indoor walk around lens

[bogleric]

I am going to a wedding in October as a guest (not the photog :-) ) and want to duplicate a gift I got when I was married. I am planning to take some shots of things the paid photog will not, the more candid shots of people, etc. This can make for a very cool scrap book and something special for the newly married couple. This is of course in addition to something off their registry... anyways....

I typically don't do a lot of indoor photography let alone in these lower light situations. My current lenses won't be adequate. I was thinking of a 50mm f/1.8 or / and a 28-80 f/3.5. I am concerned the 50mm prime lens may not be enough focal length, however the f/3.5 seems a little slow for low light. Unfortunately money is an object.

I would appreciate any opinions regarding which is better and also what particular lenses are better than others, we all know some lenses have bad optics, etc.

Thanks in advance.

[bogleric]

also as you can see from the signature line I have a 350D with a 1.6 multiply factor.

[EricKonieczny]

Get the 28-105 f3.5-4.5, and an External Flash like the 550 or 580

I use the combo allot, and for a lower priced lens, it is very vesitile.

[Andy_T]

My choice for that occasion would be the Canon EF 28/1.8. I bought mine used at around $ 280, it's a great lens and really sharp at f/2.5.

Still, bear in mind that there will not be enough light at a wedding (which normally take place in the evening) to use only available light ... so you'll have to resort to the flash anyway. What about a good diffusor and external flash?

Best regards,
Andy

[bogleric]

i have been eying the 580 flash unit for quite some time, perhaps this is the perfect excuse to get it.

I was initially thinking about the 28-85 because I wondered if 50mm would be enough. Andythaler, I notice you would prefer a 28mm, which with a 1.6 factor would act like a 45mm. Am I thinking I need way more than I do?

I had also thought about a 28-105 lens, but which produces better quality images, the 28-105 or the slightly more expensive 28-85? the 28-105 would probably complement my collection a little better but I don't want another soft lens like my 75-300 f/3.5 USM III.

thanks again.

[Skip Souza]

Get the flash, by all means get the flash! You know you want it and this is the perfect excuse. Get a difuser to go with it, like Sto-fen or similar or at least a white index card and a rubber band :-)
I would be a happy camper with my EF-s 17-85 IS but it is rather pricey. My wife might take her 16-35mm f/2.8 L but it is real pricey. She also might take her work horse Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 which has never let her down.
Only you know the venue, the people and the thickness of your wallet, so only you are the best judge for the lens for your needs, but GET THE FLASH. :-)

[Andy_T]

I was initially thinking about the 28-85 because I wondered if 50mm would be enough. Andythaler, I notice you would prefer a 28mm, which with a 1.6 factor would act like a 45mm. Am I thinking I need way more than I do?


Take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=95380)!
Although it discusses the 85/1.8, I've posted two pictures I took of my small son at my breakfast table with the 28/1.8 and the 50/1.4. They might help in giving you some kind of idea how wide a 28 mm lens will get you. I think that 28 mm is a great length for candid portraits that show a bit of the situation at a 1.6 camera.

For normal portraits, I like the 50 focal length better, the images have more 'punch'.


I had also thought about a 28-105 lens, but which produces better quality images, the 28-105 or the slightly more expensive 28-85?

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI, actually. It's a league above the other two lenses, as far as sharpness is concerned.

But be aware that the 28/1.8 and the 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 are another league over the Tamron 28-75/2.8 (and I also assume the Canon 24-70/2.8 L).

The primes are tack sharp at f/2.5, where they are stopped down quite a bit. Even very good f/2.8 zooms are best used at f/3.5 or f/4.0, according to my experience.

Best regards,
Andy

[bogleric]

thanks for the info... you all have been very helpful

[Dante King]

get a flash and a 50mm (1.4 or 1.8). you will not regret it. will work perfectly for what you are looking to do.

[etaf]

think you will need a zoom - some opportunities will need a close up say upto 100mm others will be wide angle showing the setting/surrondings - maybe disco lights or tables etc..

how big is the reception hall/marquee ??

I used a 28-105mm at a wedding (NOTE ON A FILM CAMERA - SO NO CROP} and used the full range in a hall to get a few candid shots - with a 550EX
Although the 50mm 1.8 is a great lens on your camera it will be 80mm and I think you will want to take some wideangle shots

[tim]

I shot one indoors evening wedding reception with my 50mm F1.4 @ F1.4 and ISO 1600, I was getting shutter speeds of 1/20th at times, nowhere enough for a clear shot, even of a person who's sitting reasonably still. That's why i'd so don't bother with the 50mm F1.8, which I had and sold because it was below what I expect, even after calibration.

Get yourself a slower lens (eg Sigma 24-70 F2.8 or Sigma 18-50) and a flash and you'll be better off, so long as you can work out how to use it before then (flash is a bit of a black art). A stofen probably won't be a lot of good since it relies on you bouncing the flash, which you often can't do beacuse the roof at receptions are often quite high. You'd be better off with a diffuser that makes your flash effectively larger, like a LightSphere II (bit unweildy), an on-camera softbox (haven't tried mine yet), or just don't bother with a diffuser.