Tell me which lens should I buy!

[song4themoon]

Keeping in mind that I am buying it for wedding photography..

I am looking at a Canon 28mm F1.8 USM which I just almost bought. Then I had second thoughts and wondered if it was better to go with the
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ????

Tell me which should I get and why? I found both for about $400 so the price is about the same.

[mizuno]

They are very different lenses.

If you can only get one, get the one which you can see yourself using more than the other. Which one is the most practical, considering your current lens lineup?

[song4themoon]

I have tendency to the Canon, just the fact that I gain an extra f stop. My next widest lens that I now own is the 50mm then the 85mm. I am not sure thought if 28 is enough or not. My reason for buying it is to have a decent lens for large group shots and to also have a lens to show a big part of the church when I stand in the back during the ceremony

I know for sure that the next lens after that will be the 70-200 2.8 IS but thats a totally different range than the two I am looking at now anyway.

[mizuno]

You are comparing a fixed focal with a zoom.

Considering your list says you have an EF-S 17-55, I can only conclude that you would have to be certifiably insane to buy a Tamron 17-50 as well.

If you think you need the speed, get the 28mm, there is no reason why you would need two zooms in the same range of the same speed.

[song4themoon]

Mizuno, yes the reason is the speed. I dont use my 18-55 at weddings unless its outside and even then I feel that the pictures are just a bit more soft than the ones I take with my "better" lenses.
But I guess I just needed confirmation that the 28 makes more sense. I would love to see a group shot or church shot taken with a 28mm to see really how wide it is.

[jamiewexler]

I have tendency to the Canon, just the fact that I gain an extra f stop. My next widest lens that I now own is the 50mm then the 85mm. I am not sure thought if 28 is enough or not. My reason for buying it is to have a decent lens for large group shots and to also have a lens to show a big part of the church when I stand in the back during the ceremony

28mm really isn't very wide on a 1.6 body, so I think you'll be disappointed when you try to get the shots you're describing. I think a lens in the 17-something range is probably more what you're looking for. As others have stated, whether it's a prime or a zoom is up to your individual shooting preference.

If primes, than you might want to look at the Sigma 20 f1.8. Recommending this lens is going to make my next sentence sound hypocritical, but it is very highly respected, and two stops faster than the closest Canon.

If zooms, I'd recommend passing on the Tamron and spending $200 more on a Canon 17-40 f4. The 17-40 was my bread and butter lens before I bought the 17-55 IS. The big advantage it offers over the Tamron is USM - giving you fast, accurate, AF - even in low light. It also has the famous "L" clarity/color/contrast, that so many people are addicted to on the lens board. The Tamrons (and Sigmas) I've owned had a tough time focusing in low light, leading to a lot of missed focus and altogether missed shots. Yes it's f4, but I kept mine on my flash body, so it wasn't a burden. And I could safely handhold it at 1/30 because if the wide focal length.

If I was just starting out again, and had to build a low cost kit from scratch, I could shoot an entire wedding with a 17-40 and 85 f1.8.

[song4themoon]

Jamie, thanks for all the great information. I try to shoot without flash for as much as possible therefor I would like a lens that allows me a aperture of at least 2.8 even better 1.8

So you say that the Sigma 20mm 1.8 would be significantly wider than the 28mm?

[jamiewexler]

Though it doesn't sound like it, Yes.

[jamiewexler]

Jenni, another option might be a used Canon 20-35 f2.8L. My associate just sold his in favor of a Tok 12-24/Canon 24-70 combo, but I was always amazed at how good the IQ was from that lens. You can find them used for around $450.

And as for shooting w/out a flash...sorry if this comes out as harsh, but, learn to use your flash and you'll never shoot without it. It's been my experience that people (myself included) who say they don't like to use flash at all do so because they haven't quite mastered control of the flash. It took me a good 20 weddings to feel like I was master of my flash (not the other way around!).

[song4themoon]

Jamie, I think I will go with the 20mm 1.8 from Sigma I found a new one on EBay for $400, thats about how much I am willing to spend right now.

I have a 50 mm so I think with the 20mm and 50mm (both 1.8) I will be covered better than the 24-70 2.8 Thanks for your advice!

[jamiewexler]

Jenni - you can save a few $$$ here:

Sigma4Less (http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=1544ad2666bfab5/shopdata/0020_Lenses/0020_Fixed+Focal+Length/0020_Wide/product_details.shopscript?article=0320_Sigma%2BWi de%2BAngle%2B20mm%2Bf%3D26slash%3D3B1%3D252E8%2BEX %2BDG%2BAspherical%2BAutofocus%2BLens%2Bfor%2BCano n%2BEOS%2B%3D28SG20F18CA%3D29)

I've bought a few lenses from there , and they have great prices and quick shipping.

[song4themoon]

Damn, too late.. I already bought it... but thanks anyway!

[Phil V]

And as for shooting w/out a flash...sorry if this comes out as harsh, but, learn to use your flash and you'll never shoot without it. It's been my experience that people (myself included) who say they don't like to use flash at all do so because they haven't quite mastered control of the flash. It took me a good 20 weddings to feel like I was master of my flash (not the other way around!). Sorry to hijack the thread -BUT.....
Has anyone round here told him (http://www.jeffreyascough.com/) he should learn how to use flash?:rolleyes:

[song4themoon]

Phil, this guy is awesome and his style is absolutely outstanding! I am sure he knows how to use a flash but it doesnt fit his style. I LOVE LOVE LOVE his work!

[cdifoto]

Sorry to hijack the thread -BUT.....
Has anyone round here told him (http://www.jeffreyascough.com/) he should learn how to use flash?:rolleyes:

Hmm. Maybe he should learn it. Just because he's damned good with available light doesn't mean he shouldn't learn to use flash too. ISO3200 f/1.4 and no depth of field isn't always desirable. ;)

[jamiewexler]

I've no doubt that Jeff Ascough knows how to use a flash...and does so when needed - even if those images don't make it to his website! My comment was not intended towards peope who know how to use a flash but choose not to, but for those still struggling with flash exposure.

I'll not speak for everyone else, but for me, flash exposure was the toughest thing to learn. In the beginning, my results when using a flash were so inconsistent (wildly overexposed one shot, wildly underexposed the next), that I proclaimed that I was in the "available light" camp - and eschewed my flash except when absolutely necessary. As I progressed, I read articles, I experimented, and I upgraded, and now I shoot with a flash more often than without.

My comment was aimed at those who may feel like I did - they get far more consistent results when they turn the flash off. I am much happier and much more confident, now that I know I can get consistent exposures whether there's enough ambient light or not. Definitely didn't mean it in an offensive way...

[cdifoto]

I didn't mean to imply that he doesn't actually know how to use it either....

[Phil V]

The difficult thing with forums is judging the audience, I learnt to balance flash with a medium format rig and hammerhead auto flash 20 years ago. I know your advice was aimed at a largely inexperienced audience who are yet to grasp the subtleties of flash. The Jeff Ascough link was a little tease:wink: . I know he uses flash, and when, and even though I aim for a similar use as he, like you I find it easier to work with flash than without.
It appears that most of the wedding pro's round here are relatively young and their absolute truth's are a mixture of inexperience and trends. (again apologies for the hijack)

[tim]

I have my eye on the Sigma 30mm F1.4, and i'll definitely get it before the next season. I love my 50mm F1.4m, but quite often (eg prep shots) I want something a bit wider. I have lots of tilted shots to get everything in! Lots of tilted shots = bad.

I wouldn't like to have a 20mm prime, that's too close to make a flattering portrait for me.