Sharp lens needed for girlfriends wedding - Help! [Archive]

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 09:05

Could someone help me? I have a 20d & need the sharpest lens that's on the market - I HAVE A BUDGET THOUGH - is the only problem.

It would be nice to stay around the $500 range. Is this possible?? At this point I don't care about brand. You are the experts here - not me.

Please give me some examples to choose from. If the lens you tell me about is over $500, please give me a price...I don't care about retail. I'll use the classifieds if I have to, or ebay. As long as it's in great condition, 2nd hand doesn't bother me.

Thanks for your help.
I really appreciate this.

Teresa

picturecrazy

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 09:23

Canon EFs 17-55 F2.8 IS USM.

Sharp sharp sharp from F/2.8 to F/11.

It's gonna cost you about $900-950 though, but worth every penny. Focus speed and accuracy is excellent, low light performance is great.

But if you're gonna be shooting a wedding, I'd be CAREFUL, you might be getting in way over your head.

Read the FAQ: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=255604

TXLEBER

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 09:28

Tamron 28-75 - $275-$300

If you can stretch it, you can't beat the 17-55 2.8 IS. That thing is SHARP-SHARP-SHARP. It also seems to be getting a lot of VERY good reviews here on the wedding forum. The only problem, It doubles your price range. It's about $875-$950 used. Or $1000 new from BH.

EDIT: See what happens when you type slow...People beat ya to the punch. But what did I say...SHARP-SHAPR-SHARP.

Big Mike

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 09:41

What about the 50mm F1.4? Or the 85mm F1.8? The Sigma 30mm F1.4? A prime lens will most likely be 'sharper' than a zoom.

If sharp shots are your goal...then fast shutter speeds and/or good flash lighting will be essential. If you will not or can not use flash...then a fast lens and posibly a mono or tripod will help to maximize sharpness.

thekid24

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 09:56

I would say go with a prime (85 f/1.8) because of the low light that, like many weddings, will be present. But on the other hand you wont have the versatility of a zoom. Do you have any other lenses in your collection?

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 10:03

picturecrazy

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 10:22

It's tough enough for an inexperienced person to shoot a wedding. It would be utter SUICIDE to send a new shooter in with one body and one prime. (your 50mm 1.8 is kinda lousy in low light focusing...)

Seriously, you can shoot an entire wedding with the 17-55. A low light prime @ 1.4 in inexperienced hands will likely yield a lot of shots with the people outside the depth of field.
Hate to be harsh, but if you are limited to $500 to shoot this wedding, tell your friends to hire a professional and let you shoot in the shadows and enjoy the wedding more. Being able to take fantastic pictures of stuff is one thing, but can you consistently take fantastic pictures of people who are constantly running around, rushed, stressed, in dark places, in overly bright places, and you only have about 0.5 seconds to dial settings, get the shot and get it right.... almost every time? This is absolutely NOTHING like landscape, architecture, or studio photography.

ssim

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 10:23

I would agree with the recommendation of the Tamron 28-75 if you want a zoom and budget it a concern. My second would be a variant of the 50mm that you could afford. I think the 85 is going to be way too long for your primary wedding lens, particularly on a 1.6 crop factor body.

Have you considered renting a lens.

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 10:44

I have considered that yes, but I would have to go thru the net to get one. I think my closest rental place would probably be MLPS/St Paul area. I am in a very remote area with NO help from anyone.

By the time I factor in shipping, rental, insurance, etc I could just as well bite the bullet & buy the lens. I'd be money ahead in the long run & at least have payments going towards something.

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 10:46

As for the 50mm lens that I have, like I said before, I haven't had the chance to fully test it. I have yet to find an application where it's going to be useful. It was just an item that I heard I "had to have". So far, it's been a waste of $80. but I know I should be able to get some money out of it if I sell it again. I think I've only taken 10 shots with it.

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 10:50

If I were to go with the Tamron, are my photos going to be nice & sharp? Like a head shot of the couple...for example. Is everything going to be clear - their teeth for instance? Obviously their eyes are of concern too, but that's not my question.

