Did it... finally ordered the 85 f/1.8. Wedding Question.

[dsze]

Last night I finally decided enough was enough and I couldn't put off getting this lens any longer.

I'm curious, to you other wedding photog.'s, If you were using 2 bodies and could only use the 2 lenses that were on them for the entire wedding which 2 would they be? I thought about making this a poll, but there are too many possible combinations to list, so I'm interested in which 2 you'd choose and why you'd choose them for your style of wedding photography.

Currently, I'd have my Tokina 17f/3.5 and my Tamron 28-75f/2.8. I'd have my 70-200f/4 instead of the Tamron if there was enough light and/or flash was used. I'm thinking though that once I "get to know" the 85 f/1.8, it'd be that one and the 17mm.

thanks,
daniel

[steibeldj]

Was it on back-order? Where did you get it from? Have had a problem finding someone with this lens.

[dsze]

Nope, they said that they have it in stock. 17th Street Photo. I bought my 70-200f/4 from them a while back and was impressed with everything.

-daniel

[cyclone]

Just checked Canoga Camera. They have it in stock for $340 ($325 after rebate). Very reliable place (and not in New York!).

[lkorell]

The last wedding I did (last Saturday) I had two 20D bodies with my 50 1.4 on one and my 85 1.8 on the other. The only lens changes I made all day were an occasional shot with either 24 1.4L or 35 1.4L I did one larger group shot with the 17-40L.
I am so glad I got that 50 1.4. It is just great on the 20D

I probably could have done the whole thing with just that 50. It's sweet.
But, now that I think about it realistically, the 85 gave me a closer view during the ceremony. It was a dark church and I was on iso 1600 during the whole ceremony. No flash was allowed at all!
The 1.4 worked really well, and the 85 1.8 was really great too.

That was my first wedding in years that no zoom was used (except for that one group shot). I always bring the 70-200 2.8 though. You just never know how close you will be able to get in a church.

Oh, and BTW, I bought all of my gear from Canoga Camera. They are my local shop and their service is second to none. Yes I pay the tax (CA tax!) but I consider it my insurance policy for customer satisfaction.


Lou

[pturton]

Last Saturday I shot my friend's son's wedding using the 50 f/1.4 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with two 10D bodies and the reception with a 28-135 IS. After going to the church for the rehearsal with my 28-135 to do some test shots, I determined that the 50 and 70-200 were best for this shoot. This church was too dark for available light and flash was allowed if I used some disgression. For formals and groups I also used the 50 and 70-200. The B&G wanted a photo-journalist type shoot of the wedding and reception.

I certainly would have liked to use my 85 f/1.8 but it was either too long or too short for this location.

If I ever do another wedding, I'd hope to have a 24-70 F/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 if using zooms and flash or the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2 if using primes and available light.

[schmoelzel]

Have a look at posts by Toogy from last weekend..........beautiful shots using my former 85F1.8!

[cmM]

I love the 85mm f/1.8
As a matter of fact, it's what I use most at weddings. I generally have the 85 on one body, and the 17-40 on the other.

[blue_max]

It's a great focal length. It's quite fast. It's quite light. It's quite reasonably priced. It's colours are pretty good. It's bokeh is fantastic.

However, if you are stood further back – the 135L is of the same calibre, but more.

And nearer in, give the 50 1.4 a shout.

That is the only drawback with primes. However, I believe it will perhaps make you a more thoughtful photographer. You are certainly more discrete with a prime and no flash required (usually). For group gatherings, being further away gives you so much more opportunities for candids.

Blurred backgrounds can really make a picture. Even 2.8 is not good enough is some situations.

Graham

[DaveG]

Last night I finally decided enough was enough and I couldn't put off getting this lens any longer.

I'm curious, to you other wedding photog.'s, If you were using 2 bodies and could only use the 2 lenses that were on them for the entire wedding which 2 would they be? I thought about making this a poll, but there are too many possible combinations to list, so I'm interested in which 2 you'd choose and why you'd choose them for your style of wedding photography.

Currently, I'd have my Tokina 17f/3.5 and my Tamron 28-75f/2.8. I'd have my 70-200f/4 instead of the Tamron if there was enough light and/or flash was used. I'm thinking though that once I "get to know" the 85 f/1.8, it'd be that one and the 17mm.

thanks,
daniel


Of the lenses I own, if I could only choose two of them for a wedding it'd be the 10-22 and the 24-85. Then I'd play games. My 16-35 is faster and extremely sharp. My 50 f1.4 has the speed and my 70-200 f2.8 gives me reach. But with those two lenses (and the 24-85 alone for that matter) they would let me shoot everything I'd NEED to shoot at a wedding.

[tim]

Of course this depends entirely on the wedding. I've only done one wedding, and the venue was too small for the number of people, and it wasn't a church. For that i'd have liked the 10-22 and the 50mm F1.4. For a normal wedding in a reasonably sized venue i'd probably choose the Tamron 28-75 and the 70-200 and use a flash, because often the reception light is so low even at F1.4 and ISO 1600 the shots aren't great. Ideally i'd do reception "semi-candids" with a flash, then put on the 50mm F1.4 and try to get some real candids.

[jsm]

depends on the body used aswell..for APS-C sized sensors you need more wide than tele.
Last wedding I did I had 2 * 20d.
On the other 16-35/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 on the other.
That is ofcourse if are allowed freely to move around in the church during the ceremony.

if you're stuck in guestbenches you might need longer focallength but then the light will become an issue if you don't want to spoil it with flash.
Smaller churches are easier as you can bounce the flash from walls/ceiling to help out some.

Usually churches have windows in sides casting shadows on other half of the face so you might have to consider using light fill in flash anyways..
Those just aren't the shots you can say "hey lets take this over one more time" ;D

regards
Jussi

[grego]

Was it on back-order? Where did you get it from? Have had a problem finding someone with this lens.

Try using this site or yahoo's shopping searcher.

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=430131/search=ef+85mm+f%252F1.8