Lens for weddings.

[Photolistic]

I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 50mm 1.8 (about to get the 1.4)

What other lenses should I have for a wedding?

[RobKirkwood]

As you've got 30D, a Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS would be very handy.

Rob

[tim]

17-55 - more details on my faq (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2453681).

[Photolistic]

Thats what I was thinking. I am really going to enjoy that lens. I guess it will make that and my 70-200 2.8 IS the "dream team".

Nice FAQ. I disagree with this part of your FAQ though.

If you want to do quality work wide open, do NOT get the 50mm F1.8. Its focus motor isn’t accurate enough to consistently focus accurately at wide apertures. You only get one chance at a shot in wedding photography, make sure your equipment is up to the task. For less demanding tasks the 50mm F1.8 is a good value lens.


I think the AF is great in that lens, even after I dropped it.
I shoot in extremely low light situations all the time and the AF is great.

You are basically saying that this lens will not work for weddings and it totally will.

[picturecrazy]

I have a 50mm 1.8 also, and it does the job... though I still wouldn't really use it for a wedding. I use it when I want to travel VERY light, and in bright light. The focus *is* off here and there (at least on my copy).

The biggest problem I had with it was Bokeh... it's horribly ugly. There's no use isolating your subject with background blur when the blur is nasty. It's a sharp lens, but that's about it.

The sigma 30 1.4 is *KILLER*. I would choose that over the 50 1.4 anyday. My 50 1.4 hasn't been on my camera at all since the sigma came in. So yeah, consider that if you are planning to get teh 1.4.

[tim]

I'm not going to discuss the 50mm F1.8 again, i've given my opinion many times, and I stand behind my comments with experience with two separate lenses, one freshly calibrated.

[Phil V]

I think the AF is great in that lens, even after I dropped it.
I shoot in extremely low light situations all the time and the AF is great.

You are basically saying that this lens will not work for weddings and it totally will.

I'm not going to discuss the 50mm F1.8 again, i've given my opinion many times, and I stand behind my comments with experience with two separate lenses, one freshly calibrated.

Can we please learn to take 'opinions' as just that!

Tim is among a vocal minority that dismiss the 50 1.8 as unsuitable to be relied upon. This doesn't mean it's a fact, it means Tim would recommend against it.

The fact that the lens has produced some stunning photo's doesn't make the lens superb, it means that in some situations some users can get great pic's with it.

There are some people who would tell you that your customers deserve no less than the best equipment and some who'll tell you that you can get away with wheatever works FOR YOU. We should all be a little adult when reading others opinions of ANYTHING.

Just for my spikey 2 pennorth, I'd say anyone that asks about lenses to shoot a wedding isn't ready to shoot one PROFESSIONALLY (opinion).

[Photolistic]

Can we please learn to take 'opinions' as just that!

Tim is among a vocal minority that dismiss the 50 1.8 as unsuitable to be relied upon. This doesn't mean it's a fact, it means Tim would recommend against it.

The fact that the lens has produced some stunning photo's doesn't make the lens superb, it means that in some situations some users can get great pic's with it.

There are some people who would tell you that your customers deserve no less than the best equipment and some who'll tell you that you can get away with wheatever works FOR YOU. We should all be a little adult when reading others opinions of ANYTHING.

Just for my spikey 2 pennorth, I'd say anyone that asks about lenses to shoot a wedding isn't ready to shoot one PROFESSIONALLY (opinion).

In your gear list it says you own a 18-55 2.8 IS BTW.

[RobKirkwood]

In your gear list it says you own a 18-55 2.8 IS BTW.Phil's has got a bit of confetti stuck in it that stops it going down to 17mm anymore. :lol:

Rob

[Phil V]

Phil's has got a bit of confetti stuck in it that stops it going down to 17mm anymore. :lol:

Rob

I think I've cleared it out now.:lol: :oops:

[Photolistic]

I think I've cleared it out now.:lol: :oops:

edit

[CyberPet]

Now it starts to look like a lightbulb thread... ;)

I don't use my 50/1.8 for weddings, I have it "just in case" as I have that focal length covered with some f/2.8 lenses.

My favorites are right now the 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/2.8L IS. Have to admit I haven't used my 85/1.8 as much yet, but I know I'll have to whip it out some day (like on february 3rd).

[Stan43]

I just got, today!, the 85 1.2 IIL. I think I will love it for portraits and low light. I previously have relied don the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 in the church, other varieties outside where almost anything works with good light.

