wedding lens

[dj007]

I need to Know which SINGLE lens would be best all around for wedding photography.

it would have to cover some range and would need to be fast enough to use in low light.

I'm leaning toward the canon 70-200 2.8 is
is there another i should consider?

BTW it will be used on a 10d now and soon on a MKII so the conversion is 1.5 now and will soon be 1.3

[robertwgross]

First of all, you might want to study up on wedding photography.

Nobody who knows what they are doing would instinctively choose 70-200mm as a single lens for shooting weddings. Further, I think you will find that the 10D has a 1.6 factor, not 1.5.

More likely you will be looking for a mid-range zoom. Maybe something in the ballpark of 28-105 or 28-135. Once in a while, you will need to go wider than 28, but rarely would you go longer than 135.

---Bob Gross---

[dj007]

Thank you.

I am new to wedding photography (I have been a wedding DJ for many years and a shutter bug for a while now, wedding photography seems the logical step) Most of my photographic experience has been outdoor with plenty of available light so this is a new avenue for me.


So what lens would you suggest?

Sorry about the 1.5 just cornfused i guess?

[Jorgo]

You were a DJ?

Does this mean that after 10pm you are going to pull out all of your 70's camera gear? :P

[robertwgross]

So what lens would you suggest?


During weddings, I use the focal lengths of 28 to about 150mm mostly (1.6 factor). If it is a big family shot, then it might be wider than 28mm, so I will put on one wider lens than that, shoot, and then go back to the first lens. Generally I don't use anything longer unless it is some mood/scenery shot in a local park before the wedding. You can get by with an average type lens (especially if you don't understand how to control DOF). But a good semi-fast lens (e.g. f/2.8 or better) will do nicely in the hands of a photographer who can carefully control DOF.

If you try to do the DJ job and also shoot photos, then you will be busier than a one-armed paper hanger.

One person can do a simple wedding job. Two people make it work a lot smoother. One person keeps his eye behind the camera, and the other person poses the groups. I've noticed that women often have a good eye for posing groups.

---Bob Gross---

[dj007]

I still DJ but not when I am photographing a wedding, when we book both for an event I let someone else play music. Once I did both.. ONCE!

I have a Tamron 19-35 and the Canon 28-135 I.S. but neither lets in enough light for a dark church without flash.

Today I purchased a 50 1.4 which I am hoping will help.

I was just fishing for Ideas for a fast zoom

what about the 24-70 2.8L ?

[Cal Maier]

dj007 wrote:

So what lens would you suggest?

I have shot a complete wedding with a 70-200 L f/2.8 using a film body but I wouldn't attempt this with a digital, unless it was the 1DS (full frame).

I would suggest that if you only have one lens then it would have to be the 28-135 IS, the bulk of your shots would be within the focal length of this lens. The biggest drawback to this lens is that you will have a problem limiting the depth of field for those B & G shots where you want the background blurred. If you could afford it I would say use two lenses, my choices being the 24-70 L and the 70-200 L, if this is not possible then a good choice might be the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 for the group shots, and the 100mm f/2.8 macro for the B&G formals and mushy stuff. The 100mm is a superb lens for any portrait work and it is fast and sharp enough to shoot wide open and get great results, it's only drawback being a bit slow to autofocus, compared to the L lenses.

BTW I'm NOT a "wedding photog." and will only shoot these events for close friends, thankfully, I think they're all married now.

Good Luck,

Cal
CPS 432

[Malaxos1]

I have a 70-200L that I bought for weddings. I have yet to use it at a wedding but plan on it. I have used my 28-75 f2.8 with great results. I plan on using that lens primarily, but I needed something longer so that I wouldn't be as intrusive. Anyway, wedding photograper guru, Monte Zucker uses one, so if it's good enough for him it's good enough for me. His use of the 70-200 f4L is what sold me on that lens. Oh and he knows what he is doing...Dean

[Arnie]

i do weddings and these are the lenses i regularly use:

1. Canon 50mm macro
2. Canon 28-135IS
3. Canon 17-40L
4. Canon 70-200 2.8

my all-around lens lens is the 28-135IS.

i am not sure about your style but i think 70-200 is too long for an all around lens. its ok for candid shots and portrait, but for group shots, you will probably stand far back to get everybody in your frame :D

[slejhamer]

Anyway, wedding photograper guru, Monte Zucker uses one, so if it's good enough for him it's good enough for me. His use of the 70-200 f4L is what sold me on that lens. Oh and he knows what he is doing...Dean

He also uses a 28-135IS, at least for some of the shots he posts from his classes.

