Which lenses are required and which are not

[jgoodstein]

Got my first wedding in 4 months. I'm excited and nervous. I will have a 50d by the time the wedding comes and use my 450D as a backup body. I've read and read and read all about the lenses to have and here is the synopsis of what i feel are the fav's amongst this forum:

Canon:
17-55 2.8
70-200 2.8
24-70 2.8
85mm 1.8
50mm 1.4
30mm 1.4

Tamron:
17-50 2.8
70-200 2.8

Sigma:
30mm 1.4
10-20mm
70-200 2.8

Ideally I want them all as much as everyone else does. However I am trying to lean to 3 to start with and am wondering what costs seem most efficient. By no means does all my gear need to be canon (bodies yes, lenses NO). I'm curious on how much IS plays into your choices.

[Vermin87]

You should consider a macro lens for ring shots and other table shots as well.

And is that a 70-200 2.8 IS?

[jgoodstein]

All canons lenses are the IS models (if available)
--

I am getting the 100mm macro shortly, and will carry that with me. but that is for a few shots as apposed (sp?)to large percentage of shots

[Vermin87]

Pretty much, but those few shots (i.e. ring shots, wedding programs, flowers, cake details, etc.) can be very important shots and a macro lens can help you get that narrow depth of field.

[hillierluke]

I would never even consider doing a wedding without my 70-200 2.8 IS. It is such a versatile gem. The 24-70 excels on a FF body, but may not be wide enough on a crop for all your group shots etc (depending on location of course) For that reason a 17-xx would be ideal. I own the Tamron 17-50 and LOVE it - super sharp wide open and fast. It doen't handle quite as well as the Canon 17-55 in poor lighting conditions at lower ISO (due obviously to IS) but in every other aspect I find it to be it's equal at less than half it's price. My third recommendation is the 50 f/1.4 if only for the bokeh it produces. Very handy for full body shots, but even better for head/shoulders up close - the background blur is drool worthy :)
I fell that the better high ISO control gets (great in the 50D) the less cause to let IS control your lens purchase. I still recommend it for the 70-200, as at longer focal lengths any shake is noticeable, but I don't think you need it at the shorter end so much. Enjoy the world of weddings!

[Bobster]

i shoot with the 70-200 2.8 Sigma which a friend of mine swares is sharper than his canon 70-200 2.8 IS
i also use the 17-50 Tamron and 28-75 tamron

[jgoodstein]

i shoot with the 70-200 2.8 Sigma which a friend of mine swares is sharper than his canon 70-200 2.8 IS
i also use the 17-50 Tamron and 28-75 tamron

How much if any does the lack of IS effect your shots with the Sigma?

[form]

IS is extremely useful. I just bought the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the IS is the best thing about it. Getting at least 1-2 sharp photos in a burst at 200mm and 1/20 sec. shutter speed makes it magical. In fact, getting sharp photos at 200mm and 1/60 sec. shutter speed make it so much more useful than a non-is lens, which would either have to be on a tripod or stay around 1/200 sec. speeds to achieve similar sharpness.

What lens do you need for a wedding? You don't need any, but the most important and most useful one is whatever f/2.8 standard zoom you decide to get. Canon 17-55, 24-70L, Tamron 17-50, or 28-75, or even those *blah* sigma versions. Until you have a 1D or 5D series camera and some f/1.2 and 1.4 primes like 24/35/50/85L, the standard zoom will probably be the most useful lens you have.

[Bobster]

How much if any does the lack of IS effect your shots with the Sigma?
with my shooting style? i get on better with the sigma than with a 70-200 IS

only shots i can find atm are gig shots - they're sized for myspace, but ill see if i can dig out some bigger ones at slow shutter for you :)

200mm 1/50 ISO3200
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/85588430.jpg

200mm 1/40 ISO3200
http://www.pbase.com/bob_hall/image/85931094.jpg
all hand held :)

[tim]

Need? Just one semi-wide prime. If you want to know what I recommend and use check out the wedding faq (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=255604).

[say_cheese]

Looking at the poll the 70-200 is most popular for a 1.6 crop for a wedding! That is utter BS, don't be misled, someone is pulling your chain.

[tim]

Looking at the poll the 70-200 is most popular for a 1.6 crop for a wedding! That is utter BS, don't be misled, someone is pulling your chain.

It's a very, very useful lens, but not essential. I use it for reception shots, and often couple shots when I can't get close to the couple - eg over a lake if they're on a bridge.

I used it yesterday for a couple of different reasons:
- I used it for individual portraits as I wanted a wide tree trunk as a background, rather than the tree and whatever was around it. This was because the background was bright and took the eye from the subject. The longer the lens then the less background you see.
- I used it for group shots. I first tried with the 17-55, but the sun was behind the group and high in the sky, the sun was striking the lens causing flare and poor contrast. I chose the 70-200 F2.8 IS as the larger hood prevented the sun hitting the lens, and gave me a much nicer photo. Fortunately I had HEAPS of space to work with, so I could do the formals at 70-100mm. One thing to note if anyone else does this is at 70mm your DOF isn't so wide, so be careful.