[newgenphoto]

Tims suggestion is great and here is my ONLY problem with the 17-55. It can't be used on a 1D body or even a 5D. I could be wrong about that though so if I am, sorry.
If I am right I wouldn't want to spen that kind of coin on a lens that I can't use on another body if I/you ever did upgrade to a pro body.

My choice - 16-35L or 24-70L. I use the 24-70L and after upgrading to the MarkkII just recently I was very impressed at hom much more room I had for the wide angle shots going from a 1.6x crop factor to a 1.3x factor. Big difference in my book.

The 17-55 is an awesome lens though, don't get me wrong. It's a great suggestion. Just think long term.

[Phil V]

The 17-55 is an awesome lens though, don't get me wrong. It's a great suggestion. Just think long term.

Why think long term, Canon lenses of this quality lose very little in value. Are you suggesting that we buy only FF lenses because one day we might want to buy a FF body. That'll cost me hundreds of lost shots, and I'll have saved about 150GBP (estimated difference between new and S/H value of lens). And if I decide to NEVER buy a FF body, thousands of lost shots for no gain.

[Skrim17]

I recently purchased the 17-55 and it is wonderful.

[sm1rf]

As you've got 30D, a Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS would be very handy.

Rob



Here here,:D

[CyberPet]

I think Canon *is* thinking long term, and they will continue to support EF-S as they did release this wonderful lens and is a great reason why you should keep a future 30D/40D/50D whatever 1.6x crop in the camera bag, even after you've gone full frame. ;)

[newgenphoto]

Why think long term, Canon lenses of this quality lose very little in value. Are you suggesting that we buy only FF lenses because one day we might want to buy a FF body. That'll cost me hundreds of lost shots, and I'll have saved about 150GBP (estimated difference between new and S/H value of lens). And if I decide to NEVER buy a FF body, thousands of lost shots for no gain.

Whoa...
I never relized that I've lost thundreds of shots useing my 24-70 on my 20d bodies. I won't be able to sleep tonight.

cmon, I'm not talking about a lens losing value persay, I'm talking about a person who would eventually be migrating to a pro series body and then not being able to use a paticular lens on that body. It's not an argument and I am merely pointing out a fact.
I never thought I would have a MarkII three years ago. Now that I do, I'm glad I got the 24-70L. I would have to sale my 17-55 (if I owned one) if I decided to get rid of my 20d's because then I would just have a $1000.00 peice of EF-S glass laying around. Just my thoughts is all.

Again, it's a great lens and if the OP ABSOLUTLEY KNOWS they will never own a non-efs mount body then yes.... get it. I have seen BEAUTIFUL shots posted here useing that lens.

[newgenphoto]

I think Canon *is* thinking long term, and they will continue to support EF-S as they did release this wonderful lens and is a great reason why you should keep a future 30D/40D/50D whatever 1.6x crop in the camera bag, even after you've gone full frame. ;)

Thats a great point as well Petra. I don't think I could ever depart from my 20d's. They're like family now :(

[Photolistic]

The only reason I would want to have the 17-55 be on a FF body is so I can keep my 70-200 on my 30D for the reach. :(

But I will have to do that backwards.

[tim]

I have no intention of going full frame in the near future. When I do the lens will be depreciated and have cost me very little, and will still have a decent resale value. I may even make money on owning the lens (but then again i'm not an accountant).

I liked the 50mm F1.8 until I did a wedding shoot and a theater shoot with it, wide open. Lots of shots weren't focused properly. With the 50mm F1.4 they are. Tamron 28-75 missed focus very occasionally, so I ditched that too, even though it's mostly a great lens.

[Philco]

For me, the 17-55 is a money saver, even if I go full frame in a year, which I don't see happening.
For a lot of wedding photographers, the 16-35L + 24-70L +70-200 has become the standard lens assortment need to complete that focal range. I've rented the 16-35L for several events and I'd been planning on buying one to fill out my kit. After reading up on the 17-55, I opted to pass on the 16-35L in favor of the EF-S lens, not only because it's less expensive than the L, but because it will allow me to use one lens to cover the wide-to-midrange. I used to carry a 16-35 and a 24-70 on separate bodies, especially for the group portraits and the reception, so essentially I've just freed up another body to use the 50 1.4 or the 70-200 if I want to.
In that sense, buying one lens rather than two is a money saver. I'm keeping my 24-70 as a back up, but my sense is that I won't be using it all that much.
My lens shipped from Canoga Camera in L.A. today ( for $10 less than B&H) so I can't wait to use it!