But whichever lens he is using, I'd bet that in a dark church he is adding some off-camera flash now and then.

[chris.bailey]

The last one I did I had the 28-135IS and 17-40L with me and at the last moment popped the 50mm 1.4 in my pocket. Good job as at church and reception the 50mm got more use and other than the big group shots the 17-40 hardly got any. I would now just take the 28-135 and the 50mm1.4

[KennyG]

A friend of mine makes 100% of his living from wedding photography. When he was shooting with a 10D (now uses a 1Ds with a 10D as backup) he carried a 17-40L, 24-70L, 50 1.4 and an 85 1.8 Results from his 50 1.4 convinced me to go and buy one.

He also had a pair of 420EX flashes on tall light stands for use in the church or where the reception hall was dimly lit with very high ceilings.

He always carries 2 cameras. He can't afford a failure on a day that can't be repeated. His work is simply stunning and as a result he gets dozens of referrals.

He has an assistant who takes candids with a 10D and 28-135 and it does the job quite well.

He is now producing DVD slide shows of the day and they are very popular. He had to burn 30 for one wedding!

[G3]

I don't know that I would try to do a wedding with just one lens. What if that lens malfunctions during the job? I keep a zoom for backup, but most of my shots are done with a wide, a normal and a short telephoto.

About the only time that you sometimes can't use flash is during the actual ceremony. Most of those shots can easily be staged afterwards, the ring/hand shots, the kissing the bride shot, etc. where you can use studio strobes and umbrellas or boxes. All of that should be decided and agreed upon before the wedding, during your consultation.

One VERY important thing ( a little off topic), regarding flash. Especially if you are using slaves, you need an agreement, as part of the contract, in writing, that there will be no other photographers taking pictures while you work. If there are, they will invariably interefere with your shots by triggering your slaves with their flash, their flash going off at the same time as yours overexposing your shots, etc.

[DaveG]

I need to Know which SINGLE lens would be best all around for wedding photography.

it would have to cover some range and would need to be fast enough to use in low light.

I'm leaning toward the canon 70-200 2.8 is
is there another i should consider?

BTW it will be used on a 10d now and soon on a MKII so the conversion is 1.5 now and will soon be 1.3

I'd suggest the 24-70 f2.8. All the other lenses will give you more length but less speed. I have a 70-200 f2.8 but its use at a wedding would be very limited.

By the way I hope that you have some great liability insurance. I sure wouldn't want to be shooting weddings with the experience that you have. Do you know how to fill flash? Have you done portraits? Group shots? Do you have full confidence that you'll know how your flash will work under a variety of situations? Do you have a back up camera? A back-up flash?

Shoot some friend and family weddings and try to get a gig or two helping out another wedding pro BEFORE you try one for money.

[ChrisG]

I am just getting into wedding photography seriously as well... I shot a couple last year with my wife where one of us uses the Digital Rebel and the other the Elan 7E. I currently have the 28-135IS, EF-S 18-55, 70-200 f4L, 50 f1.8 & 28-80. I am now planning on buying the 17-40 f4L, 24-70 f2.8L, another 550EX flash with bracket and another 1GB Compact Flash Card so the setups would be:

Digital Rebel with grip
Compact Flash Card 1GB Ultra II x2
17-40 f4L
28-135IS
18-55 (back-up)
550EX flash
Manfrotto flash bracket

AND

Elan 7E with grip
EOS 3000 (backup)
24-70 f2.8L
70-200 f4L
50 f1.8
28-80 (backup)
550EX flash
420EX flash (backup or slave)
Manfrotto flash bracket

Cheers,
Chris

[kanwingshing]

I don't think you can find 1 lens that is suitable for the whole day. You need at least 1 wide and 1 tele. For me, I brought the following lens.

