What's the best lens for Wedding photography?

[canonikon]

what are the best lenses to use for wedding photography? L lenses?

[new_hype]

not a wedding photographer but i would guess 70-200 and a 24-70

[mminnig]

It is going to depend entirely on your shooting style. Some will swear entirely by a nice set of Primes. Some will shoot only with Zooms. It will also depend on whether you are using a crop sensor or a full frame body.

We have been using 40Ds lately and shoot 95% percent of our shots with either the 17-55 2.8 IS or the 70-200 2.8 IS. The other 5% is our 50 1.4 and the 100 2.8 Macro.

[Ralph Merlino]

I use the 24-70 2.8 for most of the wedding pictures. I also
use a 50mm 1.4 .

[Mike414]

A lot of good info here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=223263

....you can also check the bottom of this page for related threads

Mike

[BLURLT2]

i agree on the 24-70 f/2.8L...

[zincozinco]

i got by a wedding using 85% of the time a 24mm on a 1.3 =35mm and a 85 on FF, guess its all about your style

[aebrown]

Like others say, 24-70 and 70-200. You want that 2.8 in low light situations, which is why the 24-105 (despite the longer focal length) is less used (at least from what i gather in general wedding chit chat on here...

Having a prime in there is always good something around f/1.4, when things get a lot darker and you have something like a 40d or 50d where higher ISO performance isn't quite as good as a FF sensor.

I'm not wedding photog, but there are some things that just make sense given all the different sorts of situations you will encounter in a wedding.

[TylerCP]

In all honesty, if you don't know the answer to that question maybe weddings aren't your forte.

[stathunter]

not a wedding photographer but i would guess 70-200 and a 24-70
As a wedding photographer I agree with this. But there is MUCH more to wedding photography then a few pieces of equipment. It is not like photographing your pet -- there to TONS more you have to have all together at the same time -- no do-over in weddings.

[David_J]

I use the 24-70 and 70-200...but would really like to add the 35L or 85L to add that something special.

[InnerSong]

In all honesty, if you don't know the answer to that question maybe weddings aren't your forte.


hell of a thing to say, cause you obviously came out of the womb, at a wedding, with a camera in your hand and attached was an arsenal of L series, and knew just what to do...
dude you rock.

[gazza1201]

I use the 24-70 f2.8, and 50mm f1.4 mostly. Buying a 70-200 f2.8 at the moment.

[jcolman]

24 1.4L & 85 1.8 are my two main lenses. They get used 60-70% of the time. The 70-200 2.8IS is next. Then the 50 1.4 and 16-35 2.8 after that. Finally, my 90 macro for ring shots. I'm thinking of adding a 45 TS-E lens to my bag.

[Joelene]

Like most of the posters above me, I use the 24-70mm 2.8. I find you can actually pull off a simple wedding with just this lens. All though I use my 50mm, 70-300, 16-35 and lens baby. All good toys to have at a wedding.

[KIP]

I recently shot my first wedding, and was absolutely thrilled with the results of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. It was perfect for the ceremony. The rest I shot with the 24-70mm based on recommendation, but since I was also shooting with a flash I probably would have been fine something else also, the f/2.8 did not come in handy this time. (Note, I own the 70-200, rented the 24-70.)

[Michaelmjc]

While everyone loves the 24-70mm and 70-200mm... I cant get enough of the 24mm 1.4L and 85mm 1.2L. In my opinion, nothing comes close.

[ootsk]

I use a 15 2.8, a 20-35 2.8 (old one), a 50 1.4, and the 70-200 2.8 IS. Oh, and a lensbaby.

I recently shot a wedding for a company that also sent me an assistant. Their best lens was a 5.6 zoom of mid range. The shots just didn't compare when the light got low. It was all flash-driven photos...not nearly as much ambient light, so the photos looked more like snapshots than good photos. I actually like the 50 prime for a few reasons. First, it rocks...so sharp it's scary. Second, it forces me to look at the scene differently. Too often I get into the "rules" of photos...crop at thighs, not shins...get the whole body.....don't crop here, don't crop there..etc. The prime makes me get what I can, when I can, and often times it's a better picture than if I were to follow the "rules". It helps me with my weak points by not being able to zoom out.