[tim]

1/4 of a second exposure. Talk all you want, show me someone doing this with a 24-70 without a tripod.

http://mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/lg/LG_854.jpg

[Phil V]

The only reason I would want to have the 17-55 be on a FF body is so I can keep my 70-200 on my 30D for the reach. :(



As the short end of the 70-200 is an effective 112mm on a 30d, that'd give you quite a gap, 55-112 includes the most pleasing portrait lengths too!


Whoa...
I never relized that I've lost thundreds of shots useing my 24-70 on my 20d bodies. I won't be able to sleep tonight.


I never said that YOU HAD lost pictures, however I said I could possibly lose photo's with only 24mm and not being able to step back further. Only you know if you've been in a situation where the 24 wasn't wide enough. Even on the 1d it's an effective 32mm - not really wide?;)

BTW Tim, great example of why the 17-55 is a great wedding lens.
I've just looked at my faves from the last wedding shot with it, but they all could have been have been shot with the 24-70.

[Photolistic]

1/4 of a second exposure. Talk all you want, show me someone doing this with a 24-70 without a tripod.

http://mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/lg/LG_854.jpg

1/4? NICE shot! :)

I love IS!

[newgenphoto]

1/4 of a second exposure. Talk all you want, show me someone doing this with a 24-70 without a tripod.

http://mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/lg/LG_854.jpg

LOL....yep, I would need a tripod... :)

The slowest I can hand hold my 24-70L is about a 15th and thats without breathing :)

[Photolistic]

Just curious. What is the correct spelling??

Travelling

or

Traveling

[Photolistic]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/traveling

I removed the post because you can not take criticism.

[Photolistic]

I was trying to help you. That is all.

[Photolistic]

I was not trying to be rude. If I came off that way then I apologize.

[JimAskew]

IMHO the 10-22MM EF-S and the 17-55 EF-S IS are reason enough to keep a 1.6 crop body in your kit forever :) If I ever do go FF I am keeping my 30D for this reason.

[Photolistic]

I could not agree more. I imagine soon enough they will make these lenses into EF L style though.

[Eoseni]

Tims suggestion is great and here is my ONLY problem with the 17-55. It can't be used on a 1D body or even a 5D. I could be wrong about that though so if I am, sorry.
If I am right I wouldn't want to spen that kind of coin on a lens that I can't use on another body if I/you ever did upgrade to a pro body.

My choice - 16-35L or 24-70L. I use the 24-70L and after upgrading to the MarkkII just recently I was very impressed at hom much more room I had for the wide angle shots going from a 1.6x crop factor to a 1.3x factor. Big difference in my book.

The 17-55 is an awesome lens though, don't get me wrong. It's a great suggestion. Just think long term.

My feelings exactly, newgen!

[Steiglitz]

I'm not going to discuss the 50mm F1.8 again, i've given my opinion many times, and I stand behind my comments with experience with two separate lenses, one freshly calibrated.


I'm with Tim on this one...in fact, the better 50mm F1.4 is not much better! And sadly, the new 50L is not in the same league as the 85L in regard to wide open sharpness...this is sad!

[newgenphoto]

My feelings exactly, newgen!

Thanks....

but for now on I'm shooting ALL my weddings with the Canon 15mm Fisheye.

hehe

[Eoseni]

Now THAT would be different. Jasen, I read your Bio post. Good read and inspirational.

[Photolistic]

Thanks....

but for now on I'm shooting ALL my weddings with the Canon 15mm Fisheye.

hehe

Can you imagine the wrath form the bride? LOL


Do you really have 4 cameras and only 2 lenses???

Nice website BTW. Great shots too!

[grego]

For me, 16-35, 70-200 2.8 IS. I cover long and short. That's all I need really. Maybe eventually the 24-70, but I got fairly everything I need. But then this is how i learned to shoot photojournalism, so have to find what works for you.

And as far as the 50 1.8 goes. Its still a good lens, but in a sense, you get what you pay for. It's not going to be as dependable as more of the other higher quality primes(50 1.4, 85 1.8).