17-40L
70-200L

That should give you enough coverage.

[Malaxos1]

Anyway, wedding photograper guru, Monte Zucker uses one, so if it's good enough for him it's good enough for me. His use of the 70-200 f4L is what sold me on that lens. Oh and he knows what he is doing...Dean

He also uses a 28-135IS, at least for some of the shots he posts from his classes.

But whichever lens he is using, I'd bet that in a dark church he is adding some off-camera flash now and then.

I agree about not using the 70-200 all the time. I just plan on using it sometimes from tha back. I use a 28-75 f2.8 as my main lens, sometimes I will slip on the wide angle. What made me get the lens was not Monte, he did help me decide. What did it for me was the next, soon to be bride's mother. She said that the last daughter's wedding photos came out great, but they B&G was too far away in the photos...Dean

[G3]

I need to Know which SINGLE lens would be best all around for wedding photography.

it would have to cover some range and would need to be fast enough to use in low light.

I'm leaning toward the canon 70-200 2.8 is
is there another i should consider?

BTW it will be used on a 10d now and soon on a MKII so the conversion is 1.5 now and will soon be 1.3


By the way I hope that you have some great liability insurance. I sure wouldn't want to be shooting weddings with the experience that you have. Do you know how to fill flash? Have you done portraits? Group shots? Do you have full confidence that you'll know how your flash will work under a variety of situations? Do you have a back up camera? A back-up flash?

Shoot some friend and family weddings and try to get a gig or two helping out another wedding pro BEFORE you try one for money.

I was going to say something about this, but decided not to. If you are shooting a wedding for pay, you sort of owe it to your clients to provide them with top-quality wedding photos. That's not really the time to be learning the basics of wedding photography. It ain't easy, even if it does look like it is. There are many, many variables that you have to have the experience and confidence to work through and you don't have time to sit down and figure things out. You will be shooting almost constantly from the time you arrive and set up until you leave. You have to have a plan in your head AND on paper outlining every shot you need (and all agreed upon by the client) and you have to be ready when the time comes for each. You can't be fumbling around with the camera trying to figure out which settings to use for the upcoming segment. A wedding job that lasts 3 hours seems like 10 minutes if things are going well. If they aren't it seems like 10 years. I would never consider doing a wedding without a minimum of a spare body and a spare lens to cover every focal length I might need. A couple of zooms will suffice for the primes if they cover all of the focal ranges, but I wouldn't be without them. IF you have an equipment malfunction, they aren't going to hold up the wedding for you to run get another piece of equipment. They'll simply sue you after it's over. That's not exactly a glowing reference for the next one.

A wedding is a high-stress event to begin with. Emotions can get out of control sometimes and the clients are not always the easist people to deal with. You have to know how to make them relax and that takes experience. If there is tension, it will show in the photos, guaranteed. Usually the Bride is so busy and so preoccupied that she isn't going to be a lot of help. One piece of advice is to make friends early with one of the Bride's maids so she can help you locate everyone and everything and sort of coordinate gtting the people where you need them for the photos. Beware the mothers-in-law. Sometimes they are OK and helpful, sometimes they are psychos. Just understand that everyone involved is under a lot of stress. You have to be outgoing and have an air of confidence and act like you know exactly what you are doing (without being cocky), then they will cooperate and relax a little better if they feel like you have control of the situation. When you get them posed, already be thinking about the next shot...get the shot you are working on out of the way and move directly to the next one. If you are fumbling with your equipment and not sure about what you are doing, you will only annoy them and add to your problems.

The bottom line is: If you aren't positive that you know what you are doing , have the equipment to do it, and can pull it off...don't do it.

[Tom W]

i do weddings and these are the lenses i regularly use:

1. Canon 50mm macro
2. Canon 28-135IS
3. Canon 17-40L
4. Canon 70-200 2.8

my all-around lens lens is the 28-135IS.

i am not sure about your style but i think 70-200 is too long for an all around lens. its ok for candid shots and portrait, but for group shots, you will probably stand far back to get everybody in your frame :D

I'm no wedding photographer, but in my limited experience, I've used my 50 for available light, my 70-200 for available light from farther back (I kept myself as invisible as possible for the ceremony), my 28-105 for plenty of candid flash shots, and my 17-40 for groups and some close-quarters candids. I'd probably have used other lenses, but that's all I have. :)

Despite my lack of experience, I believe that there are a variety of situations where one might need a variety of lenses. That doesn't mean that you need a pile of every conceivable lens, but you need to consider all the situations where certian lenses might be useful.

