For 5D Wedding Photog Owners - Help requested

[Tony Spires]

I am about to get a 5D next month and plan on starting a business in wedding photography. I already have the 70-200 and plan on using it for the longer focal lengths and would like to know what everyone thinks is best for the shorter focal lengths but also covers wide angle. I;d like to hear from 5D owners who are out there shooting weddings already. Cost really isn't that important. I just want something comparable to the 17-55 which I;ll no longer be able to use(not with the 5D anyway) Sharp, fast and reliable is what I am looking for but something that goes as wide as the 17-55 on a full frame and as narrow as the 55mm end if this lens exists. Gracias!

[asxu]

i'm not a wedding photographer of any sort. but you can't go wrong with a 24-70/2.8

[tim]

A photographer who works for me uses the 24-105 F4L on his 5D and loves it, it makes incredible sharp images. F4 isn't fast enough for dark churches so perhaps get a 50mm F1.4 or 85mm F1.8 for low light. 24-70 F2.8L is good but lacks IS, which I find really, really handy.

[highway0691]

I don't really like the options available for the 5D for wide/fast lenses suitable for wedding photography. I started using my 17-40L F4 which is a great lens but not quite fast enough. So I advise you buy a 40D as a second camera and have the 17-55 2.8 IS on it. (it wont fit the 5D) These two cameras with this lens combination make for a great set-up. Alternatively - get two 40Ds!

Cheers

damian

[taygull]

I don't really like the options available for the 5D for wide/fast lenses suitable for wedding photography. I started using my 17-40L F4 which is a great lens but not quite fast enough. So I advise you buy a 40D as a second camera and have the 17-55 2.8 IS on it. (it wont fit the 5D) These two cameras with this lens combination make for a great set-up.

Cheers

damian

Why the 17-55 on a 1.6 crop, that would make it about a 35mm?

Just get the 24-70L f/2.8, there is not a better all around lens. I've had an assistant shoot with the 17-55 2.8IS and I'm amazed at how many soft shots. Of course it could be the 30D but I've seen enough that I would not get it.

The 24-70L f/2.8 is probably the most popular lens by pro's.

[highway0691]

17mm x 1.6 = 27.2mm

[Lorem]

24-70 2.8 and 50 1.4 and you're all set.

[taygull]

17mm x 1.6 = 27.2mm

LOL....it is Friday and I was not doing math....I think the point is taken though..

Why spend $1300 on a 40D, another $1,000 on a 17-55IS...to get 27mm when you can spend $1K and get one of the best pieces of glass made.....the 24-70 f/2.8L

[Tony Spires]

I did not realize that the 24-70 2.8 did not have IS. That bites a big one. I already have the 50 1.4 so I could theoretically get the 24-105 but only F4? Again this sucks big time. Man, I guess the decision won't really be that easy. Seems they'd have an IS 2.8 for that expensive 5D!! I've read many reviews on the 40D and lots of people don't think it's much better than the rebel xti. Guess it totally depends on the person and what they're using it for but almost everything I have read says it just does not compare to the 5D. So, I really think the 5D is my best route but the lens drama is crazy. Any plans for Canon to come out with another lens 2.8 wide angle telephoto any time soon?

[taygull]

You really don't need the IS on the 24-70, go rent one for a weekend and shoot with it.

[Tony Spires]

I have a problem with my right hand and some times it shakes so the IS on the 17-55 and 70-200 has been very valuable to me. I wouldn't rent it unless I had the 5D which I don't have yet.

[taygull]

Well then you do need IS.....that info would have been helpful in the first post.

[Tony Spires]

Sorry didn't really want to post about the problems with my hand as I thought for sure there would be a 2.8 IS wide angle telephoto. My apologies

[taygull]

Sorry didn't really want to post about the problems with my hand as I thought for sure there would be a 2.8 IS wide angle telephoto. My apologies

No big deal, and nothing to be ashamed of at all. I'm color blind, LOL, you think you have it tough!

[Tobster001]

I got 2 5d's and love em, full frame and no substitutes(ok i understand the economics of aps-c framed sensors but ill never go back to them), generally i use the 70-200 and the 17-40(also 16-35 but like the 40 end more and a few primes) and find i get all the images i want with the above 2, at 17 u get some distortion, but hey i havnt seen a super wide that doesnt, beauty of the 5d is the lack of noise, i do candlit receptions under rainforest cannopies with the f4 with the iso twisted way up to 3200 and the shots are impressive, good enough for me and clients anyway(there fine used in wedding albums but no bigger)...however i got a hand brace(my personal IS) and can get a sharp shot at 1/10th and a breath hold. If you got a shake id go the 50 1.4...

[jamiewexler]

I like the 24-105, and have not been hampered by it in dark churches. But I have had to jump to 3200 a couple of times to get a fast enough SS...

[Tony Spires]

Thanks for the feedback man. Mighty cool of the people here to help me make an informed decision

[MrsOpie]

24-70 f/2.8L

[Maureen Souza]

You know, I prefer prime lenses for weddings. They are sharper and clearer, IMO, so I like to use my 50/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2.0 as much as possible. For wide angle needs, my trusty Tamron 28-75 does a crystal clear job.

[eric@erickochphoto.com]

I have shot about 30 weddings with my 5D and the 24-70 f/2.8L has perfect. I wouldn't worry about the shaking. With the great IQ on the higher ISO's with the 5D you can just crank it up to get a fast enough SS.

[markbluemica]

the last 3 weddings ive done all ive used is my 24-70

[Nicole Faith]

I use a 5D for weddings and have the 24-105 F4L. I haven't had any issues and can get away with some lower lighted churches with it as well for close-ups. I plan to get something smaller in the future as well for a larger F-stop.

