Wedding camera setting

[Burrellimages]

Im fixing to do my first indoor wedding. I shot one wedding outdoors last year, but have never done an indoor wedding. I currently have the 17-85 IS and the 70-200 F4, but am wanting to sell the f4 and get the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Is this the best idea? Also, what settings do i shoot indoors at? F2.8 or what?

I figured that setting since id have the faster lens.

Thanks for any help!!

[Exit]

Use some comons sense. If it's dark you shoot at higher ISO's and lower f/stops. Add flash if you must

[Rellik]

Get the 70-200 2.8 IS. As for settings, if you are asking about that, you really need to do more homework. Proper exposure will be your guideline. It really depends on many variables... the lighting indoors, will you be using flash?, are there any place to bounce flash?... etc.

[tim]

If you have to ask you're not at the stage where you should consider shooting a wedding. There are plenty of threads on modes, and the book "understanding exposure" is a must-read.

FAQ: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2453681

[TheSteveMadden]

^^^ +1 what tim say

Tim, I knew you would be drawn to this thread like a moth to a candle.

[Burrellimages]

I wasnt asking about settings because i dont understand the camera/lighting.......i was wondering if since the f2.8 is the best lens, if its because people shoot at that f-stop. Pretty much, what is the reason for bumping up to the faster lens over the f4 if im not shooting at 3.5 or 2.8, etc. Its just a lot of money to dump if i dont need the faster setting.

[sapearl]

Hello Brandon - that's a pretty broad question you have there and there's a whole raft of possible answers and recommendations. There are some similar threads out there with helpful info, so you may want to check out the following:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=279104

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=276737

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=276413

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=274125

I've got the 580 also which gets a LOT of use on my jobs, and also the 70-200 f/2.8 along with the 5D. IMHO, the first thing you should consider when evaluating your (lighting) situation is to decide upon ISO. If I have strong indoor ambience, I will use ISO 400 - it relates to my old ASA 400 film days ;) . But most of the time anymore I'll be at ISO 800.

From this point on IF you are using flash, you want to use a shutter speed slow enough to let in ambient background lighting ( 1/30 or 1/40th) and a similar aperture, in combo with the 580. I'll usually run the camera on Manual, 1/30 sec, f/6.3 or thereabouts, but with the 580 on Auto-ETTL. If you check out those other threads I posted you'll get a better description - a number of forum folks posted some excellent suggestions.

If you have some specific questions, I'll try to answer them. Have fun :D - Stu

[sapearl]

Relik and Tim make good points about the importance of understanding exposure before tackling something this critical. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't do it, but it is VERY important, and you HAVE TO GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.;)

Now don't let me frighten you. I hope you have some time to practice before hand? This is something you really need to do to understand cause and effect. But you are very lucky since this is digital, and you don't have to wait a couple of days to find out you blew severl rolls of film like we did back in the day. You can see the immediate fruits of your labor and experimentation.

So make sure you practice, practice and practice before hand. Bride's and their parents tend NOT to like underexposed, poorly focused and composed grainy photos :rolleyes:

[Burrellimages]

my main question is why is it better to use the f2.8 over the f4 if your not shooting at f2.8? Thats a LOT of money to still shoot over f4. I mostly do automotive photography and make a pretty good living off of it, and am dabbling in weddings, etc. I never shoot below f11 so the f4 70-200 was fine.

[sapearl]

I wasnt asking about settings because i dont understand the camera/lighting.......i was wondering if since the f2.8 is the best lens, if its because people shoot at that f-stop. Pretty much, what is the reason for bumping up to the faster lens over the f4 if im not shooting at 3.5 or 2.8, etc. Its just a lot of money to dump if i dont need the faster setting.

That lens is an awful lot of money, especially if you get the IS version. But since it is a full stop brighter than the f/4, you get brighter viewfinder image, and it does have the capability of doing much better and faster autofocussing under really low lighting conditions.

It is also a very heavy lens - I believe close to double the weight of it's f/4 brother, and about the diameter of a small surface to air missile. I use a nice foamy Tamarac neck strap to help easy the pressure after long hours. :cry:

Also, a lot of wedding work is portrait work. You'll want to use much larger apertures, much more than f11, in order to achieve shallower depth of field for better aesthetic effects. Again, this too is a very important concept about wedding work and good portrait photography in general that you need to be aware of, if not already.

