Lens Advice

[Punisher77]

Last fall I picked up a RebelXT (350D) and I'm in love with it. I bought it as a kit at the time since they were having a sale. It came with the EF-S 18-55 (http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=960&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1) and the EF 75-300 (http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=982&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1). I also bought the SpeedLite 430EX (http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=940&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1).

I'm planning on covering my sister's wedding in the fall and I was wondering if I should get some new lenses or if I'm just looking for excuses for poor talent. ;)

[scottbergerphoto]

The Canon 24-70 F/2.8 L is a great lens for a wedding. Pricey, but worth it.

[liza]

Another must have is a tele-zoom with an f/2.8 aperture. An affordable alternative is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Most wedding photographers use the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS, but it's pricey as well. Two wide to midrange zooms you might consider are the Sigma 17-70, which is gaining a real following, or the Tamron 28-75. A newly released lens with good reviews so far is the Canon 17-55 EF-S lens. The two lenses you have might not be suitable for a wedding, as they're rather slow.

[Brodog2525]

if i cant get the that lens (its for pros) get a EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. its $237.10 off Amazon vs $1,149.95 for the 24-70

[wolf]

I cast another vote for the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, a sharp, fast zoom that won't break the bank.

[liza]

Don't get a lens slower than f/2.8 if you plan to shoot a wedding. The lighting situation can be tricky, depending on the setting.

[jbkalla]

Punisher, you did the same thing I did, except I bought the 430 a few months later and bought my lenses seperately (before I knew what I was doing!).

How much are you able to spend on a good lens?


BTW, welcome to POTN! This is an incredible resource for those new to photography, and even for those with a lot of experience! Have fun at your sister's wedding!

[ron chappel]

depending on the type of images you intend to shoot -the lighting especially -the lenses you have may do really well.
One inexpensive way to make a HUGE difference is to add the 50/1.8 to your kit!
It's sharp,cheap,better than the expensive f2.8 zooms for low light and gives excellent shallow depth of focus effect for portraits.
Of course it's not a zoom so you have to think ahead and work out where you want to use it .

One big tip i can give you -Go to the church at about the same time of day the wedding will be and see what kind of shutter speeds your current lenses are giving you indoors.Practice abit and see if there is enough light .See if the speedlite combined with your current lenses does what you want

[theJingster]

i'm going to put in a vote for the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG macro. about 1/3 the price of the L equivalent but equally (if not moreso under certain conditions) as sharp.

[jbkalla]

i'm going to put in a vote for the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG macro. about 1/3 the price of the L equivalent but equally (if not moreso under certain conditions) as sharp.

And, hey! It's a macro lens! :-)

[theJingster]

And, hey! It's a macro lens! :-)

yes it's denoted as a macro lens but if i'm not mistaken, a true macro lens or macro photograph has a magnification of 1:1 where the printed picture and the object is the same size. the sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG macro has a minimum focus distance of 15.7 inches but results in a maximum magnification of 1:3.8 where the object is 3.8 times larger than it's printed picture.

i'm not experienced in macro photography though so i could be totally wrong here :). in fact, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_photography), the definition of macro has changed slightly recently...

oh and somebody please correct me here if i'm wrong :)

[Punisher77]

Punisher, you did the same thing I did, except I bought the 430 a few months later and bought my lenses seperately (before I knew what I was doing!).

How much are you able to spend on a good lens?

Yeah, I sort of jumped the gun on the lens at the store. It's not so much that I have money to spend on a lens but that I was just wondering if it's worth spending more on a better lens.

Will I notice the difference that much? I can spend the money but I don't want to just because it's newer and "better".

[Punisher77]

One inexpensive way to make a HUGE difference is to add the 50/1.8 to your kit!
It's sharp,cheap,better than the expensive f2.8 zooms for low light and gives excellent shallow depth of focus effect for portraits.

Do you find the lack of zoom to be a problem? The price is definitely right... ;)

What about the ugly bokeh (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69785) that people are complaining about?

[Dan-o]

Some fast primes .

[Punisher77]

Some fast primes .
Such as the 50mm? Or did you have something else in mind?

[jbkalla]

I think my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is great! It's the same as a 50mm on a film camera.

[Punisher77]

Ok, well now I'm in it pretty deep. I'm looking at getting

1) Canon 70-200 f/2.8L
2) Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
3) Canon 50mm f/1.8

I'm a little worried that the 28-75 will be too much of a step down in focal length since I'm used to the 18-55 and use the wide-end of that lens quite a bit. What do you think of these choices?

[NBEast]

Ok, well now I'm in it pretty deep. I'm looking at getting

1) Canon 70-200 f/2.8L
2) Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
3) Canon 50mm f/1.8

I'm a little worried that the 28-75 will be too much of a step down in focal length since I'm used to the 18-55 and use the wide-end of that lens quite a bit. What do you think of these choices?

Look through your kit lens photos. How many are less than 28mm? Of those, how many seem to have perspective problems? (big noses, short legs, huge foreheads, group photos with big people in the front). Generally, perspective issues making bodies or body parts bigger than normal are not complementary.

The closer you are to your subject (regardless of focal length), the more the things behind them look smaller. In some cases, those smaller things are a face behind a nose, top half of a body vs. bottom half. There's more to it then that, but as a general rule, this holds true.

Wider FOV invites getting too close to the people.

So, 28-75 can have an advantage for a relative novice. A much safer range for people shots. A 50mm prime is even more restrictive (and safe). Less drama, but portriat safe.