CyberPet

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 11:04

thekid24

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 11:09

I have the 55-200mm 4.5-5.6 II USM & the 50mm 1.8. I use the 55-200 alot. Haven't used the other one yet. I like it though, it's just extremely cold here right now & I don't go outside much to test it.
55-200: Pros: Has the reach so you can blend into the bg. Its not fun having to get up real close to get some shots and the people spin around and give you a cheesy grin when what youre really wanting are candids. Another plus is that you are familiar with it. You know what situations it works best in.
Cons: the 55mm isnt wide enough to get groupings of people unless you have room to move back. Then itll be alright. Also the aperture will hinder the performance because most weddings arent as well lit as we (photogs) may like.
50mm f/1.8: Pros: Its faster. At 1.8 the lack of enough light can be made up with high ISO and keeping the lens wide open. Does take great portraits.
Cons: As stated before, it does have trouble with low light focusing. And if youre wanting to blend into the bg then this lens wont let you. You have to get pretty close which means you might get those cheesy grins.

85 f/1.8: Pros: Very sharp, Ive heard some say there should be a red ring around the end. It would give you more reach over the 50mm. Would allow you to get close to blending in the bg. Faster than the 55-200mm and would be easier to use in the low light situations. And it is in your price range.
Cons: Not enough reach to let you completely blend into the bg. It is a prime so there isnt any versatility. And not ideal for family portraits or large gatherings.

I havent used the 55-200 but I have the 50mm 1.8 and have used but not owned the 85 1.8. And I was just trying to give the pros and cons. Hope it helps and good luck with everything.

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 11:24

Thanks. I don't use the 55-200 very often. Only in church when I'm on the balcony...Christmas program, etc with my children.

If I end up getting this 17-55 lens, I don't know if I should sell the zoom then, or keep it.

I like the price tag of the Tamron, but I have a feeling that I'm going to be dissappointed. I did, however, see some really nice wedding photos using the Tamron. But photos can be deceiving viewed on the net.

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 11:26

I just realized that I totally contradicted my self. Let me clarify: I use my 55-200 in church alot. Other than that, hardly ever - it's clumsy. But comes in handy if I REALLY need it.

Tiffany

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 11:27

Hi to a fellow Dakotan ;) (even if you are North instead of South, thought I'd say hi!)

I have the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 which would probably suit your needs very well. You still need the basics for good, sharp images though - good light, proper exposure and good focusing. A lens won't fix those! The Tamron is around $500 or so.

I also have a 135mm prime that I LOVE for reception/ceremony shots that didn't cost me a fortune. It's super sharp and unobtrusive, plus gives me decent reach. I absolutely love primes and wish I could use them for everything!

You may consider a rental place like rentglass.com if you can get a lens you want. I've done that when testing out various lenses (in fact, it's why I didn't get a 17-40 L!)

Unless the wedding is outdoors on a bright day your 55-200 is going to be pretty close to useless with the f4.5-5.6. I refuse to buy any lens for wedding work that isn't f2.8 or lower.

Do you have any wedding experience? You may be better off taking that $500 and putting it towards a pro who would let you second and give you pointers.

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 11:32

That's why I'm now considering getting rid of the 55-200. I kinda hate to go with the fixed lens, I like to change my distances so often. I like the idea of the IS...that's the only thing that's really drawing me to it.

Oh - I'm from ND. Do you have the same problems we do up here, isolation from anything good? --probably not, since you're from Sioux Falls.

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 11:35

I just checked out that rentglass.com site - this looks awesome!!! I think I'll give this a try. I've always wanted to rent a lens, but could never find anywhere online. Thanks!

Tiffany

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 12:34

Well, we have Harold's, but they are way overpriced. I still order nearly everything online.

buffalophotographer

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 12:50

I would use a 17-85mm IS for the wedding on your budget. I have shot weddings with that lens it works great. Just be carefull when shooting too wide though.