[Burrellimages]

Ive used another editor's f2.8 before so im familiar with it, but do you spend enough time shooting at f2.8 to justify the extra cash for weddings?

[zacker]

if youre gonna do indoor weddings, even only once in awhile, get the f2.8... you may not need it all the time, but when you do, its good to have.. i cant wait to get one!! can you imagine you go to shhot the first dance and they lower the lights?

[sapearl]

Ive used another editor's f2.8 before so im familiar with it, but do you spend enough time shooting at f2.8 to justify the extra cash for weddings?

Excellent question - to be honest my main motivation was the IS, and then the f/4 came out... but the question wasn't to difficult for me since my wedding work generates a constant albeit very modest flow of income.

I could justify it as a legitimate deductible business purchase. I get back around 49 cents from uncle Sam for every dollar I spend on hardware. And once I did get the 2.8, I REALLY fell in love with. It is a wonderful photographic instrument.

[sapearl]

BTW - very cute 6 year old on your site :D .... reminds me of both my daughters when they were that age.

[Burrellimages]

Ive spent several hours on this forum trying to decide if the f2.8 was worth the extra expense before i posted this thread.

Like i mentioned, i VERY RARELY shoot below f11 (due to the fact that i mostly shoot stuff for automotive magazines). But thought i would ask about this. I understand the different settings, but i wasnt sure if i would spend enough time shooting at f2.8.

Also, i will be using the speedlite 580 with a flash bracket. My current lenses worked fine for that outdoor wedding and portrait i did, but have 2 indoor ones lined up.

[ofdphoto]

I would not shoot a wedding with any lenses slower than f/2.8.

Here are some reasons:

* Using flash is not always permitted, and even when it is, it's good to avoid it wherever possible. And you'd be amazed how often f/2.8 and ISO1600 (or even ISO3200) are only just good enough for available light shooting. (Sometimes a fast prime is the only option.)

* AF speed and accuracy is substantially better at f/2.8 than at f/4. Regardless of what aperture you're shooting at, your camera will meter and focus at the maximum aperture of the lens, and having used both f/4 and f/2.8 lenses, I can assure you that the extra stop makes a tangible difference to AF (in low light situations). This is partly because 20D's and 30D's turn on an extra AF sensor when an f/2.8 or faster lens is mounted.

* Bokeh.

I should also add that your 17-85mm is not an acceptable lens for weddings. Not only is it too slow (especially at the long end), it is optically woeful when shot wide open, and it will need to be wide open a LOT. I'd be selling it for a 17-55/2.8 IS in your situation (or perhaps a Tamron 17-50/2.8).

[sapearl]

Brandon, have you actually handled the f2.8? I was shocked how big and heavy it was the first time I held one.... it almost turned me completely off. But I thought about it for several months before pulling the trigger.

If you haven't already, you really need to mount one on your camera and see what it actually feels like.

[sapearl]

I would not shoot a wedding with any lenses slower than f/2.8.

Here are some reasons:

* Using flash is not always permitted, and even when it is, it's good to avoid it wherever possible. .......

Wellllllllll now, I would respectfully disagree - I've been very pleased with all the weddings I've done with my 24-105L f/4, with and without the 580.

I certainly understand the advantages of those faster lenses but it's not the only equipment that will work. That said, I would still pick the 70-200 2.8 over the f4.

[Burrellimages]

Yeah i was tag teaming several trucks at a show with another editor and he had the 20d with the f2.8 IS and he let me "play" with it. I liked that it was bigger. I seemed to have more control with the extra weight.

Luke.....thanks for that answer. That pretty much summed up what i was looking for along with the help from sapearl.

[ofdphoto]

Wellllllllll now, I would respectfully disagree - I've been very pleased with all the weddings I've done with my 24-105L f/4, with and without the 580.

I certainly understand the advantages of those faster lenses but it's not the only equipment that will work. That said, I would still pick the 70-200 2.8 over the f4.

Fair enough :-) I shot a few weddings with the 24-105 too, and was pretty happy with it. But I've found the AF benefits of the 24-70 make it better to use in most situations ... each to their own :-) Certainly the longer (70-200mm) focal lengths call for faster apertures (especially for cheapskates like me who don't want to spend money on IS ;-)).