Not saying a nice wide FOV isn't nice to have, but it's for different type of photos so you have time to change.

Also; shooting a wedding with a single camera is a little risky. Are you the only photographer? Be sure to being lots of memory, extra batteries, etc. and hope your trusty camera doesn't malfunction. Also; you should practice like settings (people at night, posed shots). It'll help identify weak areas in your skills and in your equipment.

[Punisher77]

How many are less than 28mm? I use the wider shots only for landscapes and architecture. I learned pretty quickly that wide shots of people don't look good. My GF didn't like the pictures either.. ;)

Are you the only photographer? I'm not the only photographer. They asked me mostly because they wanted to get some good pictures without having to pay for a professional photographer. :D

Also; you should practice like settings (people at night, posed shots). It'll help identify weak areas in your skills and in your equipment. That's what I'm planning on doing and have already been honing my candid skills (which is why I've decided I want to replace the 75-300).

[NBEast]

I use the wider shots only for landscapes and architecture. I learned pretty quickly that wide shots of people don't look good. My GF didn't like the pictures either.. ;)

I'm not the only photographer. They asked me mostly because they wanted to get some good pictures without having to pay for a professional photographer. :D

That's what I'm planning on doing and have already been honing my candid skills (which is why I've decided I want to replace the 75-300).
I did the same at my nephew's wedding wedding last year. Wedding here. (http://flashme.smugmug.com/gallery/1024907) Reception here. (http://flashme.smugmug.com/gallery/1025090)

My experience:

20D + Tamron 28-75 f2.8 + Canon 135L + Canon 580EX flash + 1GB card + 2GB card
Not Enough: Ran out of battery (forgot the spare I had bought). Had to switch from RAW to JPG due to lack of memory. I could have used about 6GB.
Could have used a better low light lens when the lights were really turned down. I mean, one that focuses better in low light since the flash made f2.8 or f4.0 perfectly usable. Also; during the march's to the isle I could have used a 200mm, but the 135 was OK.
I hadn't practiced with AF Servo mode enough. Many of the shots of people advancing were slightly OOF. I was also unpracticed with f2.0 and should not have used it.
The sun was directly behind the wedding party during the ceremony. My hood helped as did positioning myself 3rd row on far right. I think a polarizer would have helped (only just got one last week, finally).
I didn't take enough color balance shots so had a bear of a time correcting later.
Little did I know, many photographers have a clause in their contract about other photographers. I found out on these boards just before it. There was a wedding coordinator and I openly discussed it with her (when she saw my 20D with 135L mounted, the photographer immediately wanted to know what's up with that, I was very cooperative). They can't stop a relative with a nice camera but I was "politely banned" from their "set-up shots". I didn't want the photographer walking off, after all. Or being pissed off and doing a bad job with PP. So I complied and hung around the courtyard during set-ups and got a few scraps of my own daughter (flower girl) and a couple others, but not of the actual poses. I grabbed some poses after the wedding although it was getting dark.
I still got lots of other photos, so it was well worth it. Not as complete as the actual photographer, but enough to document the whole affair pretty well and provide enough "framers".
The bride's parents, who are well-off enough to afford whatever the photographer wanted to sell (about $100,000 less well-off after this affair - lol), still very much appreciated all my photos. Moments were captured the photographers (the pro had 2 2nd shooters) couldn't.
I wish I had the posting site all set up before-hand so I could give the SmugMug address to everyone with instructions to give it a week or two. I don't think more than 5 or 6 got it and are missing out on good photos of the gathering.
We got a lot of good family photos and we're not wealthy enough to pay the photographer's fees. My sister ordered a full print from SmugMug.
All in all, I couldn't get everything, but I got a lot and as amature as I am, many of the shots would be good enough for a mediocre pro.

The pro on the job turned in positively amazing results. I'm glad they (B&G and Parents) got both.

[Punisher77]

I did the same at my nephew's wedding wedding last year. Wedding here. (http://flashme.smugmug.com/gallery/1024907) Reception here. (http://flashme.smugmug.com/gallery/1025090)
Nice photos! Did you use a diffuser for your flash? Was it home made?


I hadn't practiced with AF Servo mode enough. Many of the shots of people advancing were slightly OOF. I was also unpracticed with f2.0 and should not have used it.
I didn't take enough color balance shots so had a bear of a time correcting later.
I wish I had the posting site all set up before-hand so I could give the SmugMug address to everyone with instructions to give it a week or two. I don't think more than 5 or 6 got it and are missing out on good photos of the gathering. Those are some great tips. How do you recommend doing the colour balance shots? I've been wanting to do this myself lately...

[NBEast]

Nice photos! Did you use a diffuser for your flash? Was it home made?

Those are some great tips. How do you recommend doing the colour balance shots? I've been wanting to do this myself lately...

Flash:

No, I didn't have a diffuser. The photographer (Karen French) suggested I get a StenoCap (I think that's what it's called). A little rectangular cap about 2 inches long that slides on the end. She always had her flash up 45 degrees. Of course, flash photography takes a lot of practice and reading up on (http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html). This was complicated due to very high ceilings and outdoor settings so I couldn't bounce. A diffuser would have made for less shiny foreheads.

Color Balancing:

It's essential to take a photo of true white and/or true gray in each light setting.