Perhaps you might consider discussing this with some of the wedding photographers that you meet when DJing.

[Malaxos1]

I need to Know which SINGLE lens would be best all around for wedding photography.

it would have to cover some range and would need to be fast enough to use in low light.

I'm leaning toward the canon 70-200 2.8 is
is there another i should consider?

BTW it will be used on a 10d now and soon on a MKII so the conversion is 1.5 now and will soon be 1.3


By the way I hope that you have some great liability insurance. I sure wouldn't want to be shooting weddings with the experience that you have. Do you know how to fill flash? Have you done portraits? Group shots? Do you have full confidence that you'll know how your flash will work under a variety of situations? Do you have a back up camera? A back-up flash?

Shoot some friend and family weddings and try to get a gig or two helping out another wedding pro BEFORE you try one for money.

I was going to say something about this, but decided not to. If you are shooting a wedding for pay, you sort of owe it to your clients to provide them with top-quality wedding photos. That's not really the time to be learning the basics of wedding photography. It ain't easy, even if it does look like it is. There are many, many variables that you have to have the experience and confidence to work through and you don't have time to sit down and figure things out. You will be shooting almost constantly from the time you arrive and set up until you leave. You have to have a plan in your head AND on paper outlining every shot you need (and all agreed upon by the client) and you have to be ready when the time comes for each. You can't be fumbling around with the camera trying to figure out which settings to use for the upcoming segment. A wedding job that lasts 3 hours seems like 10 minutes if things are going well. If they aren't it seems like 10 years. I would never consider doing a wedding without a minimum of a spare body and a spare lens to cover every focal length I might need. A couple of zooms will suffice for the primes if they cover all of the focal ranges, but I wouldn't be without them. IF you have an equipment malfunction, they aren't going to hold up the wedding for you to run get another piece of equipment. They'll simply sue you after it's over. That's not exactly a glowing reference for the next one.

A wedding is a high-stress event to begin with. Emotions can get out of control sometimes and the clients are not always the easist people to deal with. You have to know how to make them relax and that takes experience. If there is tension, it will show in the photos, guaranteed. Usually the Bride is so busy and so preoccupied that she isn't going to be a lot of help. One piece of advice is to make friends early with one of the Bride's maids so she can help you locate everyone and everything and sort of coordinate gtting the people where you need them for the photos. Beware the mothers-in-law. Sometimes they are OK and helpful, sometimes they are psychos. Just understand that everyone involved is under a lot of stress. You have to be outgoing and have an air of confidence and act like you know exactly what you are doing (without being cocky), then they will cooperate and relax a little better if they feel like you have control of the situation. When you get them posed, already be thinking about the next shot...get the shot you are working on out of the way and move directly to the next one. If you are fumbling with your equipment and not sure about what you are doing, you will only annoy them and add to your problems.

The bottom line is: If you aren't positive that you know what you are doing , have the equipment to do it, and can pull it off...don't do it.


I couldn't agree more with you on all points. It is a very important event and very stressful. I have not had one wedding go easy yet, that's OK though as I have learned to deal with it. Also it is very tireing. I have done a number of them and have become very comfortable, and the clients seem to be very comfortable with me. I have not had one complaint yet and I am sure I will oneday.

