LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Sharp lens needed for girlfriends wedding - Help!

FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Weddings & Other Family Events
Thread started 05 Feb 2007 (Monday) 09:05   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
prairie ­ pics
Senior Member
prairie pics's Avatar
Joined Apr 2006
104 posts
North Dakota
[MORE/SHARE]

Could someone help me? I have a 20d & need the sharpest lens that's on the market - I HAVE A BUDGET THOUGH - is the only problem.

It would be nice to stay around the $500 range. Is this possible?? At this point I don't care about brand. You are the experts here - not me.

Please give me some examples to choose from. If the lens you tell me about is over $500, please give me a price...I don't care about retail. I'll use the classifieds if I have to, or ebay. As long as it's in great condition, 2nd hand doesn't bother me.

Thanks for your help.
I really appreciate this.

Teresa

Post #1, Feb 05, 2007 09:05:42




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
picturecrazy's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
8,504 posts
Alberta, CANADA
[MORE/SHARE]

Canon EFs 17-55 F2.8 IS USM.

Sharp sharp sharp from F/2.8 to F/11.

It's gonna cost you about $900-950 though, but worth every penny. Focus speed and accuracy is excellent, low light performance is great.

But if you're gonna be shooting a wedding, I'd be CAREFUL, you might be getting in way over your head.

Read the FAQ: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=255604

Post #2, Feb 05, 2007 09:23:24


-Lloyd
BOUDOIR WEBSITE: The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photographyexternal link
Lifestyle Website: Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographersexternal link
Facebookexternal link | Twitterexternal link | Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
TXLEBER
Senior Member
TXLEBER's Avatar
Joined Mar 2006
960 posts
NC, 27540
[MORE/SHARE]

Tamron 28-75 - $275-$300

If you can stretch it, you can't beat the 17-55 2.8 IS. That thing is SHARP-SHARP-SHARP. It also seems to be getting a lot of VERY good reviews here on the wedding forum. The only problem, It doubles your price range. It's about $875-$950 used. Or $1000 new from BH.

EDIT: See what happens when you type slow...People beat ya to the punch. But what did I say...SHARP-SHAPR-SHARP.

Post #3, Feb 05, 2007 09:28:09




LOG IN TO REPLY
Big ­ Mike
Goldmember
Big Mike's Avatar
Joined May 2006
1,023 posts
Edmonton
[MORE/SHARE]

What about the 50mm F1.4? Or the 85mm F1.8? The Sigma 30mm F1.4? A prime lens will most likely be 'sharper' than a zoom.

If sharp shots are your goal...then fast shutter speeds and/or good flash lighting will be essential. If you will not or can not use flash...then a fast lens and posibly a mono or tripod will help to maximize sharpness.

Post #4, Feb 05, 2007 09:41:37


Instructor at The Canadian Photography Learning Centreexternal link.
Blogexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
thekid24
pro-zack-lee
thekid24's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
8,545 posts
Oklahoma City,OK
[MORE/SHARE]

I would say go with a prime (85 f/1.8) because of the low light that, like many weddings, will be present. But on the other hand you wont have the versatility of a zoom. Do you have any other lenses in your collection?

Post #5, Feb 05, 2007 09:56:03


flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
prairie ­ pics
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
prairie pics's Avatar
Joined Apr 2006
104 posts
North Dakota
[MORE/SHARE]

I have the 55-200mm 4.5-5.6 II USM & the 50mm 1.8. I use the 55-200 alot. Haven't used the other one yet. I like it though, it's just extremely cold here right now & I don't go outside much to test it.

Post #6, Feb 05, 2007 10:03:22 as a reply to thekid24's post 7 minutes earlier.




LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
picturecrazy's Avatar
Joined Jan 2006
8,504 posts
Alberta, CANADA
[MORE/SHARE]

It's tough enough for an inexperienced person to shoot a wedding. It would be utter SUICIDE to send a new shooter in with one body and one prime. (your 50mm 1.8 is kinda lousy in low light focusing...)

Seriously, you can shoot an entire wedding with the 17-55. A low light prime @ 1.4 in inexperienced hands will likely yield a lot of shots with the people outside the depth of field.
Hate to be harsh, but if you are limited to $500 to shoot this wedding, tell your friends to hire a professional and let you shoot in the shadows and enjoy the wedding more. Being able to take fantastic pictures of stuff is one thing, but can you consistently take fantastic pictures of people who are constantly running around, rushed, stressed, in dark places, in overly bright places, and you only have about 0.5 seconds to dial settings, get the shot and get it right.... almost every time? This is absolutely NOTHING like landscape, architecture, or studio photography.

Post #7, Feb 05, 2007 10:22:56


-Lloyd
BOUDOIR WEBSITE: The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photographyexternal link
Lifestyle Website: Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographersexternal link
Facebookexternal link | Twitterexternal link | Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
ssim
POTN Landscape & Cityscape Photographer 2005
ssim's Avatar
Joined Apr 2003
10,884 posts
southern Alberta, Canada
[MORE/SHARE]

I would agree with the recommendation of the Tamron 28-75 if you want a zoom and budget it a concern. My second would be a variant of the 50mm that you could afford. I think the 85 is going to be way too long for your primary wedding lens, particularly on a 1.6 crop factor body.

Have you considered renting a lens.

Post #8, Feb 05, 2007 10:23:22 as a reply to prairie pics's post 20 minutes earlier.


My life is like one big RAW file....way too much post processing needed.
Sheldon Simpson | My Galleryexternal link | My Gear updated: 20JUL12

LOG IN TO REPLY
prairie ­ pics
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
prairie pics's Avatar
Joined Apr 2006
104 posts
North Dakota
[MORE/SHARE]

I have considered that yes, but I would have to go thru the net to get one. I think my closest rental place would probably be MLPS/St Paul area. I am in a very remote area with NO help from anyone.