[vpnd]

24-70, 70-200, 85 1.2 , and a super wide like the 17-40 or 16-35. that would be my dream setup... wait, I must be dreaming then because my backpack is real heavy.

[picturecrazy]

I'm guessing you are a novice at wedding shooting, and maybe a novice at photography in general if you are asking this question. You've not provided us much information at all to go on. So we can only make assumptions.

I'm also assuming you have a 50D, judging from your avatar.

Then I will suggest a 17-55 first and foremost, and a 70-200 F/2.8 IS. With those two lenses you are set to rock it hard. The 17-55 is a lens that makes it as EASY AS POSSIBLE for the photographer to get solid images. Focus is fast, focus is accurate, IS gives you some forgiveness for slow shutter speeds, image quality is absolutely top notch. It's a real winner. I'm not going to suggest the 24-70L. There is more copy variance, focus is much slower, no IS makes is less forgiving for non-ideal settings. The 24-70L is the least used lens in my bag.

I also do NOT suggest going out there shooting with primes only. Seriously, get the stuff that will make it as easy as possible for you to do a solid job. I very happily use the 17-55 at every wedding... it's definitely pro grade performance.

[amonline]

LOL Lloyd beat me to it. No one has asked what you shoot, but I agree...

On crop, the 17-55 rocks better than any L IMO. It was my absolute favorite lens when I was in the xxD series. I miss it badly. It basically is L quality, just fitted for EF-s. My 24-105 was my least used as well.

Basically, if you can get a 17-55 and a 70-200L, you're in outstanding shape to get started. (this is not mentioning light, backups, etc) ;)

For primes, I'd recommend the 60mm and 85 1.8. The 60 truly is a hidden gem in the crop world. It's great for much more than just macro. They're both great to have. The 85 is a no-brainer. I used them at receptions as much as any other lens, but I also agree that primes only on a crop would be an incredible challenge.

[madhatter04]

I've started shooting weddings (during an absence from these forums) and would have to say I get 98% of my shots with the 35L and 70-200L. The other 2% come from my 50mm f/1.4. Yeah, I'm a prime guy, so ymmv. I'm finding myself not too fond of the 24-70L for much of anything... it doesn't suit my style at all :(

[canonikon]

thank you everyone for the posts, after reading all your posts I went and bought myself a 70-200mm f/4L. Now...what's the next thing I should get...

[amonline]

Aiming for weddings? A second camera - just for starters. :D But I'd also say triggers, a second flash, stands... the list is endless. Just prioritize and build as you can.

[Digitalwatchman]

hell of a thing to say, cause you obviously came out of the womb, at a wedding, with a camera in your hand and attached was an arsenal of L series, and knew just what to do...
dude you rock.

Thought the same thing.

[Joelene]

Thought the same thing.
ditto.


Thing is, I am a professional wedding photographer, it is my ONLY job. I do the odd family here and there, but I do try to avoid them at all costs.

I use my 24-70mm 2.8L my 16-35mm 2.8L and my good ol' 70-300 5.6. No L, no USM, no IS, just a big ol' Piece of crap lens that actually is 10 years old and still kicking! Works great, provides amazing images, and I am very happy with it! Which is why I probably won't get the big humongo lens until this one dies.. then when I do, I am willing to bet I will just buy the new version of the same lens...

Yes I fell into the OMG YOU HAVE TO HAVE L SERIES LENSES! Then of course once I had one, I had to have more! I am not so much the noob I once was, and am just happy with my crappy 10 year old 300mm :D

It isn't all in the lenses. IT is a combination of your lenses, camera, knowledge and talent. All of that comes with time and practice.

my two cents..

[FamilyJules]

I'm guessing you are a novice at wedding shooting, and maybe a novice at photography in general if you are asking this question. You've not provided us much information at all to go on. So we can only make assumptions.

I'm also assuming you have a 50D, judging from your avatar.

Then I will suggest a 17-55 first and foremost, and a 70-200 F/2.8 IS. With those two lenses you are set to rock it hard. The 17-55 is a lens that makes it as EASY AS POSSIBLE for the photographer to get solid images. Focus is fast, focus is accurate, IS gives you some forgiveness for slow shutter speeds, image quality is absolutely top notch. It's a real winner. I'm not going to suggest the 24-70L. There is more copy variance, focus is much slower, no IS makes is less forgiving for non-ideal settings. The 24-70L is the least used lens in my bag.