Shooting in RAW allows for a lot easier of correction. Here's (http://ronbigelow.com/articles/curves-4/curves-4.htm)an article by Ron Bigelow a member here (Cyberron) on doing it in PhotoShop on JPEGs.

Take a normal white sheet of paper, maybe 92% white non-shiny copier paper, and a large photographer's gray card. The white is debatable and a "less white" will give you slightly warmer colors.

Fold the paper in half and tape it to the bottom half. Take a photo of this with the light source falling on it (but not reflective). Alternatively; spend about $80 on a WhiBal card online.

You need both because some WB correction methods are easier if you have a gray card, while others want a true white reference. I use RSP and I click on a true-white spot.

I actually have an "EXPODISC" that fits on the end of a lens, then removed after taking the reference.

[Punisher77]

No, I didn't have a diffuser. The photographer (Karen French) suggested I get a StenoCap (I think that's what it's called). A little rectangular cap about 2 inches long that slides on the end.
The 430ex that I have has a built in diffuser that you can slide out of the end to cover the directed part of the flash. I'm also thinking about building a larger (1ft?) diffuser out of thick paper or foam.


Take a normal white sheet of paper, maybe 92% white non-shiny copier paper, and a large photographer's gray card.

Alternatively; spend about $80 on a WhiBal card online.
I don't feel like spending $80 for white balance if I can get away with using a peice of paper. It would be ideal if I could build it into my diffuser, maybe on the reverse side?

I actually have an "EXPODISC" that fits on the end of a lens, then removed after taking the reference.
What's that? A grey lens cap?

[NBEast]

The 430ex that I have has a built in diffuser that you can slide out of the end to cover the directed part of the flash.
Exactly what I thought until reading the instructions. It's a diffuser of a different sort, having more to do with distance. Don't have my manual handy but I recall it's something to do with wide angle.

I'm also thinking about building a larger (1ft?) diffuser out of thick paper or foam. There's a popular one that looks like a milk carton a little. They're not expensive. There's another that vel-crows reflective material in a cup shape over the top. Whatever you make (or buy), it'll take experimentation to get it right.


I don't feel like spending $80 for white balance if I can get away with using a peice of paper. It would be ideal if I could build it into my diffuser, maybe on the reverse side? Me too. I did spend $5 for a genuine gray card - well worth it. It's exact middle, 128red, 128green, 128blue. Good for setting exposure too.

What's that? A grey lens cap? Expodisc (http://www.expoimaging.net/?gclid=CPmrrqTa5YUCFUJNGAodwFVHRA).
It's even more than the WhiBal and IMO, less useful than a reflective photograph. It's a crystal-like lens cap of special light diffusing material to create a true-white photo if pointed at the light source. Problem is, if there's artificial light involved it's pretty hard to point the front of the lens at it. Better to put a color-refrence right next to the subject and just take a picture in the light they will have. Then go about taking your photos.

Hope that helps. Good luck!

[Punisher77]

So I bought the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for $350 CDN used which seems like a pretty good price. Hopefully I don't miss the wide angle enough to make me want to sell it and get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 new for $480 CDN +tax.

Next step is finding a 70-200 f/2.8 for a decent price... :)

[NBEast]

So I bought the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for $350 CDN used which seems like a pretty good price. Hopefully I don't miss the wide angle enough to make me want to sell it and get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 new for $480 CDN +tax.

Next step is finding a 70-200 f/2.8 for a decent price... :)
Hey, congrads on the Tammy! Pretty nice little lens. Not an L and not a prime, but very decent!

Nice choice on the next one too! Oh com'on, go for the IS version! :p

If your budget's tight, the f4.0 would probably satisfy you if this thing's outdoors. The very shallow f2.8 at 200mm can be a little bit tricky if you're not used to it.

Surely 20 people with vastly more experience will chime in here and say otherwise, but between the f2.8 DOF (DOF will diminish a lot as you tele the thing - given the same distance) and the shake caused by holding up that stack-o-bricks for hours might cause a little blur. The f4.0 is half the weight and f4.0 is 3 times the DOF than f2.8 (ummm, I think). You can crank up the ISO to solve slightly diministed lighting. The 28-75 should satisfy all your reception needs except maybe the speaches or 1st dance. You can always do foot-zooming at the reception, and there's a matter of flash / focusing distance.

A 50mm f1.4 is nice for people shots (or f1.8 although I hate the inconsistant focusing and poor bokeh). In fact, woudn't be too bad for portriats. Thought you had a 30mm prime. Guess not.

[Wilt]

yes it's denoted as a macro lens but if i'm not mistaken, a true macro lens or macro photograph has a magnification of 1:1 where the printed picture and the object is the same size. ...oh and somebody please correct me here if i'm wrong :)

A true macro lens is one which can capture the ORIGINAL image (on film...now on digital sensor) at 1:2 and larger size, the final reproduction size has no connection to actual subject size.


'm a little worried that the 28-75 will be too much of a step down in focal length since I'm used to the 18-55 and use the wide-end of that lens quite a bit. What do you think of these choices?

Yes I have found the need many times (over the years of wedding coverage as the wedding pro) that a lens equivalent to 28mm on 35mm FF (17mm on 1.6 crop) is very handy and does not suffer from the anatomic exaggeration (perspective distortion) of body parts close to wider lenses.

