What is the upper end of your FL range for wedding photos?

[s8langwo]

How often do you find yourself going above 135mm during a wedding shoot? Right now I have the 135mm f/2.8 sf and I'm struggling to justify the 200mm prime or the 70-200mm zoom. The difference in the viewfinder is not significant enough warrant either one of the 200mm "L" options.

Do you find the need to go longer? Maybe a 100-400 zoom or the 300mm IS? I'd love to get your thoughts on the mid to long telephoto requirements for an individual shooting a whole wedding day.

Thanks in advance for taking the time to read and potentially respond.

Kevin

[cactusclay]

100 is my longest lens, so I think you are set on the long end, but I would hate to do a wedding without at least a 35mm equivilent lens on the wide end. A back up body would be a really good idea and specially since you are using primes. Put a 24mm on one XT and a 50 or 85mm on another XT and you would be good to go. Of coarse a flash or two might come in handy too, depending on the light.

[s8langwo]

Thanks for your response. I also have access to an original Drebel and a film body as back-ups. My plan is to have the 135 and the 50 on the 2 bodies during the ceremony. I'll use the 28 and the 85 during the reception. I have the 430EX for primaries and a couple of older vivitars for use as backups in a pinch.

I've used a 70-300 zoom during some of our special church services, but the speed and IQ at the wide end were not enough for me to keep it.

Kevin

[jessiper]

I go above 135mm a lot, especially during the ceremony.

[kawter2]

my 70-200 isn't the most used lens in my bag, but MAYBE the most important

[mizuno]

my 70-200 isn't the most used lens in my bag, but MAYBE the most important

Ditto.

If I had to do a wedding without it, I'd be slightly nervous.

[picturecrazy]

I use 200 a lot. I don't think I'd have a need for anything much longer, as I'm using a crop body. Personally, I would sell the 135 2.8 to fund a 70-200 2.8 IS. You are not gaining any speed with the prime, and the 70-200 is wonderfully sharp, and tons more flexible.

[grego]

70-200 2.8 IS is a priceless lens. Great to pair with something like the 17-55 2.8 IS or something of the wider sort. Those two together would make a strong kit, especially for not being able to have multiple lens.

[Wazza]

I've used my Sigma 120-300 2.8 on a couple of occassions. A bit heavy, but very handy, when doing long range, sharp shots.

[Wedding Shooter]

I certainly need a longer focal length than 135 - but I am using a ff body.

[sblais]

Ditto what everyone else says about the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Either that we've all been brainwashed or that the lens is truly worth it. Currently, my wife uses the 70-200 on her body and stays out of the way to take her pictures and, to be honest, there are times where I would like to have my own 70-200 handy. To this effect, I recently purchased a 100mm macro, which gives me quite a bit more reach than my 17-55 and allows me to do macro shots for the rings and other details.

[coreypolis]

hmmm, out of the few shoots I've put into Lightroom thus far, I think I know my favorite lens ;)


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/viperx27/lens.jpg

[s8langwo]

Judging by the body of the responses, I'll do well to purchase a 70-200 zoom as my experience and finances allow. In the meantime I'll focus on getting the most out of the lenses I have now. Honing my skills will only increase the usefulness of any future lens purchases I make.

Thanks to each of you for taking time and interest in responding. I have found this forum to be "newbie" friendly for factual advice and encouragement. I am inspired many of your images and hope to one day contribute my experiences to help advance what I find to be the most exhilerating branch of photography.

Kevin

[picturecrazy]

Getting the focal length is one thing, but having IS with it is REALLY REALLY REALLY nice. How often do you think you'll be able to get 1/200 shutter speed at an evening reception? Just about never. The IS lenses will let you shoot down to 1/30 handheld. It's awesome. I'm just afraid that you might buy a lens and then find out again that you'll need something better.

[EOS_JD]

Yip I agree Lloyd. It's gotta be the IS. You can shoot even slower than 1/30th (so long as the subject is static). Braced well you can shoot 1/15th @ 200mm. I've shot one at 1/8th (although it was slightly soft).

[tim]

my 70-200 isn't the most used lens in my bag, but MAYBE the most important

Ditto.

If I had to do a wedding without it, I'd be slightly nervous.

I use 200 a lot. I don't think I'd have a need for anything much longer, as I'm using a crop body. Personally, I would sell the 135 2.8 to fund a 70-200 2.8 IS. You are not gaining any speed with the prime, and the 70-200 is wonderfully sharp, and tons more flexible.

Pay attention to what these guys have said. Look at their photos and you'll understand why.

[spcalan]

I have a Canon 5D, and I use the 28-135mm lens.
What will I gain if I buy the 70-200mm 2.8? ( other than the obvious )?
Is it needed?

[coreypolis]

I have a Canon 5D, and I use the 28-135mm lens.
What will I gain if I buy the 70-200mm 2.8? ( other than the obvious )?
Is it needed?
yes, the 28-135 is 3 full stops slower at 135, its a smaller lens, so even at the same focal length it won't have as nice of background blur or bokeh, its not as sharp, fast (aperture of AF wise), as well built, or provide as much length.

But I also think you should have a better quality mid range zoom than that on a 5d