Decent wedding lens

[gurlwholuvsphoto]

Okay..so I'm new to the whole digital photography thing. I'm shooting my first wedding this summer and I'm clueless as to what to get for a lens. I honestly don't have much money...just a few thousand from a loan which is mostly spent on all the other equipment. So my question is this....can anyone suggest me a decent priced lens that will be versitle for classic portraits yet able to decently zoom in on the couple during the actual ceremony. Any advice would be great...I'd like to purchase everything soon. The weddings not till August 19th, but I'm also shooting some engagement pics towards the end of the month. Thanks a bunch.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Give me a budget, and list out your gear. Oh, and there's not many truly nice lenses that'll do both "couple" portraits and zoom far enough to get them from the other end of the aisle.

[tim]

I make some recommendations on this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75678&page=9), middle of the page. To set up from scratch as a professional will cost you around $8K for some good gear, $5K if you scrimp a bit.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

The stuff I "need" for weddings, not including the MkII, was only like $5-6k. That's two 20D's, a 580, a 24-70L, a 70-200L IS, a very pricey bracket, and some CF's. Oh, and a bag. That's all you really need for weddings, eh? Switch one of the 20D's for the MkII I've got, and you're at $7500 or so, so you're right. $8k will get you a dang fine set of gear.

[tim]

I don't know if i'd want a Mk2 for weddings, the 20Ds do quite well for me, and a 30d would be the obvious pick right now.

[daclozer]

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 at least.

[cmM]

What other equipment did you buy that's more important than lenses? :confused:
Just one lens? That's hard. IMO, the 28-75 is neither wide enough, nor long enough (if it's the only lens used).

[tim]

Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and a 50mm 1.8 at least.

Forget the 50mm F1.8 for professional work, get the 1.4 version. There are many threads and posts on why, but in summary you get what you pay for.

[mackb]

Forget the 50mm F1.8 for professional work, get the 1.4 version. There are many threads and posts on why, but in summary you get what you pay for.

Example:

A friend recently gave one to me (he sold some gear to the local photog store and they told him to keep it)

edit,....oh yeah they suggested using it as a body cap!

[mackb]

I'm the ultimate broke wedding photographer, so I'm kinda an expert on what to buy when you have little money,.........I just bought the Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG EX, I've taken it out about 5 times and it looks like I got more than I expected, I can only imagine what I would have got with the L. I paid about $400, but I'm sure it cheaper somewhere.

A current gear list would help!

[bhp]

I'm the ultimate broke wedding photographer, so I'm kinda an expert on what to buy when you have little money,.........I just bought the Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG EX, I've taken it out about 5 times and it looks like I got more than I expected, I can only imagine what I would have got with the L. I paid about $400, but I'm sure it cheaper somewhere.

A current gear list would help!

I once owned the sigma 24-70 myself, and can also recommend this as a decent lens for the $$$. I then replaced it with a Canon 17-40 f/4L, and recently replaced than with the Canon 17-55 f/2.8... Now I'm in heaven.

But at anyrate, the Sigma is a good lens for those on a budget. I also heard good reviews regarding the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

[daclozer]

I very seldom use my 50mm 1.8, but I was trying to recommend a few lenses for someone on a budget. I haven't shot with the 1.4, but is it that much better than the 1.8?

[tim]

I very seldom use my 50mm 1.8, but I was trying to recommend a few lenses for someone on a budget. I haven't shot with the 1.4, but is it that much better than the 1.8?

The 1.4 focuses accurately, the 1.8 doesn't always.

[jj1987]

The 1.8 focuses accurately, the 1.8 doesn't always.
How does the 1.4 do? :lol:

Tim's Responce
The 1.4 focuses accurately, the 1.8 doesn't always is what I had meant to say.

[tim]

Oops! Yeah what he said :p

[Maureen Souza]

I love my 85/1.2 and 50/1.4 for weddings. In Aug. I am going to borrow a friends 35/1.4 and 24/1.4......something tells me I will be a happy camper with all those primes!

[gurlwholuvsphoto]

Here's my cart so far...
Canon EOS 20D, 8.2 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera (Camera Body)
Canon BG-E2 Vertical Grip/Battery Holder for EOS 20D & EOS 30D Digital Cameras
SBM #0104 Supreme Flash Diffuser for Canon 580EX Flash
Canon 580EX Speedlite E-TTL II Shoe Mount Flash (Guide No. 190'/58 m at 105mm)
GGI CompactFlash (type I & II), Single Slot, USB 2.0 Interface, Card Reader
Sandisk 2GB Ultra II CompactFlash Card
Canon BP-511A Rechargeable Lithium-Ion Battery (7.4v 1390mAh) for Canon Digital Still & Video Cameras(x2)

[jj1987]

We know what that stuff is, no use typing THAT much ;)

[jra]

You definately should get some additional memory cards.

[amccomis]

I haven't bought mine yet, but everyone has sent you in good directions -- the Sigma 24-70 2.8 is a strong choice, priced 350-400ish. The downside of this lens is twofold: 1) it's heavy, 2) it's a bit soft at f/2.8. The upside is stopped down to 5.6 or so, it looks incredible.