[Punisher77]

If your budget's tight, the f4.0 would probably satisfy you if this thing's outdoors. The very shallow f2.8 at 200mm can be a little bit tricky if you're not used to it.
I wanted the extra range for light since it will be used indoors as well as outdoors. I'm hoping the f/2.8 has slightly better resale value too if I ever want to go for the IS in the future. ;)


Surely 20 people with vastly more experience will chime in here and say otherwise, but between the f2.8 DOF (DOF will diminish a lot as you tele the thing - given the same distance) and the shake caused by holding up that stack-o-bricks for hours might cause a little blur. The f4.0 is half the weight and f4.0 is 3 times the DOF than f2.8 (ummm, I think).
I'm planning on getting a monopod too (if I do go with the f/2.8) so hopefully the shake won't be so bad.

A 50mm f1.4 is nice for people shots (or f1.8 although I hate the inconsistant focusing and poor bokeh). In fact, woudn't be too bad for portriats. Thought you had a 30mm prime. Guess not.
The reason I want to get the 50 f/1.8 is because it's so cheap and handy. The f/1.4 would be nice but it's just too much for my wallet right now.

[NBEast]

Yes I have found the need many times (over the years of wedding coverage as the wedding pro) that a lens equivalent to 28mm on 35mm FF (17mm on 1.6 crop) is very handy and does not suffer from the anatomic exaggeration (perspective distortion) of body parts close to wider lenses.
Wilt - I was trying not to sound like an authority, to the contrary I was trying to convey some errors I've learned as a relative novice.

Surely the exaggeration of 18mm (crop) or 28mm (35mm FF) does have some anatomic exaggeration if not handled properly. I've seen it in other photographers' work and my own. Its a nice tool even for a certian look. Not overly noticable like 12 / 19 mm might be but not normally complementary either.

I've seen multiple threads here proving (diagraming) that, the portriat book I'm reading now cautions of it, I've heard the same warning repeated many times by wedding pros. They still use WA, but shall we say, they know what their doing.

I'm very interested in digging deeper and hearing your professional explanation.

However; its not the lens FOV or focal length, rather the distance to subject issue (that WA tends to promote). If you stand 3 or 4' from your subject and take their picture then objects or body parts in the background will appear smaller then if they were on the same plane as the front object. If you stand 10' back then it'll look more even. If there's multiple people (ie: more distance between parts of your subject(s)) then maybe 15 or 20' is needed for a complementary look (ie: no perspective differences that look exaggerated - or more than a normal eye is used to seeing). Is that a correct understanding?

[Punisher77]

So I bought the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for $350 CDN used which seems like a pretty good price. Hopefully I don't miss the wide angle enough to make me want to sell it and get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 new for $480 CDN +tax.

Next step is finding a 70-200 f/2.8 for a decent price... :)
Well, I lied... I decided that the loss of wide angle would be too much on the 28-75 and I've settled on the new 17-50 Tamron f/2.8 which I'm going to buy locally to ensure that I get good, sharp lens.

I've switched from the 70-200 f/2.8 to f/4 due to weight concerns. I'm worried that if I got the f/2.8 it would be so heavy that I wouldn't be using it as much as a lighter f/4.

[Wilt]

Wilt - I was trying not to sound like an authority, to the contrary I was trying to convey some errors I've learned as a relative novice.

Surely the exaggeration of 18mm (crop) or 28mm (35mm FF) does have some anatomic exaggeration if not handled properly. I've seen it in other photographers' work and my own. Its a nice tool even for a certian look. Not overly noticable like 12 / 19 mm might be but not normally complementary either.

I've seen multiple threads here proving (diagraming) that, the portriat book I'm reading now cautions of it, I've heard the same warning repeated many times by wedding pros. They still use WA, but shall we say, they know what their doing.

I'm very interested in digging deeper and hearing your professional explanation.

However; its not the lens FOV or focal length, rather the distance to subject issue (that WA tends to promote). If you stand 3 or 4' from your subject and take their picture then objects or body parts in the background will appear smaller then if they were on the same plane as the front object. If you stand 10' back then it'll look more even. If there's multiple people (ie: more distance between parts of your subject(s)) then maybe 15 or 20' is needed for a complementary look (ie: no perspective differences that look exaggerated - or more than a normal eye is used to seeing). Is that a correct understanding?

A moderate wide (17mm in 1.6, 28mm in FF, 50mm in 645 format) is a good lens for group shots where shooting distance is limited and the group is large. But wider, even for group shots, has to be very carefully managed. If you shoot from the left side where the ladies in the bridal group are, you will naturally make them loom larger in the photo than the guys and you will hear complaints about how you made them look fat! So you need to try to square yourself to the group as much as possible while shooting with WA lens.

You are right, it is not the lens but the shooting distance. But you HAVE TO use a really wide lens if you are forced into a short shooting distance!
Now take that moderate wide angle problem with large groups and MAGNIFY it, by using a wide (12mm1.6 crop/24mm FF/40mm 645) up close (you're moving thru the guests shooting candids, in close quarters, and wanting to include a reasonable number of guests in the shot), and now the anatomical parts exxageration comes into bite you in the butt, so to speak. So the near/far perspective becomes exaggerated, and body parts loom in the lens. The wide angle lense merely allows you to capture a sufficient area of the scene, in spite of the shooting distance. If a more normal lens were on the camera, you would HAVE TO try a longer shooting distance, so you are saved from the perspective distortion issue! You are perfectly correct...shooting distance, but shooting distance and focal length used are so closely intertwined in real shooting situations!

