what are good lens to take wedding pictures with?

[jschao]

Thanks,

Jeff

[Conk]

The last wedding I did I used my 35-105mm. It allowed me to shoot in the chapel and at the park for the main shoot.

[minatophase3]

I would assume a 70-200 2.8IS would be a great lens. The 2.8 and IS will help with the lower light situations and takes good portraits. I would also think the 24-70 2.8 or Tamron 28-75 2.8 (depending on budget) would be necessary. Possibly a wide angle if you are doing larger groups.

I own the 70-200 4.0 and love the range it has, but the 4.0 probably wouldn't handle the lower light very well.

Both of the weddings I have done were outside so light wasn't an issue. Also both were small weddings and I didn't have to worry about large groups of people.

Tim

[roanjohn]

I've seen a lot of people use the 28-135 IS.

If it we're up to me........it would be the 24-70 f2.8L and 85 f1.2.

Ro1

[psk4363]

Hi Jeff,

There's nothing wrong with a single lens to do the whole wedding - the underrated 50mm. If you want some close-ups with a nice diffused background you can't beat the 70-200 2.8L.

Cheers,
Barry

[Mark Kemp]

Do you mean as the official photographer or as a guest?

Never done a wedding officially, but as a guest I like to take a long telephoto and stand well back where nobody will notice me. Then I get lots of natural looking candids and they are different from those the pro took.

Of course you have to have a car nearby or something as you don't want to sit through the ceremony with a camera bag on your lap.

[AzzKicker]

depends on church rules. SOme churches dont want the photog to be so close and using flash. In these cases the 28-135 is probably a good choice because of IS. Or the 70-200 f/2.8 would be good as well so you can be in back of church and still get good results.... WHen it comes to the reception and dance I'd put on the 24-70L.

[Tom W]

The last time I did wedding work (OK, the only official time I did wedding work), I found the 70-200/2.8 to be a very valuable lens for inside the sanctuary. I used no flash during the service, so the 2.8 end was quite useful. I also took a couple of shots inside with the 50 when I could get good angles from the sides. My goal was to stay out of the way as much as possible, but to also capture key moments during the ceremony. If I had another fast lens, I might have used it there as well.

At the reception and other parts of the event, the 28-105 was my most used lens. There was no flash restriction so I didn't have a problem getting some good shots with the consumer-grade lens. Outdoors, it was fine.

I've gotten a couple of other lenses since then, so my next event will likely have a somewhat different lineup.

[dsze]

...for the one I'm doing in a couple weeks I'm planning to use the three lenses listed in my sig. I've done several practice situations and I think they'll go like this:

28-75 2.8 inside during ceremony (as I have to stay at the back)
50 1.8 inside during recessional & posed ceremony shots afterward

50 1.8 outside for groups & some portraits
70-200 f4 outside for portraits

28-75 2.8 reception & candids
50 1.8 for the formal reception shots & maybe the 28-75 also

...alot will depend on available light on the day

-daniel

[robertwgross]

I shot a wedding on Saturday, and most of it was with my Canon 28-135mm.

The church had few rules, except not to get too crazy.

During the cerermony, there just was no good angle for it, so I got into a side hall and stuck a long lens on, 100-400mm. Then I could get little candid shots of the bride whispering to the groom.

However, for the larger group shots, I had to switch to a wider lens. For the reception, the wider lens worked nicely at the dance floor.

---Bob Gross---

[SWPhotoImaging]

Anything that makes the bride look thin will be a winner

[robertwgross]

Look thin? You can do that in Photoshop.

---Bob Gross---

[elfyrulz]

I shot a wedding on Saturday, and most of it was with my Canon 28-135mm.

The church had few rules, except not to get too crazy.

During the cerermony, there just was no good angle for it, so I got into a side hall and stuck a long lens on, 100-400mm. Then I could get little candid shots of the bride whispering to the groom.

However, for the larger group shots, I had to switch to a wider lens. For the reception, the wider lens worked nicely at the dance floor.

---Bob Gross---

hey.. robert what was your ISO setting ??

[robertwgross]

ISO setting for what?

Bright sunlight in the yard of the parents of the groom?
Bright sunlight behind trees in the church courtyard?
Light coming through stained glass in a church?
Near-sunset light at a golf course clubhouse?
Reception dancing in near darkness?
Cake-cutting by candlelight?

ISO was all over the place. For what it's worth, the film photographer was shooting Portra 400 and 800.

---Bob Gross---

[Patrick 10D]

I am dealing with these same issues this week - I made the idiotic promise half a year ago to shoot a friend of a friend's wedding. This will be only my second attempt at a wedding, and to be quite honest, I am not looking forward to it AT ALL!

I think that my attitude problem is already getting in the way ...

The ceremony is in a 450 year old church with extremely high ceilings and poor light. The reception will be held outdoors, so better light if the weather improves.