Here is what I have done to prepare myself, I have read everything I could on bothe photography and wedding photography in general. Practice the poses with a model, or spouse. I also enrolled in a wedding photography course at a local community college. Another thing is to decide what kind of wedding photography you would like to specialize in. I chose photojournalism. I have also learned a few key poses to offer the clients as well. Anyway I hope this helps. P.S, I do nee

[WestFalcon]

Hi...I have done alot of weddings and my last wedding was almost 100% digital. I used a 17-40 L lens for the formal shots. I also use the 28-135IS lens for closeups. I used the 28-70 L for closups of the bride and groom (window light shots.)..wow!!! They are spectacular! I use an 80-200L f2.8 lens for the time exposures during the ceremony. I also got some nice 17-40L time exposure shots to show off the church. I carry a 50 1.4 and an 85 1.8 too but they didn't get used. The 28-135 gets the most use followed by the 17-40L. I shoot with 2 - 10D's and have a complete 1N film camera and film in my car for backup. I took about 400 digital pictures in my last wedding and edited down to 250. I make some black and white and remove the background on some etc. Photoshop really makes things easy for creativity. I spend a lot of computer time however which I didn't spend before when using film. I will never go back to film. Being a wedding photographer is fun but serious business. My priority is to please the client first and make money as my secondary goal. The books by Scott Kelby on photoshop are really worth every cent for photoshop use in weddings. My lab prints jpegs on the same photo paper as they use for film which makes me feel comfortable . Good luck..Brian

As a last word of advice...You are only as good as your last wedding pictures....I have taken over 500 weddings but I will always feel that I can do a better job on the next one.

[Ken Fong]

I will be shooting a wedding also, but not paid so the pressure is somewhat off...I still would like to do a good job though and get some good practice in.

From reading this thread, I am seeing at least 3 choices for indoor (low light) group portraits:
- 24-70 2.8
- 85 1.8
- 50 1.4

When using wide angle (for a group of 20 or larger), do I need to worry about distortion on the edges. I'd rather be farther away from the subjects but not at the point where I lose too much light. And with the low light, am I better off with the 85mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4? I also have to deal with the 1.6x factor. I realize the fixed length lenses aren't as versatile as a zoom, but their lightness makes up for it and maybe I will get less camera shake.

Thanks in advance
-Ken

[WestFalcon]

Ken....The 24-70 is fine for group shots. I shoot mine with a 17-40 and get no noticeable distortion at f8. The 50 and 80 are not good focal lengths for groups. At x1.6, both the 50 and 85 are telephotos and maybe good for bride and groom only.

[WestFalcon]

Ken....The 24-70 is fine for group shots. I shoot mine with a 17-40 and get no noticeable distortion at f8. The 50 and 80 are not good focal lengths for groups. At x1.6, both the 50 and 85 are telephotos and maybe good for bride and groom only.

[G3]

I will be shooting a wedding also, but not paid so the pressure is somewhat off...I still would like to do a good job though and get some good practice in.

From reading this thread, I am seeing at least 3 choices for indoor (low light) group portraits:
- 24-70 2.8
- 85 1.8
- 50 1.4

When using wide angle (for a group of 20 or larger), do I need to worry about distortion on the edges. I'd rather be farther away from the subjects but not at the point where I lose too much light. And with the low light, am I better off with the 85mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4? I also have to deal with the 1.6x factor. I realize the fixed length lenses aren't as versatile as a zoom, but their lightness makes up for it and maybe I will get less camera shake.

Thanks in advance
-Ken

The 50mm is good for things like full-length portraits of the Bride. The 85mm is good for head and shoulders portraits and that sort of thing. With a 50mm you can easily do the two-person portraits, i.e., the bride and groom, the bride and her mother, etc. For groups larger than that, you need to use a wider lens, but be careful about getting in close with a wide-angle.

[Saturn]

Hello:

For my film-based weddings, I use the 28-135IS zoom about 95% of the time.

This year, I'll be shooting about 5 weddings completely digital. I'll most likely back down to a 24-70L (If I can find the $$ to buy one.) as my standard lens. The 28-135 will be used for situations where I'll need the telephoto end of the spectrum.

Thanks.

Saturn

[Ken Fong]

Thanks Saturn and G3 for the advice.

So it sounds like for an indoor group photo (~20 people), I should be okay with the 24-70 2.8 even without a flash? On a tripod, would I need to be concerned about camera shake since the lens is heavy/long? I can always use the timer I suppose. I'm trying to compare this against a fixed 28mm at 1.8...this would be faster and lighter.

Also, assuming most of the distortion in using a wide angle is on the edges, does the 1.6x factor mean I don't need to worry about it anymore?