[NBEast]

A moderate wide (17mm in 1.6, 28mm in FF, 50mm in 645 format) is a good lens for group shots where shooting distance is limited and the group is large. But wider, even for group shots, has to be very carefully managed. If you shoot from the left side where the ladies in the bridal group are, you will naturally make them loom larger in the photo than the guys and you will hear complaints about how you made them look fat! So you need to try to square yourself to the group as much as possible while shooting with WA lens.

You are right, it is not the lens but the shooting distance. But you HAVE TO use a really wide lens if you are forced into a short shooting distance!
Now take that moderate wide angle problem with large groups and MAGNIFY it, by using a wide (12mm1.6 crop/24mm FF/40mm 645) up close (you're moving thru the guests shooting candids, in close quarters, and wanting to include a reasonable number of guests in the shot), and now the anatomical parts exxageration comes into bite you in the butt, so to speak. So the near/far perspective becomes exaggerated, and body parts loom in the lens. The wide angle lense merely allows you to capture a sufficient area of the scene, in spite of the shooting distance. If a more normal lens were on the camera, you would HAVE TO try a longer shooting distance, so you are saved from the perspective distortion issue! You are perfectly correct...shooting distance, but shooting distance and focal length used are so closely intertwined in real shooting situations!
Thank you Wilt for that wonderful explanation. I'll have to bookmark this thread.

To extrapolate into a real situation: I believe you're saying that WA is OK to a point as long as you're aware of the imaginary slightly curved plane of focus. For example, a 19mmEFL (12mm 1.6 crop) could let you stand 10' away and get a shot of 10 people instead of having to back it up to 25' like a 50mm would force. However they should be gathered in a slightly curved line so their faces are all the same distance. Then you may need to pay attention to where the camera is, like maybe nose level (but not above them) to avoid distorted body sizes or maybe crop to make a panarama.

You probably laugh at my imaginary solutions as I'm sure I'll have to experiment before I get it right, but the awareness of that distance-to-lens of all parts of the subject(s) being the key - and that with a 45mmEFL (28 1.6 crop) it's not usually a concern.

One other thing I've heard is that on FF sensor, the naked human eye sees about the same as a 44mm lens (I vaguely recall). So things seem pretty safe at that length and start to even flatten out above that. 50mm is the commonly rounded length considered "normal".

Edit: (added section below)
Well, I lied... I decided that the loss of wide angle would be too much on the 28-75 and I've settled on the new 17-50 Tamron f/2.8 which I'm going to buy locally to ensure that I get good, sharp lens.

I've switched from the 70-200 f/2.8 to f/4 due to weight concerns. I'm worried that if I got the f/2.8 it would be so heavy that I wouldn't be using it as much as a lighter f/4.
"Back she goes" ... American colloquialism for setting back regretted hands of time.

17-50 seems a very nice length. The new Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS seems to be the next wedding lens of choice for APC-S sensor cameras, albiet $1200 US and widely considered overpriced. Still, one hell-of-a package.

I'm so happy with my 70-200 f4.0. A definate step down from the f2.8 for an event like you describe, but as you say, you're more likely to use it.

(Gee, I'm sooo long winded here, sorry)

One last little novice-lesson I've had at events. It's rare that amatures use more than 2 lenses. Time and again we read posts where someone brought an arsinal and only got one or two of them out of the bag. It's also a lot to think about (and haul around). The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and Canon 50 f1.8 show nearly identical IQ and MTF table results and I think the contrast/color is about the same too. I hope your Tamron is like quality. A 50 f1.4 (for its wonderful bokeh and contrast) would be another story, but my guess is the 50 f1.8 wouldn't add much unless there's some no-flash-allowed period where light won't be adequate.

After all, you surely want to relax and enjoy a relative's wedding too. :)

[Wilt]

NBEast, your last post is perfectly stated.

[Punisher77]

A moderate wide (17mm in 1.6, 28mm in FF, 50mm in 645 format) is a good lens for group shots where shooting distance is limited and the group is large. But wider, even for group shots, has to be very carefully managed. If you shoot from the left side where the ladies in the bridal group are, you will naturally make them loom larger in the photo than the guys and you will hear complaints about how you made them look fat! So you need to try to square yourself to the group as much as possible while shooting with WA lens.

You are right, it is not the lens but the shooting distance. But you HAVE TO use a really wide lens if you are forced into a short shooting distance!
Now take that moderate wide angle problem with large groups and MAGNIFY it, by using a wide (12mm1.6 crop/24mm FF/40mm 645) up close (you're moving thru the guests shooting candids, in close quarters, and wanting to include a reasonable number of guests in the shot), and now the anatomical parts exxageration comes into bite you in the butt, so to speak. So the near/far perspective becomes exaggerated, and body parts loom in the lens. The wide angle lense merely allows you to capture a sufficient area of the scene, in spite of the shooting distance. If a more normal lens were on the camera, you would HAVE TO try a longer shooting distance, so you are saved from the perspective distortion issue! You are perfectly correct...shooting distance, but shooting distance and focal length used are so closely intertwined in real shooting situations!
Great tips, thanks! I'll have to keep that in mind and practice it a lot over the summer.

[Punisher77]

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and Canon 50 f1.8 show nearly identical IQ and MTF table results and I think the contrast/color is about the same too. I hope your Tamron is like quality. A 50 f1.4 (for its wonderful bokeh and contrast) would be another story, but my guess is the 50 f1.8 wouldn't add much unless there's some no-flash-allowed period where light won't be adequate. Good point. Before you had even mentioned this I was settled on the f/1.4 due to the sturdier construction and better resale value. I imagine the 50mm being a great, light walk around lens for shooting people. That's probably what I'll have on my camera during the reception since it's a flattering focal length.