[tim]

Ive used another editor's f2.8 before so im familiar with it, but do you spend enough time shooting at f2.8 to justify the extra cash for weddings?

Faster focus and the ability to shoot without flash is worth it IMHO.

Ive spent several hours on this forum trying to decide if the f2.8 was worth the extra expense before i posted this thread.

Like i mentioned, i VERY RARELY shoot below f11 (due to the fact that i mostly shoot stuff for automotive magazines). But thought i would ask about this. I understand the different settings, but i wasnt sure if i would spend enough time shooting at f2.8.

Also, i will be using the speedlite 580 with a flash bracket. My current lenses worked fine for that outdoor wedding and portrait i did, but have 2 indoor ones lined up.

It's not unusual for me to use ISO1600, F2.8, 1/30th in a dark church - though I take LOTS of pictures because I know at 1/30th many won't come out well. I don't like to use flash in a church, the light is too glary and obvious, plus it's distracting - though there's usually two dozen people with P&S cameras using flash.

Canon cameras enable an extra focusing mode with lenses F2.8 and faster - a cross focus point instead of a line type.

[sblais]

I was going to say the same as what Tim said. I very often shoot with the lens fully opened. I had a f/4.0-5.6 before and would have to go through tons of batteries because my flash (which I always bounced). Having the liberty of shooting with only ambient light is just so great! You can use a lot more creativity and still use your flash for fill or to complement the available light.

[Wedding Shooter]

It is not really about how often you need it - it is that you will need it at some stage. If you want to shoot weddings than the f4 IS should be the minimum.

But eventually - you will want the 2.8 IS because anyone who has shot more than 10 weddings knows that it is really a great lens and probably in the top 3 lens recommended for wedding photography.

All that said - if you are only going to do one or two weddings a year it is probably worth just buying the 4 IS version. Perhaps try checking out the venue with a rented lens or try and borrow it for a day from a fellow photog.

When I started I bought the Sigma version 70-200 2.8. I loved it - but I eventually bought the Canon because I wanted the IS.

[Hellashot]

Get yourself a 50 f1.4 and/or a 85 f1.8 also. f2.8 is rather slow for indoors without flash.

[iamgen]

Get yourself a 50 f1.4 and/or a 85 f1.8 also. f2.8 is rather slow for indoors without flash.

so the 50 f1.4 is an acceptable lens for indoor shooting as we're discussing?

[tim]

50 F1.4 is good, but it's really not sharp wide open, and it's not my favorite focal length. I would prefer the 30mm and the 85mm, though having the 50mm i'd still use it sometimes.

[mmahoney]

I seemed to have more control with the extra weight.

Even the fittest of shooters complain of arm fatigue with the 2.8 lenses .. both the 24-70 & the 70-200. I just retired from the Latvian power lifting squad and can comfortably bench press small cars but still find my 70-200 2.8 heavy at the end of the day :lol:

But there is no way around fast glass if you're serious about shooting weddings .. there are times when flash is not allowed and F4 won't cut it, in fact F2.8 won't even cut it. Plus the bokeh considerations as well.
Mike

[davidgr]

+2 what Tim said
"If you have to ask you're not at the stage where you should consider shooting a wedding."

+1 what limarms said:
"I would not shoot a wedding with any lenses slower than f/2.8"

[sapearl]

[quote=davidgr;2797005.........+1 what limarms said:
"I would not shoot a wedding with any lenses slower than f/2.8"[/quote]

Gee.... you guys really dislike my 24-105L f/4 IS....:cry:

[sblais]

Gee.... you guys really dislike my 24-105L f/4 IS....:cry:

Oh yes we do! :lol: and with a passion! :D ;)

[davidgr]

Gee.... you guys really dislike my 24-105L f/4 IS....:cry:
Well, now that you mention it. :D LOL
Okay, not really. The IS will give you that little extra edge for hand holding shots, but f/2.8 does get you a bit faster on the focusing.

[CyberPet]

I love the range of the 24-105, but it is impossible for me to use in the low light I have to fight with all the time. I'd love for Canon to make a f/2.8 version of that lens!