Could someone help me? I have a 20d & need the sharpest lens that's on the market - I HAVE A BUDGET THOUGH - is the only problem.

It would be nice to stay around the $500 range. Is this possible?? At this point I don't care about brand. You are the experts here - not me.

Please give me some examples to choose from. If the lens you tell me about is over $500, please give me a price...I don't care about retail. I'll use the classifieds if I have to, or ebay. As long as it's in great condition, 2nd hand doesn't bother me.

Thanks for your help.
I really appreciate this.

Teresa

Lin-z

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 13:17

I use the Tamron 28-75 2.8 for weddings I really like it. No major problems for me so far. Check my site if you would like to see my work.

rwong2k

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 13:25

How about renting the 17-55/2.8 lens for the weekend? if it's a one time thing

Tony-S

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 13:45

I'm (almost) with Lin-z. I'd recommend the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. EX ($380). The problem with the 50mm FL is that you can get distortion on a head and shoulder shot. Need the 70-135 range for nice compression. You'd even have almost enough left over to get the Sigma EF-500 E-TTL flash ($135).

Here are some sample images (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/2470_28_ex_dg_asp_df) from the 24-70.

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 14:17

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 14:18

Lin-Z - nice work. Is the tamron your normal lenz or your backup?

picturecrazy

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 14:22

Okay...now there's another lens in the discussion - 17-85 IS - What's the difference in that lens than the 17-55 IS - other than the zoom difference. Am I going to see an image quality difference? - which I suppose I am...based on the price gap.

The 17-55 is much sharper, and also is much faster. it is a constant 2.8 aperture, where the 17-85 is a variable 4-5.6 aperture, which is slow and more difficult to use indoors. If you cannot see the benefits in their specs right away, are you sure you want to be the primary shooter at a wedding?

For example, if you are indoors and you zoom to 55mm on the 17-85 and you meter at say, 1/10 shutter @ F/5.6. That's just too slow except for maybe shutter dragging. The 17-55 in the same situation will give you 1/40 @ F/2.8 which is totally doable and much more flexible.

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 14:28

Ya know, I'm new to this thing. I'd appreciate if I could get a little support here & not get doubted on trying something new. You don't know the circumstances, so it doesn't really matter to anyone but the bride. And obviously it doesn't bother her to have me, so lets just stick to the facts here okay??!? Both the bride & I have a budget & we're doing the best we can with what we've got.

Sorry for the attitude, but all I want to know are some facts here.

picturecrazy

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 14:39

Hey, we're all willing to help, but you gotta understand that we've seen a lot of people utterly disappointed with their pics in similar situations. It's weird... the less someone pays for their photos, it seems the more they expect from them. Just trying to provide alternatives and options.

As I've stated, you can do an entire wedding with the 17-55 with ultimate image quality, focus accuracy, and performance. Any 17-55 owners will vouch for that. It's nice to have a fast telephoto too, but not utterly necessary. The 28-75 range is made for full frame cameras and you may find you'll need something wider to get everybody into your shots. That is not a good idea if you are going for a one lens solution here. Most 28-75 owners also have something in the ultra-wide range like 10-24 or so. If you can't afford the $950, then rent it. The last thing you want at a wedding is to fiddle with cheaper lenses that aren't fast enough or don't focus accurately enough.

If you are willing to rent and have a $500 budget, also get:
Another body
fast telephoto... 70-200 F/2.8 IS USM
two flashes... so two 580 or two 430 will do
and maybe a sigma 30 1.4 as it's really fast and really sharp, if you are really hurting for light

edit: oh yeah, and don't forget to get like 20 GB of CF cards, shoot in raw, and take a ZILLION pictures. Shoot anything that moves.

