Indoors wedding with a 5D2

[CanonDad]

Hello all,

Got a wedding to do in June and for the main part it is going to be in a restaurant setup, so not many opportunities for any bright light 2000/s shots.
I have a 5D2 recently up from a 40D, and if i were at a 40D i would definately buy a fast lens, but seeing as i have no problems pushing this beauty up to at least ISO6400 do I really need to fork out £300 to get a few stops more.
Oh and I have the 1.8 which could be used in an emergency.

Has anyone found that the 24-105mm good enough for the whole indoors do what with f/4 meaning I will need to push the ISO up. I even considered the 24-70 and ditching the IS thing in favour of speed, but not sure if that’s a wise choice.

And for the more arty “I want a pic of my ring on a dictionary at the page of the meaning of love at my wedding …… shot” id use the 1.8.

:D

[tim]

Some receptions I photograph have ambient light of ISO3200 F2.8 1/10th, with F4 ISO6400 you're still at 1/10th. That's why I use off camera lights at receptions, and why others use fast lenses.

Go along to the venue and see how bright it is in advance, then you'll be able to make an informed decision :)

[CanonDad]

yeah, ta for that. I think a trip is in order.

I just dont want to rule out the freedom of manual as when i shoot with my flash i set it to 200/s and click away' but if i had a fast lens i could play about with the settings alot more.

Im not sure i can justify the expense for it.

[SuzyView]

Off camera lighting takes a little practice, but you can do it. Just make sure the transmitters are working right and work on the exposure settings.

I have the 5D2 and use the 24-70 as much as possible without flash, but it's sometimes unavoidable. So, the 580II is almost a must. Otherwise, you get a lot of blur. I know Maureen shoots with the 85L almost the whole time she is shooting a wedding, but I don't use my 85 1.8 that way.

The best advice is practice. And the 24-105 is a wonderful lens. I decided on the 24-70 just because of the f2.8 and it is heavy. But it's my most used lens. And I recommend it over the other.

[CanonDad]

Off camera lighting takes a little practice, but you can do it. Just make sure the transmitters are working right and work on the exposure settings.

I have the 5D2 and use the 24-70 as much as possible without flash, but it's sometimes unavoidable. So, the 580II is almost a must. Otherwise, you get a lot of blur. I know Maureen shoots with the 85L almost the whole time she is shooting a wedding, but I don't use my 85 1.8 that way.

The best advice is practice. And the 24-105 is a wonderful lens. I decided on the 24-70 just because of the f2.8 and it is heavy. But it's my most used lens. And I recommend it over the other.

Thanks SuzyView. The 24-105 is superb and love its flexibility, but the 24-70 must have its advantages.

Im going to stick the 580 on top and keep it there for the day, its still lighter than im used too !!
Ta

[stathunter]

Personally as a wedding shooter I would not use an f/4 lens--- trust me I have had them all and carried around several f/4 lenses to test them out during different weddings. For me the only use for f/4 is outside.
I stick with 2.8 or faster -----
All the best!

[form]

I recently purchased a 35L and 85L, and I am completely convinced that fast primes have opened doors for me. Two days ago I was shooting in a suite about 50' long, and I had three flashes aimed around the small dance area, which was situated near the left edge of the room. Without moving my flashes (taking them along with me, etc.), I tried going to the far end of the room (as far away from the flashes as possible) and taking photos of the guests using my f/2.8 standard zoom. No go, even at ISO1600, barely if anything at ISO3200. Then I used the fast primes at f/1.2 and f/1.4 - and I was able to get very good exposures around ISO1600. The primes have quadrupled the effective illumination potential of my flashes. I couldn't have done that without fast primes. And it gives me ideas for future uses.

I am surprised when someone buys a $2700 camera, but can't "justify" (this states that the person can, in fact, afford) the expense of a $1k lens. IMO, the lenses are more important than the body.

[Bkolowski111]

I am surprised when someone buys a $2700 camera, but can't "justify" (this states that the person can, in fact, afford) the expense of a $1k lens. IMO, the lenses are more important than the body.