[QX56]

24-105 or 24-70 they are good .I had 24-105 ...and I used it almost 80% -90% for wedding.

[jerrybsmith]

The idea set of zoom lenses for a 5D is the 16-35, 24-70 and the 70-200 which you already have.

[Wedding Shooter]

The idea set of zoom lenses for a 5D is the 16-35, 24-70 and the 70-200 which you already have.

+1 from a 5D user.

[BestVisuals]

I'm considering a 5D for my wedding work, but with all the hubbub over Highlight Tone Priority (HTP), I'm going to wait until either the 5D has it (the 5D Mark II) or a new camera body comes out (I'm sure all future Canons will have this feature).

[sapearl]

Sucks big time?? :lol: No.... not all. I've been surviving perfectly well with it and have been extremely pleased with it's performance. I've had it a year and a half now have shot about 14,000 images with it.

I shot MF film for 30+ years. When I switched to a dSLR I needed a lens that covered my MF 50, 60, 80 & 150mm lenses. Right about the time of my switch they came out with the 24-105 that does the job of these four lenses for me, without having to switch. I also use the 70-200 f/2.8 IS on a second body.

I always have a flash mounted on the body with the 24-105 and shoot ISO 800 in church. Most of the time I will use the flash in some sort of bounce mode. It would have been nice if this lens came as an f/2.8, but that probably would have added another $500 - 1000 to it along with a pound or more. No, it works just fine.

My last MF film cameras were Hasselblads with Zeiss lenses. I needed a dSLR and glass that wouldn't make me look back. Canon answered most of those needs. They are not perfect, but pretty darn good. The L's are not exactly as sharp as the Zeiss, but then I never had autofocus, zooms or lightweight TTL flashes ;). No, I'm doing fine with the new rig.

......so I could theoretically get the 24-105 but only F4? Again this sucks big time. Man, I guess the decision won't really be that easy. Seems they'd have an IS 2.8 for that expensive 5D!! I've read many reviews on the 40D and lots of people don't think it's much better than the rebel xti. Guess it totally depends on the person and what they're using it for but almost everything I have read says it just does not compare to the 5D. So, I really think the 5D is my best route but the lens drama is crazy. Any plans for Canon to come out with another lens 2.8 wide angle telephoto any time soon?

[MetalRain]

I've read many reviews on the 40D and lots of people don't think it's much better than the rebel xti. Guess it totally depends on the person and what they're using it for but almost everything I have read says it just does not compare to the 5D. So, I really think the 5D is my best route but the lens drama is crazy. Any plans for Canon to come out with another lens 2.8 wide angle telephoto any time soon?

Oh but the 40D is amazing :).

[sapearl]

Tony and Metalrain, here's another reason why lack of f/2.8 on the 24-105 doesn't bother be in the least.

The 5D has tremendous high ISO capability. Based upon my past and present wedding work, I feel that ISO 800 with the 5D gives me grain/noise that is no worse than and in many cases BETTER than when I used ASA 400 film. And in addition to that, the 24-105 has IS which really does work as promised, giving you at LEAST the 2-stops that's advertised.

So, you may not have an actual 2.8 aperture but you can achieve very good to excellent shots hand held at 1/25, 1/20 and even 1/15 which will give you that equivalent exposure. Bokeh is another issue but that's not why I bought this lens. Although under the right circumstances I can still achieve some very pleasant effects. So in real world usage this lens with the 5D is a solid performer doing just about everything I expect of it.

[DaveG]

I am about to get a 5D next month and plan on starting a business in wedding photography. I already have the 70-200 and plan on using it for the longer focal lengths and would like to know what everyone thinks is best for the shorter focal lengths but also covers wide angle. I;d like to hear from 5D owners who are out there shooting weddings already. Cost really isn't that important. I just want something comparable to the 17-55 which I;ll no longer be able to use(not with the 5D anyway) Sharp, fast and reliable is what I am looking for but something that goes as wide as the 17-55 on a full frame and as narrow as the 55mm end if this lens exists. Gracias!

I use a 5D and a 20D for weddings.

Just a month ago I bought a 24-105 to replace my 24-85 f3.5-4.5. The 24-85 was and is a good lens, but i was finding it increasingly ironic that 60%+ of my wedding images were being made with my "worst lens". But the real issue was that I needed more focal length for portraits than that lens could give me. That alone would make the 24-70 completely inappropriate for me and my 5D.

When you think about it for awhile f2.8 isn't particularly fast for a lens in this focal length range. You might buy a 24mm f2.8 but would sneer at a 35mm f2.8 and so forth. 2.8's biggest advantage is that Canon cameras seems to have an easier time focusing with that aperture than with slower lenses. In any case I wouldn't consider a 2.8 lens particulalry suited for low light photography. Obviously an f4 is worse, but 2.8 isn't exactly f1.4 either.

I've been extremely pleased with the 24-105. It's sharper than the lens it replaced and the extra focal length has been more than useful. The IS is kind of moot for me. The vast majority of my images are taken from a tripod so IS is redundant, at least most of the time. I certainly would have chosen this lens without IS - if it existed - and if there was some money to be saved. And I would have spent the same money on this lens if it was a 2.8 and had no IS.

But like most things this lens is not the answer for everything. I use a 16-35 f2.8L for many of the church shots, and my 70-200 f2.8L, and the 20D for most of the ceremony shots. The 24-105 will be for bridal portraits, B&G portraits and for groups.

I do bring a 50mm f1.4 with me to weddings and I use it for available light shots of the B&G at the head table. As an aside I've had a Canon UV filter on this lens that flares like no bodies business when there are candles in the shot. I just (last week) replaced it with a B+W filter so hopefully that's fixed.

[spcalan]

I love the 5D, with the 28-135 and 80-200 2.8