After all, you surely want to relax and enjoy a relative's wedding too. :) Best advice yet!! :D

[rklepper]

Personally, I would just attend the wedding and leave the photos to a professional. Too many other things going on that day.


Last fall I picked up a RebelXT (350D) and I'm in love with it. I bought it as a kit at the time since they were having a sale. It came with the EF-S 18-55 (http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=960&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1) and the EF 75-300 (http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=982&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1). I also bought the SpeedLite 430EX (http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=940&sgid=7&gid=2&ovr=1).

I'm planning on covering my sister's wedding in the fall and I was wondering if I should get some new lenses or if I'm just looking for excuses for poor talent. ;)

[Punisher77]

Personally, I would just attend the wedding and leave the photos to a professional. Too many other things going on that day.
That's one possibility but they've already resigned to not hiring a professional photographer and instead want candids from everyone. They asked me to take some of the more professional photos simply because I'm into photography and probably have the most serious gear out of the people they know (not that it matters!).

I'm still going to make sure to have a good time at the wedding but I consider photography to be pretty fun. :)

[NBEast]

Personally, I would just attend the wedding and leave the photos to a professional. Too many other things going on that day.
I completly disagree with that approach. My go at it, I had a blast.

I did hand the camera off to my wife for a little while, and I ate dinner normally etc. I'd "work" the camera 15 minutes, then relax (and drink) 30. Not exactly professional coverage, lol! Was a great opportunity to mingle and get some great candids.

For example: My little girl, 3 at the time, got a kick out of going around kissing everyone she liked on the cheek while I took her photo.


The pressure was off but I still managed to get about 800 photos (yikes!).

I'd highly recommend it for any photo enthusiast. You sound a tad bit burned out at "covering an event", but as long as there's no pressure to perform, I can't imagine a better purpose.

You do have one point though, taking 30 minutes off 3 or 4 times to go around without a camera, have normal conversations, kept things more natural. If it were my brother or my kid, I wouldn't think of "working the photos". Even the groom's dad brought a little Panasonic and got some photos. So its a balance and I was very happy to have my camera - and be under no obligation to cover everything.

I forgot to mention, one trusted artist friend borrowed the camera for an hour and really enjoyed it.

I should mention that I also got some great gear and honed my skills for 2 months in preparation. I'm very anxious to repeat the experience.

[Punisher77]

The pressure was off but I still managed to get about 800 photos (yikes!).
If this was a professional shoot for me then I would decline because I want to enjoy the wedding.

I think I'm going to have to pick up a few more memory cards, I only have 2x1GB right now. ;)

I guess you weren't shooting in RAW...

[NBEast]

If this was a professional shoot for me then I would decline because I want to enjoy the wedding.

I think I'm going to have to pick up a few more memory cards, I only have 2x1GB right now. ;)

I guess you weren't shooting in RAW...
Shot the 1GB RAW, filled it up exactly at the end of the ceremony (big mistake, missed the figurative rice! for shame).

My remaining 2GB, I switched to Large JPG after 60 shots, then High Medium (I seem to recall) after a while :oops: .That allowed for a lot more. Insufficient memory (and forgetting my extra battery) were very limiting.

It's a little fuzzy, bottom line, I could have used a lot more memory. Lots of rookie mistakes, but somehow, the results were just fine and will be even better on the next go-around.

[Punisher77]

Well, I lied... I decided that the loss of wide angle would be too much on the 28-75 and I've settled on the new 17-50 Tamron f/2.8 which I'm going to buy locally to ensure that I get good, sharp lens.

I've switched from the 70-200 f/2.8 to f/4 due to weight concerns. I'm worried that if I got the f/2.8 it would be so heavy that I wouldn't be using it as much as a lighter f/4.
Well, after checking out the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (store didn't have the Tamron) I decided to take a peek at the 24-105L f/4 IS "just for fun" and I really really like the lens. Why did I have to do that?? The IS was especially nice (I had never used it before) and would help at the wedding where I'm planning on having a few drinks... ;)

Part of me thinks that I should just spend the cash and not bother with upgrading in the future since 24-105 would be a nice walk around lens.

The good news is that I'm still set on the 70-200 f/4. The 2.8 is just too heavy for me to make practical use of. I'm also set on the 50mm f/1.8. I tried both the 1.8 and 1.4 and I couldn't really tell much difference aside from the build quality and manual focus control.

[NBEast]

I'm also set on the 50mm f/1.8. I tried both the 1.8 and 1.4 and I couldn't really tell much difference aside from the build quality and manual zoom control.The difference is night and day.

The f1.8 is inconsistant. Sometimes it focuses, sometimes it doesn't. People say "hey, for 80 bucks, waddya want?". I say, if it introduces mistakes on top of my already rather high stack, I wouldn't take it if you gave it to me. I have both because the f1.8 gave great shots (hooking me on a 50 prime) but not always (causing me to leave it at home more and more).

In addition, the 50mm f1.4 image quality is legendary. On a recent "desert island, 1 lens, which one" thread, the 50mm f1.4 came up a lot. A few joking souls chose the f1.8, but I think that's because they wouldn't mind getting sand in it.;) To compare them, try taking a memory card and doing a little photo shoot - exp. if they let you wander outside where the lighting will be more accurate.

