Which lens should I get?

[Malaxos1]

I need a new les for shooting weddings. I used a 28-70mm f2.8 lens the other day and I was pleased with it's performance. The problem that I have is that I was all over the place trying to get close enough. So I have two options, 1) 70-200mm f4L or 2) 75-300mm USM IS 3.5-5.6. I would love to get the 70-200 f2.8L IS but it's way out of my budget. Anyway i got another couple weddings coming up and would like to be alittle more prepared...Dean

[CoolToolGuy]

Have you thought about the 28-135 IS?
It seems a little odd that you would need 200mm, with a 1.6 crop factor, to do a wedding. The compression of the subjects at 200mm may make the shots look unnatural.

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Bruce Hamilton]

Have you tried a tele-converter? A 2x would give you a 56-140 f5.6, and it'd be pretty cheap... Use it for the next two weddings, and you should be able to afford that L lens.

[Malaxos1]

I thought about the TC but I need to be faster. Also My 70mm f2.8 becomes 112mm but it wasn't enough, I need to be able to zoom in so that I won't be to intrusive. Here is another option...Dean

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2987470229&category=46 87

[Tom W]

The big question I would have is whether you have adequate light or not. I'm not sure that you would want a moderate-to-slow lens if you're relying on available light.

You may want to consider Canon's 100 mm f/2 prime, or the 135 mm f/2.8 soft-focus tele. It will get you some distance beyond what the 28-70 gives you and both are fairly fast. The soft-focus gives you the advantage of being able to take some softer portriats on occasion.

I haven't used either lens, but they both rate high on photodo.net's chart. Plus, they are not very expensive (particularly the 135 mm).

EDIT: I just noticed that you wanted a little longer lens than what the 135 might provide.

[Tom W]

I thought about the TC but I need to be faster. Also My 70mm f2.8 becomes 112mm but it wasn't enough, I need to be able to zoom in so that I won't be to intrusive. Here is another option...Dean

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2987470229&category=46 87

That's a good lens as well - the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is what I have. Its very sharp and it is useful for getting around the church without making a scene if you need to stay back a bit.

[CyberDyneSystems]

If you go for the Sigma,. look at www.deltainternational.com


..probably a safer bet than some of the E-bay dealers..

[Bruce Hamilton]

That's a good lens as well - the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is what I have.
You can buy a pair of the 75-300 f4.5 lenses for that L lens... Lot of money just to shoot a wedding or two.

[Tom W]

That's a good lens as well - the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is what I have.
You can buy a pair of the 75-300 f4.5 lenses for that L lens... Lot of money just to shoot a wedding or two.

I'm not arguing that - its just that the 75-300 isn't a very fast lens, and depending on the available lighting, may not be adequate indoors.

I chose the Sigma because its very close to "L" glass, but about 2/3 the price new. And its good enough that I don't have the urge to replace it with Canon gear any time soon.

[nosquare2003]

I second the Sigma 70-200/2.8. IMHO, a zoom lens is much better for weddings and other events.

By the way, I have the 135/2.8 SF and it is sharp. And I assume not many people have this lens as they are well covered by "L" lens. As said, it is not expensive. (I seldom do the soft focus however.)

[Malaxos1]

That's a good lens as well - the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is what I have.
You can buy a pair of the 75-300 f4.5 lenses for that L lens... Lot of money just to shoot a wedding or two.

The problem is that I am shooting more than a wedding or two. I did several last year and all of a sudden, by word of mouth, I am getting laots of calls. I shot one last week, have one in May and two more in July. That's without advertisement. People are paying me good money to capture their memories and I need a quality lens to give them their money's worth. I may just get the Sigma...Dean