[Vermin87]

Looking at the poll the 70-200 is most popular for a 1.6 crop for a wedding! That is utter BS, don't be misled, someone is pulling your chain.

For the ceremony at the last wedding I shot, I only used the 70-200. My assistant only used the 24-70. We were able to capture a great variety of shots and didn't interrupt the ceremony at all by having to stand in front of the stage. That's one of my biggest concerns that lead me to use that lens. I can stand at the back of the church or venue and still get the detail the bride and groom desire.

[jerrybsmith]

I think you left the 16-35 2.8L off your vote list. I use it a lot at the reception.

[smorter]

You've missed two of the best lenses 35 f/1.4L and 85 f/1.2L II, and also staple zooms like the 16-35L and 17-55 IS

[AzzKicker]

IMO 24-70 doesnt get wide enough.

[jgoodstein]

sorry about leaving other lenses off the list the list was compiled after looking through this forum for a while. I do like the lenses I missed, but felt that some of the others offered more versatility, regardless thank you for the votes and keep them coming.

[Mrsjperry]

Definitely the 85 f/1.2

What would you suggest for group shots if the 24-70 isn't wide enough?
.

[Vermin87]

on a crop it doesnt... 10-22 is awesome for group shots, but the distortion might not be tolerable for some.

[PICMASTER]

I think that the first question needed to be asked are we talking FF body or a crop? because a 24-70 on a FF at 24mm is almost the same as a 16-35 on say a 50d wouldnt you say?
cheers
mick

[collierportraits]

16-35 for me
24-105 next, but on a FF and neither on the list. But I think you will find yourself needing wide more than you need the 70-200... And, as usual, it depends on your shooting style.

[jacuff]

I think that the first question needed to be asked are we talking FF body or a crop? because a 24-70 on a FF at 24mm is almost the same as a 16-35 on say a 50d wouldnt you say?
cheers
mick

OP is using crop bodies.

[jacuff]

I don't use a crop camera as my primary camera and I don't have any of the lenses that were designed for crop cameras, so what works for me, probably won't work for you.

If I could only shoot a wedding with 3 lenses, I'd take the 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and 85mm f/1.2L. For group shots, if 24mm wasn't wide enough, I'd repose the group. Reposing is often the better choice than stepping back or putting on a wider lens. The wider your shot, the more you have to pay attention to any distracting clutter.

For a crop camera I'd take a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and 50mm f/1.2L.

In all cases, I'd have a 580EX II mounted off camera for times when I can use flash.

[tim]

For a crop camera I'd take a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and 50mm f/1.2L.

In all cases, I'd have a 580EX II mounted off camera for times when I can use flash.

That's pretty much what I use, except I found 50mm too long so I switched to a 30mm F1.4 (from the 50 F1.4).

[DoomMan]

24-70L + 70-200L is what i have been seeing alot of wedding photographers carry. They dress in all black with a little side pouch to hold the lens there not using and other things they may need. Probably the best/lightest/most versatile combo for a wedding

[tim]

24-70L + 70-200L is what i have been seeing alot of wedding photographers carry. They dress in all black with a little side pouch to hold the lens there not using and other things they may need. Probably the best/lightest/most versatile combo for a wedding

I do almost that, 17-55 instead of 24-70, all in custom made black clothes so I can move freely (I have wide shoulders), and two cameras so I don't have to swap lenses. Works great. Oh plus a bunch of other lenses and stuff at hand in case I want them.

[bnlearle]

I'm on FF, but I use the 24L, 50L (being my most used), and 135L.

I'd say for you, being on 1.6, 17-55, either a 30mm or 35mm prime, and either the 70-200mm 2.8 IS or the 135 f/2L.

Until I switched to primes, the 70-200 was my main lens of choice. DEFINITELY a necessary lens.

[TomTomTuning]

If it were up to me... and money wasnt a concern.

on a full frame camera 24mm 1.4L, 50mm 1.2L, 85mm 1.2L
on a crop sensor camera 24-70mm 2.8L

The 70-200mm is a pretty long lens for a wedding, but i'm sure there could be use for it.

[bnlearle]

The 70-200mm is a pretty long lens for a wedding, but i'm sure there could be use for it.
The entire ceremony for starters. Than couple photos, toasts, first dances, cake cutting... basically everything where you want to stand back, get awesome DOF (if you're zoomed in closer to 200mm, of course), and let the BnG enjoy things without a camera in their face.

Really, I don't use the 70-200 anymore (135L now), but I couldn't imagine the important shots that one would miss without that type of reach.