[photography By Evangelos]

24-70 F2.8 L is the all around best lens for weddings. I use it all the time. I cannot see trying to use the 70-200 F4 for large group shots. It just would not work at all. My 2 most used lenses are the 17-35 L and the 24-70L. If I am doing PJ type work I use the 28-135 IS and the 70-200L F4. I had the F 2.8 and sold it off to heavy to carry all day at an 8 to 10 hour wedding. For low light and no flash I use the 85 1.8 USM razor sharp lens, and for Macro I use the Sigma 105 the A/F is slow but I use it in M/F any way for macro also very sharp and good for portraits. I just got a used 50 MM 1.8 canon and am trying it out so far I do not like it not very sharp but at the price I paid for the thing who cares it was almost free. I will use the 50 MM 1.8 for low light high ISO settings it should be fine. I never use my 300 L F2.8 at weddings to dam big and heavy. I tried the Sigma 120-300 and had problems with A/F on two of them and gave up this is not a cheep lens to have A/F problems with.


Angelo 8)

[WestFalcon]

Tripods aren't needed at 60th second or faster with flash. Slows you down too much. At 30th or slower, I would use a tripod but most churches have overhead lighting which isn't very flattering.

[Saturn]

Hello:

Ken Fong had stated in-part, "So it sounds like for an indoor group photo (~20 people), I should be okay with the 24-70 2.8 even without a flash?"

When I'm shooting indoor groups, with (film) 160 asa, the groups are shot with "camera-on-tripod", usually at the altar. Average exposures are F5.6-F8 @ 1/4 sec. I pretty much balance the strobe to the ambient light. The strobe helps minimize excessive movement in the subjects. Without flash, even with the camera on tripod, you will have lots of head movement. The people are just too wired to stand very still. If you use a higher ASA rating (400), that will help. But you're still going to be around 1/15 sec. You need F8 (maybe 5.6) to keep your focus with large groups.

The speed of the 28 1.8 means nothing because you can't shoot at 1.8 and hold the required depth of field. I'm also feeling that 20 people (assuming in a church at the altar), 28mm will not be wide enough with a 1.6 focal factor. You're basically shooting a 49mm lens. With this scenario, I'm usually @ 28mm with film. You can't back up very far because of the "pews" at the front of the altar getting into the bottom of your image area. Rent a 16-35. I use it quite a bit, especially with our D60.

Finally, I would not use a timer. Get a cable release. A timer will not allow you to trip your shutter when "the time is right" to shoot.

The best of luck (I should say skill!) in your wedding ventures.

Saturn.

[Saturn]

Hello:

Ken Fong had stated in-part, "So it sounds like for an indoor group photo (~20 people), I should be okay with the 24-70 2.8 even without a flash?"

When I'm shooting indoor groups, with (film) 160 asa, the groups are shot with "camera-on-tripod", usually at the altar. Average exposures are F5.6-F8 @ 1/4 sec. I pretty much balance the strobe to the ambient light. The strobe helps minimize excessive movement in the subjects. Without flash, even with the camera on tripod, you will have lots of head movement. The people are just too wired to stand very still. If you use a higher ASA rating (400), that will help. But you're still going to be around 1/15 sec. You need F8 (maybe 5.6) to keep your focus with large groups.

The speed of the 28 1.8 means nothing because you can't shoot at 1.8 and hold the required depth of field. I'm also feeling that 20 people (assuming in a church at the altar), 28mm will not be wide enough with a 1.6 focal factor. You're basically shooting a 49mm lens. With this scenario, I'm usually @ 28mm with film. You can't back up very far because of the "pews" at the front of the altar getting into the bottom of your image area. Rent a 16-35. I use it quite a bit, especially with our D60.

Finally, I would not use a timer. Get a cable release. A timer will not allow you to trip your shutter when "the time is right" to shoot.

The best of luck (I should say skill!) in your wedding ventures.

Saturn.

[Ken Fong]

Thanks Saturn (and everyone else).
Your tips have been extremely helpful. You have probably also saved me from unnecessarily buying a faster lens. I already have a sigma 15-30 f/3.5-4.5, so maybe I am set? Looks like I can't get around going without a flash in these situations.
-Ken

[DaveG]

Ken....The 24-70 is fine for group shots. I shoot mine with a 17-40 and get no noticeable distortion at f8. The 50 and 80 are not good focal lengths for groups. At x1.6, both the 50 and 85 are telephotos and maybe good for bride and groom only.

