a 70-200L on my other 20D.

[Wilt]

Many weddings under my belt with 645 Med Format film, back in the 'dark ages' (before digital was affordable). All values expressed in the 35mm format: 24mm is too wide; 28-30mm does not get you into perspective distortion danger (accentuated butts or noses close to lens); and the longest I would use was 100mm (150mm in MF 645 format).
Now with 20D, I find 17mm wide enough, but the 17-85 is just too slow for available light shooting. I have shot with as long as 135mm f/2.8 lens (215mm on 35mm format). If I had 70-200 f/2.8 monster I might be tempted to use it, but I also have some reservations about the perspective 'compression' of long focal lengths, so for now I am happy mounting my tiny and light weight Olympus 135mm f/2.8 (yeah, manual focus and no auto diaphram, but with low light available light shooting who cares? it is small and light and easily fits my pocket during weddings!)

[Wedding Shooter]

They will pry the 24-70 2.8 L from my cold dead hands :)

[Paul Gerrard]

I took all of these with a 50mm f1.8: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1490784#post1490784

I reckon you could quite comfortably do a whole wedding with just 50mm.

Sorry i really have to disagree..

You might get away with a 17-40 or a 20-40 on its own, but a 50 f/1.8 just wont give you the wider elements that are required in a wedding shoot..

[EOS_JD]

For my recent wedding

24-105 f4L IS for 35%
70-200 f2.8L IS for 55%
100 f2.8 Macro for 5%
50 f1.4 for 5%

The 100 was used for the close up shots of the rings, menus and and tables the 50 f1.4 for a few low light shots. The rest were with the 2 Canon L IS lenses and they were superb to work with.

[tim]

I just want to point out the huge difference in lens use depending on the photographer. To contrast with JD here's my approximate usages:

28-75 F2.8 - 50%
50mm F1.4 - 25% or bit more
12-24 F4 - 10% (up to 25% for cramped weddings)
70-200 F2.8 IS - 10% (more for large venues)
100mm F2.8 macro - less than 5%

[mizuno]

another piece of bad advice all around. that 1.8 has horrible focusing. period. 4-5 posts before that somebody said they want the 70-200 f4!? F4 is too slow... horrible advice.:evil:

If you read my post properly, you would realise I said you could do an entire wedding with 50mm. I didn't specifically refer to the 1.8 :rolleyes:

Sorry i really have to disagree..

You might get away with a 17-40 or a 20-40 on its own, but a 50 f/1.8 just wont give you the wider elements that are required in a wedding shoot..

It obviously wouldn't be ideal - but it would be possible. I wasn't advocating it - merely suggesting it was a possibility.

[EOS_JD]

Perhaps I should tweak my %ages a little as I also used the 10-22 for a number of shots in the church (setting the scene)and also at the reception venue. The Macro and the 10-22 make up probably 5% together.... I'll need to look at my EXIFs a little more.

The reason my use of the 70-200 is so high is because I took a lot of candids mostly at night and also in the Church. I just stood back and snapped away catching people and the bride & groom laughing and enjoying themselves. My 24-105 was used over my Tamron 28-75 because there was plenty of light in the church so I didn't really need that extra stop and I also used it for the formals where most were shot at between f8 and f11 to get good dof and to maximum sharpness from the lens. I'm not sure which is sharper to be honest (both nice lenses) but as I paid a handsome sum for the Canon L, I'm going to get my use from it :-).

I plan on using the 50 f1.4 more for my next wedding (next month). I'm slowly building up a portfolio and hope to do a couple more before the end of the year. Not particularly to make lots of money but to get some experience.

Stress and time seemed to be the biggest hurdles!

[tim]

IMHO if there's enough light use the Canon L, my friend has that lens and he loves it on his 5D. Any lens should be fine at F8, the main difference I suspect would be contrast and color, which is affected by lens materials and coatings.

I too could shoot an entire wedding with the 50mm F1.4, though I wouldn't like to unless I had no other choice.

[5DCameraGuy]

Tim,

How noisey is your 28-75 F2.8. I've read several reviews saying it's a noisey lens.

[tim]

Tim,

How noisey is your 28-75 F2.8. I've read several reviews saying it's a noisey lens.

The lens noise is irrelevant compared with the shutter noise, and was never an issue. I'm upgrading to the Canon 24-70L for the next wedding season.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

OK, just for fun, here's my "usage" on my last wedding:

24-70L: a good 85%
100 macro: 2 shots...less than half a %
70-200L IS: 5%- just for "down the aisle"
35L: just under 10%- perfect for "couple" portraits

As for that "noise" issue- I didn't have the courage to use a 28-75 for my weddings...just didn't cut it in low light. As for "body" noise- the 20D is pretty loud when it's clicking away. I'm very much looking forward to my 30D. Played with it again in Circuit City the other day. It's half as loud as the 20D...just a nice muted click.

[rlhphotos]

Just got a 28-135 IS loving it for wedding works really well except for large group photos.

[5DCameraGuy]

The lens noise is irrelevant compared with the shutter noise, and was never an issue. I'm upgrading to the Canon 24-70L for the next wedding season.

Thanks!

[lkorell]

I use four lenses generally - 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8. I usually bring the 17-40 as a backup and I sometimes bring the 70-200 2.8L if I think I'll need to shoot from a distance.