I am going to check both places tomorrow, and work with the newly weds to be on making a list of who they want photographed.

Groan.

[robertwgross]

The ceremony is in a 450 year old church with extremely high ceilings and poor light.


You need a lot of light inside a church like that. Consider a low-yield nuclear detonation.

---Bob Gross---

[Mark Kemp]

The ceremony is in a 450 year old church with extremely high ceilings and poor light.


You need a lot of light inside a church like that. Consider a low-yield nuclear detonation.

---Bob Gross---
:D reach up and pull the sun closer?

[samdring]

Last month had ancient church in Barnsley with ancient vicar who would not permit flash at all inside. Whole ceremony with my 51.4 mmf thingy and it worked great - however required corpulent camera-holder to move back and forth, somewhat!

[RichardtheSane]

The ceremony is in a 450 year old church with extremely high ceilings and poor light.


You need a lot of light inside a church like that. Consider a low-yield nuclear detonation.

---Bob Gross---

That made me laugh :lol: :lol:
Thanks Bob ;)

[bertelm]

Patrick 10D - I too made that idiotic promise; however, this will be my first wedding shoot. I told them that I am by no means close to a professional, but when you have no money, your Uncle looks very appealing...

Question about lenses - I was thinking of picking up a 28-75 F2.8 Tameron, since it seems to be very highly recommended by the forum. However, I was questioning whether or not the F2.8 was really that useful. I believe in another post, someone was saying that because of the depth of field, you should try to keep the Fstop at 5.6 or higher. So, I was wondering if a fast lens would really be that useful? (I have a 24-85 Canon now).

Comments?

[RichardtheSane]

Question about lenses - I was thinking of picking up a 28-75 F2.8 Tameron, since it seems to be very highly recommended by the forum. However, I was questioning whether or not the F2.8 was really that useful. I believe in another post, someone was saying that because of the depth of field, you should try to keep the Fstop at 5.6 or higher. So, I was wondering if a fast lens would really be that useful? (I have a 24-85 Canon now).

Comments?

The way I see it I would rather have the F2.8 if any indoor shots will be going on...

Sure, norrow DOF will throw a lot of the image (sometimes parts of the subject) out of focus.

But it will give you the extra shutter speed to avoid a totally blurred image.

I know what I would rather have

[antaine]

Bertelm, I have the Tamron 28-75 about 6 weeks and absolutely love it. It seems very sharp even at f2.8 - BUT, and there is a but, I have my first wedding in Sept and I think that it will not be wide enough for family shots in the inside of a small church - I mean for 20-30 people I will have to be about 50 yards back! That is why I was thinking of a Canon 17-40 for these shots?

[pierrot]

As long as people will marry in churches, you'll need a fast lens. You can always close it if needed.
As long as priests and vicars will forbid flash lights, you'll need a fast lens.
As long as you'll like to make candids without disturbing the general atmosphere of contemplation, you'll need a fast lens.

Out of the church for "official" portraits and later during the party, take whatever lens you're at ease with. ;)

[Maureen Souza]

I could not live without my 50mm/1.4 and I just got the 16-35mm/2.8L. I also have the Tamrom 28-75 and the 3 of them are doing a very nice job for my wedding gigs.

[robertwgross]

One message from this thread is that you will find your brain adapting to whatever your favorite lens is, and you will continue to favor that lens for all weddings. If you suddenly have another lens and you are not familiar with it, you probably will not like the results.

I was shooting a wedding one time (as the second shooter) with my Canon digital camera. The other photographer suddenly thrust his Nikon film camera at me and asked me to get a certain shot. Wow! I looked through that and couldn't really tell what I was looking at. Part of the problem, of course, was that the viewfinder was showing me a full-frame view. But that particular lens look a lot of getting used to. I went back to digital as soon as I could.

---Bob Gross---

[lkorell]

"someone was saying that because of the depth of field, you should try to keep the Fstop at 5.6 or higher"


That's if you want lots of DOF. If you're trying to make a shallow DOF image, you need to open up wide. There is a large variety of shots to be made at weddings. for the dance shots, obviously a 1.4 or 1.2 aperture will give you some blur - maybe too much. But for a dreamy looking romantic bride & groom shot you may want a shallow DOF to isolate your subject.

Your artistic vision should be the determining factor in what aperture you choose - first - then finding the light to create it is the next challenge.

There are lots of opinions on this so obviously I'd keep reading posts and researching your choices.

I'll qualify this further by saying f5.6 or f4 is "safe" usually to provide adequate DOF given adequate lighting. If you are not the "artsy pro" hired to shoot and are acting as the "Uncle with a good camera", then I'd make sure I got the safe shots first and did the experiments only as possible. You want to give the couple well exposed images and if you can throw in some more edgy stuff, it's an added bonus. But if you're not used to being the wedding pro, it is risky business to do a lot of experimenting on the fly.


Lou