[sapearl]

I love the range of the 24-105, but it is impossible for me to use in the low light I have to fight with all the time. I'd love for Canon to make a f/2.8 version of that lens!

That would probably be the PERFECT lens then..... other than an astronomical price; still would be very tempting though.

[videochicke]

One day you will walk into a church that is as dark as a cave and the priest will say "Take all the pictures you want. Just don't use any flash. And there is a mass after the wedding so no pictures in the church after." And then you will be happy you have a 2.8.

[Hellashot]

50 F1.4 is good, but it's really not sharp wide open, and it's not my favorite focal length. I would prefer the 30mm and the 85mm, though having the 50mm i'd still use it sometimes.

My 50 f1.4 is sharp wide open most of the time. Of course you have to be careful when you have moving objects as they might move out of your DOF. I have seen poor images from the 50 f1.4 and some very good, sharp ones too. Get all the facts before you call a lens bad. :)

[drogos]

than I will drop my two cents too...you have actually asked pretty good question ....is 2.8 worth the money if i am not shooting 2.8 all the time ...because you will not ... i find myself using 3.5 most of the time ..DOF is just right and it lets enough ambient in ...but remember about one thing>> rarely any lens is perfectly sharp wide open ..most of them even L series are either good, fine or usable dependingly on particular lens ....you usaually have to stop down from wide open to get reliable AF or at least it is safe to do so ...so for 2.8 lens you would shoot 3.5 ...but for f4 lens ...you probably want to stick to 4.5 or even 5.6 ...so 2.8 for me is worth every penny because it has potential and it gives me wider range of usable f stops ///////and some general tip that might ease up on indoor flash shooting a little ...... remember that shutter speed is not directly affecting exposure of you subject if flash is a dominant light ...why??? because flash burst is very powerful compering to ambient and it is always shorter than any exposure you will choose ..so no matter 1/30th or 1/250 your subject will be exposed in the same way ...what will change is exposure of the room you are shooting in ...obviously f stop and iso will also affect it tremendously .....so let's take a shortcut here ...for regular size and hight interior you adjust f stop/iso and time to get right "ambient light" exposure and for your subject within reasonable iso and f stop range you care only about flash compensation and ETTL on your flash will do the rest ...obviosuly iso and F stop also affect illumination of you subject but not as much as it affects illumination of the whole "scene".... again for standard interior my most commonly used settings would be 1/60th, iso 320, f-3.5 ...flash bounced with usually +1/3 or +2/3 compensation //////another tip ...1/30th will freeze virtually any motion when flash overpowers any other light ...BUT if there is enough ambient coming in through the windows or if you use fill flash outdoors you rather want to stick to 1/100th and 1/250th respectively ..ok...good luck with the wedding

[Wedding Shooter]

....you usaually have to stop down from wide open to get reliable AF or at least it is safe to do so

AF actually is fine at 2.8 - it is the user not being aware of the thin DOF at a wide open aperture that creates issues with focus.

The 70-200 2.8L IS is very sharp - even wide open. It is probably Canon's sharpest zoom.

My 50 1.4 is great - even wide open.

[ofdphoto]

I agree about the 50/1.4. It is everything a prime should be :-)

[drogos]

AF actually is fine at 2.8 - it is the user not being aware of the thin DOF at a wide open aperture that creates issues with focus.

The 70-200 2.8L IS is very sharp - even wide open. It is probably Canon's sharpest zoom.

My 50 1.4 is great - even wide open.

You are right ...we are thinking of the same thing i just used the wrong words ..it is DOF that is getting very small and any tiny AF mistakes either caused by operator or camera are more likely to be forgiven if lens is stopped down..i guess that's what i wanted to say :)

[Mike Reynolds]

Hi Brandon, I also am a magazine photographer but weddings seem to come my way often. You will not regret upgrading to 2.8 on your 70-200 and I also suggest the 24-70 2.8 both "L" you will find you will enjoy the narrow DOF on your already very nice truck shoots but also very helpful for weddings and portraits as well. I don't even regret making the upgrade myself. Also look into the the 85 1.8. I realy like that lens especially for shooting indoors without flash and bluring the busy backgrounds of receptions. That and it is rather inexpensive compaired to the "L" types. Wecome back to the board and I'll be looking forward to seeing more of your work.