+ 1

[CanonDad]

Surprised.
So is my bank/missus.

It was bad enough spending that much on a camera and seeing as i got a 24-105 hope that enough and maybe when i start earning more i can afford better lenses.

[SuzyView]

Most of the higher end Canons have the option of the 24-105, not the 24-70. I think this is because people don't know that IS and f4 may not cut it for some of the pro work we do. But it's okay. That is a great lens. Enjoy it, don't look back. When you get another $1K in the bank, consider the 24-70 or even better for weddings, the 70-200 2.8 IS. I got that and it made a huge difference in my work.

[tim]

I have the 5D2 and use the 24-70 as much as possible without flash, but it's sometimes unavoidable.

I have a different approach - if flash can help a shot, I use flash. Neither is more correct than the other, just different :)

[SuzyView]

I have only had issues a few times, nothing to worry about. Most times, the receptions are well lit. But flash is nothing to worry too much about with practice. The off camera lighting is the key.

[PeaceFire]

I had the whole 24-105/24-70 debate (like pretty much everyone else) and chose the 24-105 because I think in low light situations I'd rather use a prime anyway. So I got the 24-105 for the extra reach and IS. At the reception I use either my 100mm f/2.9 or 28mm f/1.8. I'd love the 24/35/or85L when money allows me to. Then that/those will be my dark-reception go-to.

So I wouldn't give up your 24-105mm. It's an awesome lens and SO much lighter than the 24-70 which for me is a big thing because I'm weak. Instead, spend $300-600 on a nice prime and use that.

And I wouldn't justify a $1,000 lens, either, if there are cheaper and IMO better alternatives.

[CanonDad]

A 16-35 was going to be first, but at £1000 i need to wait for the lottery to inevitably come in.
I tried a Canon 1.4 yesterday and it was great, but not sure if its a huge leap ahead of the 1.8 (at £250 less !!) so may opt for the 85mm f/1.8 instead.

[bobbyz]

Rookie question - Are you guys only shooting single person shots when using f1.2, f1.4 lenses?

[tim]

At F1.4 I usually only shoot one person, or two people who are the same distance from the camera. For multiple people I use at least F2, but that depends on the focal length.

[bobbyz]

Thanks Tim.

[picturecrazy]

it's very difficult to get more than one person in focus shooting below f/2.8. I prefer to shoot around F/4 to F/5.6 for receptions (on full frame) just so I can get more than one person within the DOF. Candid photography is mostly the capture of interaction, so for my style of shooting, F/1.4 doesn't really help me capture interaction between two or more people well.

[bobbyz]

it's very difficult to get more than one person in focus shooting below f/2.8. I prefer to shoot around F/4 to F/5.6 for receptions (on full frame) just so I can get more than one person within the DOF. Candid photography is mostly the capture of interaction, so for my style of shooting, F/1.4 doesn't really help me capture interaction between two or more people well.

Thanks. That is what I was wondering when folks say they prefer to shoot without flash at f1.2, f1.4 etc.

[Skrim17]

Why don't you rent a lens for the event? Or if you have any other photog friends to borrow one from it could be helpful.

[CanonDad]

Why don't you rent a lens for the event? Or if you have any other photog friends to borrow one from it could be helpful.

THats what i thought about doing, was renting a 1.4. To test the lens itself and to help in the lowlight situations.
Now though i mainly shoot in the studio where im stuck around f/10 where the 24-105 is excellent, so the 1.4 would only be if real use at weddings.

[PhotoMatte]

I even considered the 24-70 and ditching the IS thing in favour of speed, but not sure if that’s a wise choice.

If your wedding will mostly be indoors, and your subjects will be moving at all, your IS lens won't matter that much (especially if it's an f4), since IS can't correct for a moving subject. The 24-70 is my favorite low-light zoom, but I also use the 16-35 f2.8. I have a few faster primes that are nice for when the action slows down (toasting, first dance, etc), but those two zooms are what I primarily shoot with in low light. I can usually get my shutter speed up to 125 with a high ISO, and that's good enough for me to get clear shots, good DOF and still be able to use my speedlites if I need/want to.