By the time I factor in shipping, rental, insurance, etc I could just as well bite the bullet & buy the lens. I'd be money ahead in the long run & at least have payments going towards something.

Post #9, Feb 05, 2007 10:44:34 as a reply to ssim's post 21 minutes earlier.




LOG IN TO REPLY
prairie ­ pics
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
prairie pics's Avatar
Joined Apr 2006
104 posts
North Dakota
[MORE/SHARE]

As for the 50mm lens that I have, like I said before, I haven't had the chance to fully test it. I have yet to find an application where it's going to be useful. It was just an item that I heard I "had to have". So far, it's been a waste of $80. but I know I should be able to get some money out of it if I sell it again. I think I've only taken 10 shots with it.

Post #10, Feb 05, 2007 10:46:18




LOG IN TO REPLY
prairie ­ pics
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
prairie pics's Avatar
Joined Apr 2006
104 posts
North Dakota
[MORE/SHARE]

If I were to go with the Tamron, are my photos going to be nice & sharp? Like a head shot of the couple...for example. Is everything going to be clear - their teeth for instance? Obviously their eyes are of concern too, but that's not my question.

Post #11, Feb 05, 2007 10:50:00




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
CyberPet
Hiding Under a Rock
CyberPet's Avatar
Joined May 2005
4,052 posts
Piteå, Sweden
[MORE/SHARE]

picturecrazy wrote in post #2658395external link
It's tough enough for an inexperienced person to shoot a wedding. It would be utter SUICIDE to send a new shooter in with one body and one prime. (your 50mm 1.8 is kinda lousy in low light focusing...)

Seriously, you can shoot an entire wedding with the 17-55. A low light prime @ 1.4 in inexperienced hands will likely yield a lot of shots with the people outside the depth of field.
Hate to be harsh, but if you are limited to $500 to shoot this wedding, tell your friends to hire a professional and let you shoot in the shadows and enjoy the wedding more. Being able to take fantastic pictures of stuff is one thing, but can you consistently take fantastic pictures of people who are constantly running around, rushed, stressed, in dark places, in overly bright places, and you only have about 0.5 seconds to dial settings, get the shot and get it right.... almost every time? This is absolutely NOTHING like landscape, architecture, or studio photography.


I would have to agree, even if it sounds harsh. There's no second chances in wedding photography. And sure, the Tamrons are nice, but it can fail you bad, and like I said, no second chances or do-overs.

Post #12, Feb 05, 2007 11:04:12


/Petra Hall
Click here to view my geeky gear list
I shoot as much as possible in available light... sometimes, my flash is available – Joe Buissink

LOG IN TO REPLY
thekid24
pro-zack-lee
thekid24's Avatar
Joined Oct 2006
8,545 posts
Oklahoma City,OK
[MORE/SHARE]

prairie pics wrote in post #2658323external link
I have the 55-200mm 4.5-5.6 II USM & the 50mm 1.8. I use the 55-200 alot. Haven't used the other one yet. I like it though, it's just extremely cold here right now & I don't go outside much to test it.

55-200: Pros: Has the reach so you can blend into the bg. Its not fun having to get up real close to get some shots and the people spin around and give you a cheesy grin when what youre really wanting are candids. Another plus is that you are familiar with it. You know what situations it works best in.
Cons: the 55mm isnt wide enough to get groupings of people unless you have room to move back. Then itll be alright. Also the aperture will hinder the performance because most weddings arent as well lit as we (photogs) may like.
50mm f/1.8: Pros: Its faster. At 1.8 the lack of enough light can be made up with high ISO and keeping the lens wide open. Does take great portraits.
Cons: As stated before, it does have trouble with low light focusing. And if youre wanting to blend into the bg then this lens wont let you. You have to get pretty close which means you might get those cheesy grins.

85 f/1.8: Pros: Very sharp, Ive heard some say there should be a red ring around the end. It would give you more reach over the 50mm. Would allow you to get close to blending in the bg. Faster than the 55-200mm and would be easier to use in the low light situations. And it is in your price range.
Cons: Not enough reach to let you completely blend into the bg. It is a prime so there isnt any versatility. And not ideal for family portraits or large gatherings.

I havent used the 55-200 but I have the 50mm 1.8 and have used but not owned the 85 1.8. And I was just trying to give the pros and cons. Hope it helps and good luck with everything.

Post #13, Feb 05, 2007 11:09:15


flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
prairie ­ pics
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
prairie pics's Avatar
Joined Apr 2006
104 posts
North Dakota
[MORE/SHARE]

Thanks. I don't use the 55-200 very often. Only in church when I'm on the balcony...Christmas program, etc with my children.

If I end up getting this 17-55 lens, I don't know if I should sell the zoom then, or keep it.

I like the price tag of the Tamron, but I have a feeling that I'm going to be dissappointed. I did, however, see some really nice wedding photos using the Tamron. But photos can be deceiving viewed on the net.

Post #14, Feb 05, 2007 11:24:59 as a reply to thekid24's post 15 minutes earlier.




LOG IN TO REPLY
prairie ­ pics
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
prairie pics's Avatar
Joined Apr 2006
104 posts
North Dakota
[MORE/SHARE]

I just realized that I totally contradicted my self. Let me clarify: I use my 55-200 in church alot. Other than that, hardly ever - it's clumsy. But comes in handy if I REALLY need it.

Post #15, Feb 05, 2007 11:26:57




LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
3,778 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sharp lens needed for girlfriends wedding - Help!
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Weddings & Other Family Events



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00109 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
776 guests, 525 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is diegovanetti

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.