As for focal lengths, 24-70 vs 28-75, people say over and over: I'd rather have 4mm more wide than 5 more mm tele.

[sarumann]

I find the 17-40 f4L to be my main lens at the moment. I back that up with the 70-200 f2.8 ISL and find that there is not much else I need to reach for.

I know the 50 1.8 has bad bokeh, but it works well for boquet shots and the like.



Mark

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I agree with you, tim. You don't need a MkII for weddings. Other than focus accuracy, there is no advantage, really (other than maybe dynamic range increase). A 20D is more than adequate.

[EOS mE]

wow.. this is a very valuable thread for me. (thanks Tim ;) )

Lately, I've been giving some really serious thoughts about my dedication and passion for photography and it just keeps pointing me and drawing me towards wanting to do wedding photography. Since then I've been saving up for the following:
- Canon EOS 30D
- Canon BG-E2 Battery Grip
- Canon 430EX Speedlite (already got)

I know the list isn't much.. but I'm in uncharted territories.. so i know I will need some glass, a bag, flash cards, etc. But I'm more concerned about the lenses. I would like to start out using the best lens if possible. but from the looks of it, many wedding photographers only use 2-3 lense only, right? so what would you all recommend? 50mm F/1.4 and 70-200 F/2.8? Pretty much I want to get the lense with fast focus, which I think doesn't come cheap?

thanks~
rui

[tim]

If I was buying a 2 lens kit, i'd probably get the 17-55 F2.8 IS and the 70-200 F2.8 IS. I might get the 50mm F1.4 instead of the 70-200, maybe, but i'd probably add it on instead of replacing it. Backup gear is essential for a pro, of course.

[EOS mE]

If I was buying a 2 lens kit, i'd probably get the 17-55 F2.8 IS and the 70-200 F2.8 IS. I might get the 50mm F1.4 instead of the 70-200, maybe, but i'd probably add it on instead of replacing it. Backup gear is essential for a pro, of course.

tim, how come you would choose the 50mm F1.4 over the 70-200? cuz it seems like most wedding photographers choose to use both. my guess is that the 70-200 gives them the zoom so they don't have to be too close to the subject to make them too conscious. now i can see why you'd use a 50mm F1.4 for prep shots and etc. but, how come a 17-55 f2.8?

sorry for the noobie question.

[tim]

tim, how come you would choose the 50mm F1.4 over the 70-200? cuz it seems like most wedding photographers choose to use both. my guess is that the 70-200 gives them the zoom so they don't have to be too close to the subject to make them too conscious. now i can see why you'd use a 50mm F1.4 for prep shots and etc. but, how come a 17-55 f2.8?

sorry for the noobie question.

Two lenses isn't enough, so I had to choose. If I had to have one lens the 17-55 F2.8 IS is what i'd choose. Next it's a choice between the fast prime for prep and reception, or the long lens for ceremony and reception. Not entirely sure about that one. I have both. I have a whole bag of lenses and I wouldn't give either up, but I suspect in 6 months i'll be operating with a short prime (24mm F1.8 ish), a longer prime (50mm F1.4 or 85mm F1.8), and the 70-200 F2.8 IS.

[jamiewexler]

Two lenses isn't enough, so I had to choose. If I had to have one lens the 17-55 F2.8 IS is what i'd choose. Next it's a choice between the fast prime for prep and reception, or the long lens for ceremony and reception. Not entirely sure about that one. I have both. I have a whole bag of lenses and I wouldn't give either up, but I suspect in 6 months i'll be operating with a short prime (24mm F1.8 ish), a longer prime (50mm F1.4 or 85mm F1.8), and the 70-200 F2.8 IS.

Your two lenses are spot on 17-55 and 70-200 IS'. If there's a "holy trinity" of primes, this is the "Holy Binity" (is that a word) of zooms!

Let me help you with the fast prime for prep: 35 f1.4 - when I want a lens that makes me go "wow" I grab the 35. + it's the perfect focal length (55mm equiv) on a crop factor body.

[EOS mE]

jamie.. is there a particular benefit to shooting with prime vs. zoom lense? cuz i'm trying to figure out between the following lenses (17-55 F2.8 IS, 70-200 F2.8 IS, 50mm F1.4) that both you and Tim suggested... just wondering which one i should get first to get my feet wet in wedding photography.

[picturecrazy]

To get your feet wet, I'd start with the 17-55. It is the most versatile of the three. You cannot do an entire wedding with only the 50 1.4 or the 70-200 IS, but you can with the 17-55. It is decent in low light for receptions and churches.

The advantage of primes is that they are faster than zooms. The fastest zooms are F2.8. So a F1.4 prime will handle a dark church much better if flash is not allowed. Image quality is typically sharper with primes, though the 17-55 has sharpness that is VERY close to my 50 1.4... it is amazing.

I would buy the lenses in this order: 17-55, 70-200 IS, Sigma 30 1.4 (or Canon 35 L) Canon 85mm (either L or non-L).