Exit

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 14:53

The Tamron is one of the sharpest lenses around, but if you don't know how to use it your pictures will suck. You're a lot more important than the lenses

august23

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 14:54

17-55. Its a zoom on the outside, a prime on the inside. ;)

Jono A

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 16:47

Get the 17-55 2.8 IS if you can possibly afford it. As others have stated, it is an amazing piece of glass, and sharp all the way. It is THE lens for 1.6x crop bodies. Jono.

prairie pics

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 16:59

Thanks everyone. That's all I wanted. I just wanted some users to tell me what they use & their experiences with them. I really am considering the 17-55 IS. I plan to rent one sometime in the future (once they become available from the companies that I've found) & hopefully by the time the wedding comes around, I'll have had it for awhile & will get fantastic results.

Winter is a slow time for me in taking photos. Summer is obviously an easier time & makes more sense to wait until then.

Tony-S

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 18:15

Winter is a slow time for me in taking photos.

Isn't it always winter in the Dakotas? :) I recall getting off an airplane in SD once and all the cars were plugged into electrical outlets. My first thought was, "Gee, the South Dakota people are really eco-friendly."

Tiffany

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 18:47

LOL no - it's not always winter here :) In fact our summers are just as brutal as our winters - we get 90-100+ degree weather with 80-90% humidity. Plus it is ALWAYS windy. Like ... you learn to ignore the wind windy.

tmonatr

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 20:42

cdjr4@cox.net

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 20:57

Good Luck to you Prairie Pics............I have been in your same situation several times (I'm getting ready to do my fourth wedding) It's been a big joke with all my couples that I will make them sign something stating that they expect absolutely nothing, that I can't promise to reproduce anything they've seen before, but I'll do my best and so far everyone has been very pleased - and NO, I don't FULLY understand everything either, but as I said, I do the best I can. You really can get alot of information on this forum. For the people who are on a strict budget for their wedding, they just can't afford the professionals. And to be honest, if I were getting married again (mine was 20 years ago), I'd be cutting the costs any way that I could. Do the best you can with what you have or can afford to buy. I usually get paid (I never charge) and I use the money to then buy another "toy" from the camera store. As for the professionals, they deserve the money they charge - they are the pros - and if you have the money, by all means get a professional!! Anyway, sorry for rambling!! Good Luck

picturecrazy

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 21:01

I am always reading members telling people DON'T SHOOT THE WEDDING, if they haven't ever shot one. Did these people skip their first wedding shoot and go straight to their 2nd or 10th, or 100th? How do you get experience if your not doing it? Give some advice on this, tell how you got started instead of discouraging someone else.

First you learn how to use your camera and equipment like the back of your hand and get great shots in all types of horrible lighting. Then you show your work to other pros who may allow you to assist and second shoot for them. After doing that for a year or more, and you've been to a couple dozen weddings, you know the flow, you know the pace, you know the stresses, you know what to watch out for, and you can anticipate what events, emotions, and special moments happen so you can be ready and get the shot. After all that, you gotta spend at least $10000 to be minimally set up to do a wedding as a primary. That means at least two camera bodies, low light zooms and primes- everything from ultra-wide to telephoto, flashes and backups, and overlaps in your lens collection in case you lose/break one, other lighting equipment, a reliable car to get you to places without worrying that it'll conk out on you, etc.....

that is how many of us got started, since you asked.

samnz

5th of February 2007 (Mon), 23:51

...Did these people skip their first wedding shoot and go straight to their 2nd or 10th, or 100th?

I shot my first wedding 8 years after starting photography. And I still suck!:lol:

cdjr4@cox.net

6th of February 2007 (Tue), 06:37

When my friends ask me to be the photographer for their wedding, I always tell them NO!! ..........GET A PROFESSIONAL!!!..........but the fact is they know I will attend their wedding and they know my camera is always with me and since I do wedding scrapbook albums as gifts, they know I will get every single shot imaginable. At all three of the weddings I've done, I would not let them even refer to me as "the photographer". I make absolutely sure they know I don't have the sharpest lenses, the best flash, etc. and if they want to take the chance and not hire a professional - then they get what they get. And so far, everything has turned out great...........but it's ALOT of work!:)

song4themoon

6th of February 2007 (Tue), 06:56

The sharpest out of mine is the 50mm 1.8 I love it and I think a good medium range lens to use throughout a wedding (if you can not afford the 17-55)

prairie pics

6th of February 2007 (Tue), 10:13

Thank you everyone for supporting me. I feel the way you do...how are you supposed to build a portfolio if no one knows that your interested in doing weddings...let alone take a shot at hiring you (or whatever the case is) if you have nothing to show for it.