If you are using a Canon 10D for a portrait what lens would you use? A 50? Probably. Why? because its focal length has a nice perspective for a portrait and that's why they are called portrait lenses.

Now, you are going to do a groups shot with six people. Isn't this a portrait of six individuals in one composition? What lens should you use? Why a 50 of course. It has the same nice perspective as in the single person portrait. Why would you choose anything wider?

Remember when you choose a wide angle it not only gets wider left and right but top and bottom, and do you really want that ceiling and empty foreground?

My point is that a moderate telephoto is a great choice for groups. The practical problem for outside shots is that you need to be close enough to the group so that you can use fill flash. You also need to be close simply so you can communicate clearly with them. Yelling across the field isn't my idea of a good time. I'd love to use that short telephoto but in practice I use a normal lens for outdoor groups at weddings. I even use a moderate wide angle for inside groups at weddings so that I know I'm close enough that my flash will cover.

But I still look at some outside family groups (four to six people) and they are vastly superior when I use the short telephoto. Try it and you'll see.

[G3]

Ken....The 24-70 is fine for group shots. I shoot mine with a 17-40 and get no noticeable distortion at f8. The 50 and 80 are not good focal lengths for groups. At x1.6, both the 50 and 85 are telephotos and maybe good for bride and groom only.

If you are using a Canon 10D for a portrait what lens would you use? A 50? Probably. Why? because its focal length has a nice perspective for a portrait and that's why they are called portrait lenses.

Now, you are going to do a groups shot with six people. Isn't this a portrait of six individuals in one composition? What lens should you use? Why a 50 of course. It has the same nice perspective as in the single person portrait. Why would you choose anything wider?

Remember when you choose a wide angle it not only gets wider left and right but top and bottom, and do you really want that ceiling and empty foreground?

My point is that a moderate telephoto is a great choice for groups. The practical problem for outside shots is that you need to be close enough to the group so that you can use fill flash. You also need to be close simply so you can communicate clearly with them. Yelling across the field isn't my idea of a good time. I'd love to use that short telephoto but in practice I use a normal lens for outdoor groups at weddings. I even use a moderate wide angle for inside groups at weddings so that I know I'm close enough that my flash will cover.

But I still look at some outside family groups (four to six people) and they are vastly superior when I use the short telephoto. Try it and you'll see.

For outdoors shots the short telephotos (80 to 135mm practical focal length) are great for small group portraits. I love the perpective a normal lens gets you for portraits (35mm on a digital SLR, 50 an a film slr), too. Indoors you don't always have enough room to use the short teles without having to compromise too much on the composition, people's legs blocked by the tops of pews, etc.

You are correct that a wide angle will increase the field of view both horizontally and vertically, but that's the great thing about Photoshop. You can crop that out, and at least you can get close enough with a normal or a wide angle to have obstacles behind you and still have a wide enough field of view to get all of your subjects in.

I'd bet that if the people that are using wide to short tele zooms looked at the focal length they are actually using when they are taking these portraits, they'd find that most of the time they are actually using focal lengths from 35mm to 80mm or so and rarely (except in the situations of cramped quarters or very large groups) actually using the wide-angle settings. It's much easier to get a pleasing perspective and composition in the noirmal to short tele range. But with a zoom you are usually just zooming and shooting and not paying a lot of attention to the actual focal length the shot is taken at. With a prime you have to move around a lot more and you are more aware of it. I think the right way to use a zoom is to set it at one focal length, say 50mm, then find the proper perpective and composition for the shot with some extra all the way around the frame and then zoom to crop. Prime lenses are made in the focal lengths that they come in because that length has been found to be useful for a particular purpose (or purposes). 135mm primes were found to be ideal portrait lenses in 35mm format. 50mm was supposed to reproduce what the eye sees in 35mm format...it really doesn't in my opinion...a 60mm is better for that, but they became really popular in part because they also lend themselves well to things like full length portraits.