Lens recommendation for weddings

[Big Mike]

I've been getting some opinions in the lens forum...but I'd like some input from the wedding crowd.

I need to upgrade my kit lens EF-S 18-55 (on a 20D), so I'm looking at lenses in that range. These are what I'm considering so far...

Canon EF-S 17-85mm F4 - F5.6 IS USM
Canon 17-40mm F4 L
Tamron 17-50 F2.8
Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro
Sigma 18-50 mm F2.8 EX DCI would really like to have the 17-55 F2.8 IS...but the price is quite a bit higher than the ones I'm looking at.

I would really love to have the 17-40 L...but is F4 adequate for weddings? The 17-85 IS is more affordable and it has IS...but I've heard the quality is not great and even with IS...I might have problems with moving subjects.

Any input would be appreciated.

[Lin-z]

I would certaintly add in the Tamron 28-75 2.8 as an option. Its a great lens and its well priced.

I don't have any of the others so I can't comment on them..

[coreypolis]

the 17-40 is a beauty of a lens, but you may find it too slow, so the Tamron 2.8 would win if you will be doing a lot of low light work. If not, the 17-40 would be hard to beat

[picturecrazy]

The 2.8's would definitely interest me in your grouping... but I've also used the 17-85 for weddings and liked it. Yes, it is a slower lens but you can more than make up for it with creative lighting techniques.

But once the light gets really low and you start to employ shutter dragging, then IS doesn't seem to be as much of a concern. I think I'd be inclined to go with the sigma or tamron 2.8's. My friend has the tamron 17-50 and loves it.

The 17-40... even though you can flash to make up the 1 stop... gosh, it's way too short on the long end. Unless you like being right in their faces all the time... which neither the bride/groom or guests really like to see. With my 17-55, I find I use 17mm a lot, and then I pretty much stay around 38-55mm for the rest. I would die if my range ended at 40mm. LOL

[Big Mike]

Thanks for the input.

The 28-75 isn't in the running as I really need the 17 or 18 view. I even wish that there was something wider (without being too wide)...like 15mm to mimic the view of 24mm on 35mm film. 28mm on film has never really impressed me.

I have plans to one day go full frame...I'm thinking that the next generation of the 5D should be a pretty good camera. With that in mind...the 17-40 would be a good lens to have for landscapes and really big group shots etc. However, I still think that F2.8 on my 20D will be the most useful for me. Right now I'm leaning toward the Tamron 17-50 F2.8.

To throw in another monkey wrench to the equation...Canon Canada currently has it's double (or triple?) rebate program. I'm thinking of upgrading my flash to a 430 or 580...so with double discounts...I could stretch my lens budget...but that would mean forgetting about the Tamron.

[picturecrazy]

Yeah, I don't know how people use 28mm on a crop body. It's just not wide enough for my style I guess. I'd be switching between the 28-70 and 10-22 constantly!!
Where do you shop in edmonton? Take a look at prices at http://www.thecamerastore.com and tell McBain to match those prices... they always do. Mcbain is a ripoff unless you price match.

[cdifoto]

I use my 24-70 for almost everything. Places aren't as cramped as some photographers would like you to believe. I bust out the 12-24 when I want to get oddly creative but the 24-70 gets all the "standard" shots.

[Tiffany]

Personally I love the Tamaron 17-50 f2.8 - it only comes off my camera at weddings during the ceremony when I switch to a 135mm prime so I can stay back and still get the shots.

[Banbert]

Canon EF-S 17-85mm F4 - F5.6 IS USM, my mate who I shoot with has this lens and although we have only been official photographers at one wedding so far ( we have 5 bookings for next year already) I think he realises it just doesnt cut it in dark churches like we have here in the UK.

We always shoot as a pair and I have the 17-55 F2.8 IS and its an awesome lens, next lens we buy for our business will be a 50mm F1.4 to give him a lens he can use when the light is bad.

Ive read a lot of threads about lens and particularly about lenses most suitable for weddings and my ultimate lens collection for weddings (on a crop body like I have) would be something like this.

17-55 F2.8 IS - 75% of wedding could be shot with this i reckon
70-200 F2..8 IS - For when you need to stay further away and for candids
50mm F1.4 (or 1.2 if u have money to burn) - For when the lights really bad
10-22mm or a fish eye - For those nbice wide angle wow shots
100mm F2.8 USM -- For macro stuff

I am very much a newbie at this wedding stuff but like ive said ive read a ton of threads and thats the list I am working towards for what its worth.

Get the 17-55 F2.8 IS and you will never regret it, I ran short of cash when investing in my kit upgrade to enable me to do weddings and couldnt stretch to the 70-200 F2.8 IS so ended up with a 70-200 F4L ... which I love .. but I can imagine a point next year when it gets traded for what I really wanted.

[Big Mike]

Thanks for the tips.

picturecrazy, Yes...I do shop at McBain and I know their prices are high. I have a friend who works there...so I think I may be able to get a discount...which is hopefully more than the industry/student discount. I do check the other Canadian stores like The Camera Store or Vistek...and will certainly get them to price match if I can (or just go to Calgary to buy the stuff). Actually, a just met a fellow Edmontonian who recommended another place to use as a price match...he said they are usually cheaper than The Camera Store...I forget the name though.

Ideally, I'd love the 17-55 F2.8 IS...well actually, I'd rather have a 1Ds mk II with a 24-70 F2.8...but I don't think I can have either...for the same reason...$$$

[xBtUser]

IMO, you should only consider buying a len with at least f/2.8. If not, you will have problem inside of a dark church. Hope this help and good luck finding your lens.