I don't want the brides that expect me to produce $10million dollar wedding shots. There's way to much pressure there. Not to mention all the other Bridezillas in the country. I am a very honest person & straight forward. Everyone that has me do any type of work knows that I'm just starting out & don't have the greatest million dollar equipment.

Oh and by the way - there aren't too many photographers in my country that can afford double of everything in their supply list. So I have to strongly disagree with you...you don't need a $10,000 minimum for your weddings. When you take photos in a large enough town, there's suppliers to go to when something goes wrong.

Honeybee

6th of February 2007 (Tue), 10:32

When is the wedding? Since you say you're honest, I'll loan you the Tamron 28-75 if you pay there and back shipping. Not only that, if you decide you like it, maybe we can arrange something.

PM so we can get together & talk about it.

takeyourpic

6th of February 2007 (Tue), 10:49

There are arguments for both sides. The people who usually tell you not to do the wedding (if you have no experience) are just looking out for your well being. They are usually the people who have "paid their dues" by being an assistant first and then once they feel confident in their own way they might branch out on their own. The people who say go for it are usually the ones who haven't been an assistant or have never done a wedding on their own. Not always, but most of the time.
Each situation is different, so I don't think that any of us can really give a definite answer for another person. We each offer advice based on our own experience, so take each post for what you can.
Best of luck to you.

CyberPet

6th of February 2007 (Tue), 10:58

Shooting a wedding *on your own* without knowing what you're in for is dangerous. Shooting a wedding as a second, with a pro, is not dangerous, then you have a mentor who can tell you what to do, or what not to do. You also see how the pro works during the day, so you know what to expect.

I did shoot with a pro a few times before I took upon the first "real" wedding on my own. I felt much more confident, even if I did goof up a few things, but at least I knew more about wedding photography than the bride and groom at that point. :D

prairie pics

6th of February 2007 (Tue), 18:46

Honeybee - I see you have quite the arsonal (spelling?) of lenses on your plate. Do you shoot weddings? What's your main lens(es)?

wannabegood

6th of February 2007 (Tue), 21:33

Have you seen or heard about the 70-200 f/4 at around $600? And the 17-85 IS would work for you IF the church is fairly well lit or if it's in the daytime. I'm going through the same thing right now, but I've upgraded from the 20D to the 5D and have the 24-105 f4L IS, but still concerned it's not long enough or fast enough. The advice to rent is excellent advise, and I may do that myself to find out if the one I'm looking at is right for me.
I was going to be primary shooter for my wife's girlfriends wedding March 3, but now I'll be the invisible second, my first wedding and I feel much better about that! I still plan on filling 4 to 10 GB of cards though, even though I'm not the paid photog. Maybe I'll end up with some the primary won't get. By the way, he's retired, a hobbyist photographer, and shooting it for free as a favor to the bride's dad. I may end up the primary after all! Yikes!
Well, I've shot 12,000 pictures on my 20D and almost 1000 on the 5D, so I feel almost competent. lol
Have fun, follow the advice here and shoot everything that moves, and remember the sport shooting adage I just read here...." If you see it, you missed the shot!"
Good Luck!

Honeybee

6th of February 2007 (Tue), 22:24

Weddings / portraits / events / my family - have a FT day job; this is PT

Main wedding lenses: Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70, Canon 50 1.4, Sigma 70-200.

The gear is the result of lens fever without knowledge...not that most of them aren't good lenses. As I've posted elsewhere, if I had the chance to do it again, I'd probably only have 3-4 lenses - Canon 17-55, 50 1.4, and 70-200