I also do NOT suggest going out there shooting with primes only. Seriously, get the stuff that will make it as easy as possible for you to do a solid job. I very happily use the 17-55 at every wedding... it's definitely pro grade performance.

I totally agree with Lloyd, here. I've borrowed and rented the 24-70, and still, hands down, would use the 17-55 over it ANY DAY OF THE WEEK. The 17-55's IS and L quality (even though it's technically not one) it produces really sets it apart from from the 24-70, IMHO. But rent both... try them out and see what fits your needs. People can yodel all day long about what works best for THEM, but you need to find what suits your needs and style of photography best.
Since you bought the 70-200 F/4, I would suggest getting a faster lens to compliment it. something between 1.4 and 2.8 to start. This is a MUST for wedding photography :)
Good luck

[CanonGolfer]

Wow I am thinking about getting into wedding photography but there is no way I can afford those lenses you all are talking about. All I have right now is a T1i, 18-55 3.5-5.6 and a 75-300 4-5.6
And I thought golf gear was expensive....

[sunnydacat]

I use a combination of lenses on both full frame and APS-C bodies:

16-35 mm F2.8
24-105 mm F4
70-200 F2.8 IS
50mm F1.4

Fast glass is a must, the 24-105mm F2.8 needs to be upgraded soon to 24-70 F2.8 (as soon as funds allow).

[birchtree]

As you can see...it's mostly personal preference and style. That and your budget. My advice is to try out many different lenses and find out which ones you like the most and suit you best.

[Skrim17]

Well the OP is no longer participating, but I agree with Lloyd's assessment and even tho I've 'gone ff' with my 5d2, I can't seem to put my 17-55 2.8 IS on the for sale forum, even tho I own a 24-70!

[cwood]

In Southern California the 24-105 (on 1DmkIII) is a great lens to have because 90% of my weddings are on the beach. Between that and the 135mm F2 and my Tamron 28-75 F2.8 that is all I have ever shot on my Canon at a wedding. I can't imagine lugging around my 70-200 F2.8 at a wedding - that thing is a beast

Of course my primary body at a wedding is a Pentax k-7 so that lens selection is not relevant to anyone here ... :) (16-50mm F2.8, 50-135mm F2.8, 200mm F2.8 and 43mm F1.9 for anyone wondering what a Pentax shooter would bring to a wedding)

[MarkAnthonyPhotography]

seems he made his choice and hasn't looked back lol. Not sure the 70-200F4 he got will do him justice in those dark and dreary reception halls. Coming from someone who is totally self taught from books, videos and workshops, when just starting out RENT! You have 100 different lenses in front of you on the screen and they ALL look good, but you just don't know which ones will be for you. I still rent to this day. Locally now, thank goodness! That shipping can hurt a brother! I will agree with Lloyd and many others. Wedding Photographer starter kit: 2 bodies, at least 2 flashes, 17-55 2.8 and the 70-200IS will get you through. Oh and LOTS of cards. Because we all know, when you first start out its, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot...lol. Ya'll get the point. I can remember shooting something like 4000 shots my first 2 weddings! Sounded like a AK47 walking around the room! lol. Once you get "comfortable" with those 2 lenses, start experimenting with UWA, primes, OCF. And remember to smile! :)

[scottanderson]

In addition to the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 (my two "go-to" lenses)...I really enjoy using the 100 2.8 macro for detail shots (especially the rings).

[fensterbme]

+1 to the reccomended kit that people keep chatting up... the big thing is have a backup camera and backup flash, and bring extra batteries for everything and bring a fist full of memory cards. If your just getting started, beg borrow or steal... I'd talk to a friend and borrow what you can, rent the rest and use the money you make from shooting the wedding to help pay for buying some of the gear piece by piece.

I would also bring some prior experience, I highly reccomend people assist other photographer's before "learning" on the job, which I personally think tends to be selfish on the part of the photographer, for that couple it's one of the most important days of their lives and if you screw it up, they will *never* have any decent photos of it. So do yourself and the couple a favor, find other's locally and assist... you will be better at it when you actually do shoot your first wedding, and you will stress out a bit less (and when it comes time to shoot your first wedding as the main photographer, be honest with the couple and let them know it's your first time).