[Big Mike]

Thanks

[Stan43]

I thinbk the 50 1.4 has been mentioned. Inside a dark church this will be your best bet if you have the right distance from the B&G. I agree that for inside work 2.8 is as slow as you want to go. For outside goups and with flash I would get the 17-40L.

[imhotep]

Another vote for the Tamron 28-75. I've had mine for three months. Leading up to the purchase, I was also considering the 17-40L. This next comment will probably spark some dissension, but whatever. While I was trying to decide bewteen the two, I read a comparison article that showed the sharpness from the Tamron 28-75 to be <u> nearly </u> as good as the 17-40L. As for my own experiences with it....it's sharp as heck.

I've used it for weddings and portraits mostly. It really does give sharp results. Someone with the discipline to painstakingly compare the two lenses pixel by pixel will no doubt conclude that the L glass is sharper. My wallet thanked me though, and so do my eyes everytime I look at the Tamron images.

I will try to post some examples when I get home from work. Hope this helps.

[Big Mike]

Thanks...but I don't think 28mm wide enough to replace the 18-55

[Wilt]

Have covered weddings with 645 format medium format film cameras, and with 35mm cameras prior to APS-C. Although Banbert says he is a newbie at weddings he is 100% on target for his suggestions! (The 100mm f/2.8 could go away.) The lenses he suggests cover 100% of what I needed in medium format coverage, along with the long reach and fast lens speed that 35mm film coverage provides. Perfect for dSLR with APC-C format frame!

[Big Mike]

17-55 F2.8 IS - 75% of wedding could be shot with this i reckon
70-200 F2..8 IS - For when you need to stay further away and for candids
50mm F1.4 (or 1.2 if u have money to burn) - For when the lights really bad
10-22mm or a fish eye - For those nbice wide angle wow shots

I agree, that is certainly an ideal kit...and if finances allowed, those are the ones I would get. However...that's over $5000 CND worth of gear.

I might even consider the 17-55 F2.8 IS...but that is a lot to spend on an EF-S lens. If/when I eventually upgrade to a full frame body, I would use that for the wider stuff and keep the 20D for mid to longer stuff...which would make the 17-55 the odd man out.

[S230]

From your original list above, I would go for the 17-40 f4 if there were no other choice. But like many have said, it's better to go for a 2.8. Look at the Sigma 24-70 f2.8. The price is similar to the 17-40. Mayby not as wide but it's quite good.

[picturecrazy]

If you got a crop camera, don't hesitate in getting a 17-55 F2.8 IS if you can afford it! I swear they designed that lens just for us wedding photographers. The other alternatives all have shortcomings... either not wide enough (24-70, 24-105), not fast enough (18-55, 17-40, 24-105), not long enough (17-40, 16-35), no stabilizer (24-70), not sharp enough (18-55), or weighs a FREAKING TON (24-70).

If you are 'considering' upgrading in the future, why compromise the next two+ years of photos in the off-chance that you MIGHT go full frame? Buy the BEST TOOL FOR THE JOB! If you go full frame, sell what you don't need (17-55) and use it to offset the cost of the new lens, therefore it won't cost near as much, as many lenses hold their value.

[Wilt]

I agree, that is certainly an ideal kit...and if finances allowed, those are the ones I would get. However...that's over $5000 CND worth of gear.

I might even consider the 17-55 F2.8 IS...but that is a lot to spend on an EF-S lens. If/when I eventually upgrade to a full frame body, I would use that for the wider stuff and keep the 20D for mid to longer stuff...which would make the 17-55 the odd man out.

Why deprive yourself meanwhile? So meanwhile you could have gotten good use for the lens, a good value; then later you sell the lens on the open market for most of your original investment and buy the 24-70L for your FF camera you eventually buy.

[Big Mike]

I don't disagree with that logic...it's just that I can't afford to spend that much at this time. I'm just entering into the professional realm of photography...and strictly on a part time basis. I've got a a few jobs booked and a hand full of leads...but nowhere near enough to pay for top end gear, even on a two year time line. If business picks, up...well then I'll reinvest as best I can.

I'm in a position that most consumers must find themselves in...I know that getting the best equipment is the best thing to do...on a short and long term basis...but I'm struggling to justify the cost. Until my business starts to pay for itself...equipment will have to take a back seat to my family's needs.

I guess what I have to figure out...is whether the cheaper lenses are up to my standards. I'm sure I could make due with the kit lens...and still impress a lot of people...but I won't necessarily be impressing myself. Live and learn.

Thanks for the input.

[EOS mE]

17-55 F2.8 IS - 75% of wedding could be shot with this i reckon
70-200 F2..8 IS - For when you need to stay further away and for candids
50mm F1.4 (or 1.2 if u have money to burn) - For when the lights really bad
10-22mm or a fish eye - For those nbice wide angle wow shots



that's the same list i'm building for my 30D. i got the 17-55mm and next is the 50 f1.4. was going to get the 70-200 L f2.8, but too many bills came this month and the will be coming next month... so need to hold off.

but if anything.. i'd suggest you buy the 17-55 first. i know it's a bit steep.. but when i bought my 30D without a kit lens.. i bit the bullet and dig deep to buy the 17-55. i'd never regretted since then... just only wished i had more money now that the double rebate is rolling. :(

[Wilt]

but if anything.. i'd suggest you buy the 17-55 first. i know it's a bit steep.. but when i bought my 30D without a kit lens.. i bit the bullet and dig deep to buy the 17-55. i'd never regretted since then... just only wished i had more money now that the double rebate is rolling. :(

Agreed! I shot medium format weddings with nothing other than equivalent lenses that fell wholly within the range covered by the 17-55!