Same logic as the 24-105L, don't bother with the 50 f1.8. Just go straight to the keeper. It's one of Canon's finest!

Oh, umm, not to be cheeky but "manual zoom control", I hate to say, doesn't exist on, errrr (clearing throat), a prime.

[Punisher77]

Oh, umm, not to be cheeky but "manual zoom control", I hate to say, doesn't exist on, errrr (clearing throat), a prime.

LOL! My bad. :oops:

I meant "manual focus". I've corrected my original post. :)

[Punisher77]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=187751

[bad_doggie]

I use the wider shots only for landscapes and architecture. I learned pretty quickly that wide shots of people don't look good. My GF didn't like the pictures either.. ;)

i LOVE wide shots of people! people + environment. plus, if they're off to the side, they never know you're photographing them. discreet :-)

[bad_doggie]

Part of me thinks that I should just spend the cash and not bother with upgrading in the future since 24-105 would be a nice walk around lens.


hmm. getting lenses for a wedding. why not just rent exactly what you need?

[Punisher77]

hmm. getting lenses for a wedding. why not just rent exactly what you need?
Because it gives me an excuse to upgrade my lenses (which need it). I'd probably be paying $20-30 a day to rent and I'll be gone for a week. That's over $150 that I could spend on new lenses.

[bad_doggie]

well as my mom always used to say, if u need an excuse to buy a lens then u don't need the lens. u need a lens if you need it to do something u otherwise couldn't do. anyway, $150 is kinda cheap to figure out how to spend $3000+ wisely.

i think this is where someone is suppose to say 'penny wise pound foolish'. but i can't say that with all the L cheerleaders around here.

to be honest, alot of the discussion on these boards sounds a whole lot more like 'are quartz countertops better than granite or marble' than photography.

[Punisher77]

well as my mom always used to say, if u need an excuse to buy a lens then u don't need the lens. u need a lens if you need it to do something u otherwise couldn't do. anyway, $150 is kinda cheap to figure out how to spend $3000+ wisely.
Agreed but I wanted new lenses anyway so I figured I would put the money into the lenses and do my research online and in the camera stores.

to be honest, alot of the discussion on these boards sounds a whole lot more like 'are quartz countertops better than granite or marble' than photography.
That's true but we are in a lens forum for discussing lenses. There are plenty of other forums for discussing photographic style.

Anyway, any photographer worth his salt will tell you that it's not the camera that matters it's your technique and artistic vision. The gear just makes it a little easier to achieve the results that you're after. :)

[bad_doggie]

mmm. well, its not really directed at u, i'm just venting. i *think* most of the folks here are just cheerleading the lenses that they own, for some reason. maybe to feel good about spending so much money on em. but what am i supposed to think, when someone asks about telephotos that they can walk around with and other people recommend something absurd, like a 70-200 2.8 IS. even with a monopod, that would be like walking around with a watermelon on a stick. well, a small watermelon.

or someone in another thread said something like "yeah, you'll see purple fringing on an 85 f/1.8 and other non-L glass ..." WAA?? i can make an 85/1.2 purple fringe, no problem.

anyway. i like renting lenses. it gives me an excuse to go out and take pics in a different way than i'd normally do it. it was a fun challenge e.g. to go out around manhattan with only a 10-22 lens. forces me to think differently.

[Punisher77]

mmm. well, its not really directed at u, i'm just venting. i *think* most of the folks here are just cheerleading the lenses that they own, for some reason. maybe to feel good about spending so much money on em. but what am i supposed to think, when someone asks about telephotos that they can walk around with and other people recommend something absurd, like a 70-200 2.8 IS. even with a monopod, that would be like walking around with a watermelon on a stick. well, a small watermelon.
That's why I didn't get the 70-200 2.8 IS. Being able to hand hold my lenses was a BIG consideration for me. If I can't bring it with me I probably won't use it. You would have to be pretty dedicated to use a 2.8 IS frequently. ;)

anyway. i like renting lenses. it gives me an excuse to go out and take pics in a different way than i'd normally do it. it was a fun challenge e.g. to go out around manhattan with only a 10-22 lens. forces me to think differently.
That's what it's all about. :)

[NBEast]

anyway. i like renting lenses. it gives me an excuse to go out and take pics in a different way than i'd normally do it. it was a fun challenge e.g. to go out around manhattan with only a 10-22 lens. forces me to think differently.Renting's relatively cheap - figure $25/day for a $1000 L.

However; to really get something from a lens, you've got to learn it's strengths and weaknesses (and yours).

My first week with the 135L I overused f2.0 not understanding just how narrow that DOF is (it's narrow). If it were a 1 night rental, I would have discovered that during PP after the big event.

I figure if you get the kind of deal Punisher got at BH, he'll use them for a 2 years, then sell the $3000 of lenses for about $2500. A lot cheaper than the $400 / week it would cost him for all he got.

Renting has it's place, but breaking new ground at an event shouldn't be one of them. IMHO.

[bad_doggie]

My first week with the 135L I overused f2.0 not understanding just how narrow that DOF is (it's narrow). If it were a 1 night rental, I would have discovered that during PP after the big event.


well i'm sure after your first 100 pics you figured out that focusing with it wide open is very very challenging. nevertheless ...


I figure if you get the kind of deal Punisher got at BH, he'll use them for a 2 years, then sell the $3000 of lenses for about $2500. A lot cheaper than the $400 / week it would cost him for all he got.