But really, I would get the canon 10-22 or it's sigma/tokina counterparts first before the primes... but that's personal choice. I have only pulled out the primes if the lighting is insanely poor.

[tim]

Your two lenses are spot on 17-55 and 70-200 IS'. If there's a "holy trinity" of primes, this is the "Holy Binity" (is that a word) of zooms!

Let me help you with the fast prime for prep: 35 f1.4 - when I want a lens that makes me go "wow" I grab the 35. + it's the perfect focal length (55mm equiv) on a crop factor body.

Yeah but $1150, compared with $500 for the Sigma 30mm F1.4, I think i'll get the Sigma. Any thoughts on that?

...You cannot do an entire wedding with only the 50 1.4 or the 70-200 IS, but you can with the 17-55. It is decent in low light for receptions and churches.

I disagree - so long as I wasn't in a restrictive church I could do an entire wedding with a 50mm F1.4, and I could do a good enough job that I would be happy with it. I think it takes a bit of experience to get to that level, and of course having more gear makes it quite a bit easier. I'd rather have a great photographer with an XT and a 50mm F1.4 than an average photographer with a whole bag of stuff.

[jamiewexler]

Yeah but $1150, compared with $500 for the Sigma 30mm F1.4, I think i'll get the Sigma. Any thoughts on that?

I had a chance to shoot them side by side once: http://www.bigredstudios.com/30vs35/

And

Shoot the 35L against all my other "L's": http://www.bigredstudios.com/35.htm

And how about this one, straight out of the camera wide open:
http://www.bigredstudios.com/Anthony&Lisa077.JPG

I don't know, I spent a lot of money on lenses last/this year, but the 35L is my most favorite of them all. It's the one that I wouldn't mind being stuck with if I only had one lens at a wedding!

[tim]

I had a chance to shoot them side by side once: http://www.bigredstudios.com/30vs35/

And

Shoot the 35L against all my other "L's": http://www.bigredstudios.com/35.htm

And how about this one, straight out of the camera wide open:
http://www.bigredstudios.com/Anthony&Lisa077.JPG

I don't know, I spent a lot of money on lenses last/this year, but the 35L is my most favorite of them all. It's the one that I wouldn't mind being stuck with if I only had one lens at a wedding!

Interesting, thanks. The 35mm is definitely a bit sharper, but I really want the width of the 30mm or even perhaps a 25mm or so fast prime. I like my 50mm but it's just too long for a lot of what I do.

[picturecrazy]

I disagree - so long as I wasn't in a restrictive church I could do an entire wedding with a 50mm F1.4, and I could do a good enough job that I would be happy with it. I think it takes a bit of experience to get to that level, and of course having more gear makes it quite a bit easier. I'd rather have a great photographer with an XT and a 50mm F1.4 than an average photographer with a whole bag of stuff.

My bag is pretty limited I'd say...
But I've been in so many situations where I've been in such a cramped, small space where even the 17mm end was bordering on 'not wide enough' (which is why the 24-70L just didn't cut it for me). Same situation last thursday. I had a wedding in a small house and in a tiny gazebo in the backyard of the house. There was NO way I could get a decent photo in there with more than one person in it.

eg this was taken at 17mm and I was backed up just about as far as I could go without destroying her mom's flower garden. No way could a 50mm gotten all full length, 3/4 and facial closeups.
http://yoonl.brinkster.net/misc/img_0574.jpg

I'm just saying that the 17-55 can do weddings in pretty much ANY and ALL situations. While yes, I can do an entire wedding with a 50 1.4, the situation and environment has to be friendly and large enough to allow it. Otherwise you are compromising on your compositions.

[EOS mE]

man Jamie.. those are some awesome photos for comparisons!! that 35mm is amazing.. or is it just the photographer behind it? now i'm really stuck on which lense to get. it's almost like a buffet line.. i want them ALL!!

i know i want a zoom lense and some prime for the speed for the focus.. but which one should i choose?? I want them ALL!~!

ok, if i can have 3 lense (for now.. ;) ) which three should I get and in which order should I get them first?

[jamiewexler]

There's no skill behind pictures of peanut butter and sunflower seed packaging - many claim that the 35 f1.4 is the finest lens Canon makes, and though all my lenses now give me constently high quality images, the 35 gives me images that make me say "wow" based purely on the color, clarity, and contrast. Real world images seem somehow "deeper". If I could get away with it, I'd love to shoot an entire wedding with my 35 1.4 and (neglected) 135 f2 - that's why I really want to second shoot!

On a more practical front, If I had a decent starting budget, and had to choose three lenses for a 20d/30D/XT, they'd be (in order of purchase) the 17-55 f2.8 IS, the 70-200 f2.8 IS, and the 50 f1.4 (the last one being for those situations where it's so dark that only a wider aperture would let in enough light). I'd choose the 50 over a 35 or 85 because it is a good mid range focal lenght, suitable for ceremony or portraits.

[EOS mE]

humm.. 17-55 & 70-200 is the holy binity of all Zooms right?
btw, where would one be able to find the best deal on canon lense?

Also, why wouldn't it be realistic to use the 35mm f/1.4 for weddings?