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and the 24-70mm are my bread and butter lenses and I find that a lot of my shots come from those two lenses, despite the fact that I bring a lot of other glass (I shoot mostly FF camera's but even with APS-C I'd still perfer the 24-70mm over say the 17-55 but that's just me). Aside from those two lenses I shoot a good bit with my 85mm f/1.2, 35mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2 but I don't see them replacing my zoom's just complimenting it, I can't work as quickly with the primes but I perfer the result better. I also then have a few lenses that I shoot but they only get used a bit here and there, namely the 16-35mm, 100mm macro, 50mm f/1.4 (I just don't shoot at 50mm that much, I usually go wide or tight) fisheye and a Lensbaby composer, I like them but could easily shoot a wedding without them.

[spoonofmilk]

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone in this thread for all their advice... I'm not the original poster, but I am starting out in wedding photography, having done a couple freebies to get going. Next year (April) I may have gotten my first paid for gig and I want to make sure I will be getting a new lens to make sure I've got something suitable for an all-round.

This early on I can't afford the Canon zoom, so I'm opting for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 that a couple of other photographers have recommended to me as a budget option that'll do the job.

I'm also picking up a 50mm f1.8 and if that one works out as well as I hope I'm wondering if it'll be worth shifting up to the 1.4? No way can I afford the 1.2 just yet!

[booja]

35L and 85L

[Ken Cravillion]

35L and 85L

/thread... :)

[ShoePhoto]

Not as happy with my 24-105 as i thought i would be, kinda looking to either replace it or buy another.....still on the fence between 24-70 2.8 or some other prime....so many choices, so little money!

[FamilyJules]

so many choices, so little money!
Amen to that

[picturecrazy]

Not as happy with my 24-105 as i thought i would be, kinda looking to either replace it or buy another.....still on the fence between 24-70 2.8 or some other prime....so many choices, so little money!

What camera(s)? That's makes a huge difference on which lenses to buy.

[nchphoto]

i start off with the intention of mixing it up, but ultimately, it ends up 24-70, 70-200IS, then 24-70 once we get past the reception formalities.

[ShoePhoto]

I am shooting with a 5D, don't get me wrong, It's a great lens but I wouldn't mind having another stop or two...

[Nates98cbr]

This early on I can't afford the Canon zoom, so I'm opting for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 that a couple of other photographers have recommended to me as a budget option that'll do the job.

I'm also picking up a 50mm f1.8 and if that one works out as well as I hope I'm wondering if it'll be worth shifting up to the 1.4? No way can I afford the 1.2 just yet!

I just shot my first wedding last weekend, unpaid for a friend (check my Flickr). I used a gripped 30D with -the Tamron 17-50, Canon 50 1.8 and a 580 EXII, and the back up was a 20D with a Sigma 17-70 I think with a Promaster flash, my wife actually used it when we got there and took candids of the bride getting ready.

To the OP, for what it's worth, my wife was in the balcony of the church during the ceremony with the 20D and my Canon 70-200 f4 and she did not come out with a decent non blurred shot, granted she is not really a photographer (atleast not yet! hehe) but the church was not really that dimly lit, you may want to spring for the 2.8

[spoonofmilk]

How was the Tamron's performance, nate? Looks good on the flickr shots, but was it good to use?

[Nates98cbr]

It was ok, I think I left it at 2.8 for the majority of the wedding. I still had the iso at 800 to keep the shutter speeds up so there would be no blurring. If I start doing more weddings I'll prob try to sell it and buy the Canon 17-55 IS, after having the ultrasonic af motor in my 70-200, the tammys motor seems pretty slow.

[Njv]

I use a 70-200 2.8, and a 50mm 1.8


The 50mm is actually awesome for weddings, Im really impressed with it.

[RLipp69]

I use the 35L and the 70-200is F/2.8

[Raymond Lin]

I used 4 last weekend

16-35L
24-70L
50/1.4
135L

In the past i have brought with me a 70-200 2.8 IS but i seldom used it so i didn't bother in the last 3 weddings. It is just too heavy, and long for my style of photography. The 135L is the perfect length for me.

This was on the 135L

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/5783/img86102.jpg

[bnlearle]

One? 50L for me. If I HAD to shoot a wedding with one lens, that'd be it.

Bobby