Renting has it's place, but breaking new ground at an event shouldn't be one of them. IMHO.

well then the same can be said of breaking new ground on any lens at an event. fact is, narrow DOF shooting or low light or speed are special cases. shooting at a wedding is, as i understand it, a whole art in itself. (certainly the kind of candids i like to shoot aren't the type that the bride and groom are going to want to cherish for years to come. ditto for high detail portraits.)

anyway, i don't understand how you can buy a lens that's very different from lenses you have experience with, without trying it out.

the resale point has some validity. although its not an "investment" certainly, cuz canon could of course release say a 70-200 DO that weighs just over a lb and has 4th generation IS at a price competitive with the 70-200 IS, cutting the value of used versions of the older lens.

and hey, if you're buying a top-of-the-line lens right now, why are you already thinking of selling it? what would you replace it with, something of lesser quality?

[NBEast]

well i'm sure after your first 100 pics you figured out that focusing with it wide open is very very challenging. nevertheless ...
Not at all, they looked great on my tiny LCD. I think at least 3 or 4 outings with a lens before really using it. Some weakness/strengths aren't discovered for months.

well then the same can be said of breaking new ground on any lens at an event. fact is, narrow DOF shooting or low light or speed are special cases. shooting at a wedding is, as i understand it, a whole art in itself. (certainly the kind of candids i like to shoot aren't the type that the bride and groom are going to want to cherish for years to come. ditto for high detail portraits.)
Even candids, let's say you focus/recompose. High failure rate on very narrow DOF (like 2 inches).

Using say 17mm, you think all night "wow" then at home you say "yikes! What big noses they all have". Or "how tiny they actually are.



anyway, i don't understand how you can buy a lens that's very different from lenses you have experience with, without trying it out.
A great time to rent. However, there's so many resources to make an informed decision that'll be the next best thing. Often, you'll hear about things you may not notice in the first day of use.



the resale point has some validity. although its not an "investment" certainly, cuz canon could of course release say a 70-200 DO that weighs just over a lb and has 4th generation IS at a price competitive with the 70-200 IS, cutting the value of used versions of the older lens.
Actually, DO lenses sort of suck IMO. Why not just bring a P&S if you want light. A DO lens would not even phase the 70-200 f2.8 IS crowd, totally different audience. I don't thnk there's many pro's showing up at paid events using a DO lens.

IS and AF generation can have an impact on resale. Good lenses seem to be like fine guitars, nobody cares all that much about that nasty looking scratch, the sound and playability is what they're after.


and hey, if you're buying a top-of-the-line lens right now, why are you already thinking of selling it? what would you replace it with, something of lesser quality?Well, when you want that newer AF and 4th generation IS, it's nice to have an upgrade option when needed. Something not true with camera bodies. I might add, that's why lens rental fees are so much less than camera body rentals (try $100 / day).

[bad_doggie]

Not at all, they looked great on my tiny LCD.

zoom zoom zoom. actually, i often have my laptop in a backpack.


Even candids, let's say you focus/recompose. High failure rate on very narrow DOF (like 2 inches).


well of course if you were gonna persist in doing low DOF photos (as i'm trying to do), its going to take a while. and you're still going to have to deal with the whims of AF, although i sure have learned alot of its idiosyncrasies.)


Actually, DO lenses sort of suck IMO. Why not just bring a P&S if you want light. A DO lens would not even phase the 70-200 f2.8 IS crowd, totally different audience. I don't thnk there's many pro's showing up at paid events using a DO lens.


70-300 DO IS isn't targeted to the pro crowd. its for travel. and very good for travel. i seldom care what the 70-200 f/2.8 IS crowd thinks. but i can go places with my camera that they can't.

you're basically saying "if you don't have a 70-200 f/28 IS then why not buy some crap instead". tsk tsk. to every lens there is a purpose. u should come rock climbing with me sometimes lugging ur 3.5lb lens. or take that big white lens somewhere less touristy, where it screams out "i'm an expensive lens! liberate me from this american pig!"

btw, DO pix can be a little flat sometimes: but the dynamic range is there and they sharpen up nicely with some postprocessing. actually, this should be a requirement, in the little booklet distributed with the lens.

[NBEast]

70-300 DO IS isn't targeted to the pro crowd. its for travel. and very good for travel. i seldom care what the 70-200 f/2.8 IS crowd thinks. but i can go places with my camera that they can't.

you're basically saying "if you don't have a 70-200 f/28 IS then why not buy some crap instead". tsk tsk. to every lens there is a purpose. u should come rock climbing with me sometimes lugging ur 3.5lb lens. or take that big white lens somewhere less touristy, where it screams out "i'm an expensive lens! liberate me from this american pig!"

btw, DO pix can be a little flat sometimes: but the dynamic range is there and they sharpen up nicely with some postprocessing. actually, this should be a requirement, in the little booklet distributed with the lens.
True true. You were implying that a 70-200 f2.8 IS purchase would go sour and depreciate quickly if Canon suddenly released a 70-200 DO.

Know what you mean about "liberate me". Been there. The DO's give nice results for the size. That's also a real advantage to the new EF-S lenses, they don't need to be such monsters but have excellent IQ.

[bad_doggie]

True true. You were implying that a 70-200 f2.8 IS purchase would go sour and depreciate quickly if Canon suddenly released a 70-200 DO.

oh okay. i lost the context :-)