For me, the 17-55 is a money saver, even if I go full frame in a year, which I don't see happening.
For a lot of wedding photographers, the 16-35L + 24-70L +70-200 has become the standard lens assortment need to complete that focal range. I've rented the 16-35L for several events and I'd been planning on buying one to fill out my kit. After reading up on the 17-55, I opted to pass on the 16-35L in favor of the EF-S lens, not only because it's less expensive than the L, but because it will allow me to use one lens to cover the wide-to-midrange. I used to carry a 16-35 and a 24-70 on separate bodies, especially for the group portraits and the reception, so essentially I've just freed up another body to use the 50 1.4 or the 70-200 if I want to.
In that sense, buying one lens rather than two is a money saver. I'm keeping my 24-70 as a back up, but my sense is that I won't be using it all that much.


Well when comparing the 16-35 to the 17-55, it depends what crops you are using them on(of course the 17-55 is limited to 1.6 crop).

17-55: field of view of 27.2 - 88mm
16-35: FOV of 25.6 - 56mm

Obviously it depends on your style of shooting.

On 1.3 crop, the 16-35 takes on extra dimmensions on the wider end and also gives f/2.8. And then of course on full frame, it takes on even more of a new look. As you go with smaller crop to full frame, the 24-70 becomes the lens comparable to the 17-55 in terms of the field of view.

Of course nothing replaces two bodies(one with wide and shorter, one with longer). No perfect formula, except for an assistant(err slave) carrying your 3rd and 4th bodies with other lens. :p

[tim]

I'm with Tim on this one...in fact, the better 50mm F1.4 is not much better! And sadly, the new 50L is not in the same league as the 85L in regard to wide open sharpness...this is sad!

I find the focus accuracy of the 50mm F1.4 fine, no problems.

[newgenphoto]

Can you imagine the wrath form the bride? LOL


Do you really have 4 cameras and only 2 lenses???

Nice website BTW. Great shots too!

No, I have a D-rebel that has the kit lens (pretty much have donated to my Mom) and then I also have a 28-135 thats just a back-up lens. I keep the 24-70 on the MarkII and then the 7-200 on one of the 20d's. The other 20d body is just a backup body.

I'm picking up an addtional MarkII and 70-200 at WPPI in march as well.

Oh, and a fisheye for real :)

[Wedding Shooter]

A couple of things that are often overlooked about the 24-70 2.8 L lens is its wonderful macro ability and weather sealing. It really saves you from carrying an extra macro lens around. Even on a 5D I can still use the camera confidently in the rain with the 24-70 on it. Build quality is also fantastic - have had it take a few knocks and it still keeps going strong.

IS would be nice - but I prefer having the macro ability and the wider angle that I get on a 5D than the 17-55 2.8 IS on a crop body (giving me about a 27mm only and no macro).

If you had a crop body it would be an easier call on the 17-55. That said I started with a 20D and when I bought my 5D I was cursing that I had bought the 10-22 EFS even though I still have the 20D. Ended up swapping it for a 17-40 4 L - so wasn't too bad in the end.

[dlphotography]

The two lenses that you are using are great! The only problem that you might encounter is that your widest is the 50mm and it might be a little bit tight for group shots. It is always good to have a very wide lens and possibly a versitile zoom one.

Also, in my opinion, you shouldn't worry too much about the cost for lenses. It is better to get a wide aperture lens from the start because it'll save you a world of trouble and it makes nice images ;D, thus leading to more deals and ultimately more money.

This site provides some good reasons for which lenses are good and whatnot, even though everyone else provide some good reasons already.

Equipment List (http://pictureproofs.com/tutorials/equipment.html)

[Wilt]

I'm with Tim on this one...in fact, the better 50mm F1.4 is not much better! And sadly, the new 50L is not in the same league as the 85L in regard to wide open sharpness...this is sad!

I have been haunted for a while about the familiarity of your name, but I couldn't place it. Suddenly it dawned on me that you are the very famous photographer, Alfred Steiglitz, who was born in 1864 and who died in 1946 !!!

[newgenphoto]

I knew it!!! How's Elvis doing?

[Wilt]

I knew it!!! How's Elvis doing?

Elvis is on POTN, too ? ! ? ! ? ! What is his screenname? :rolleyes:

[gcobb]

I have a few lined up. From the amount of money that's being charged nowdays I almost can't wait to be able to do them. I have a 17-55 f/2.8 and the second will probably be a 70-200 f/2.8. I need to see what people are offering for packages too.