Which lens is better for wedding photography?

joellelee wrote in post #10067585
Respectively...thanx! I do know that I need better equipment. My brides have been VERY happy w/ my results! I charge a very minimal price! In this economy, people are looking for the cheapest. I need to upgrade....Which lens should be my next lens? Any thoughts on the 17-55? is this fast enough and good in low light reception situations for candid shots?

You should look at a 85 1.8, above you asked about the 1.2 but the depth of field on that is too shallow if you dont know how to use it, and you need to invest the extra money in other places. If you are doing weddings you need a better body as well, while keeping your xt for backup. The xt is an okay camera. but the higher ISO performance of a newer body would help immensely.

the 20d/30d bodies are more than capable, if you're ok not having the best/newest. They can be had for $300-400...but yea, you should have at least two bodies. what if something goes wrong with your camera in the middle of it all? what if you need to switch really fast from a tele to a wide? It's a really good idea.

tkbslc wrote in post #10067525
Don't go into this thinking "what is the cheapest and lowest end gear I can barely make work". Think "what is the gear I need to consistently produce professional results".

Very very true, although consistently producing professional results does not always mean needing the very best money can buy. There is a spectrum of "professional results", and those are priced accordingly. Obviously the OP is thinking they will be on the more affordable end of that spectrum, so yea, to someone who isn't there, the gear may look low-end, but if they can produce consistent professional results with it, then it works.

I guess the important thing is to understand your client's expectations and make sure that you and your gear can deliver. That means having backups, no matter how much your gear costs.

This horse is probably laying beaten to death on other threads here, so do some searching, and keep in mind that no one knows your situation or your needs except you. Take in all the wisdom and know-how you can and apply it to you situation.

joellelee wrote in post #10067585
Respectively...thanx! I do know that I need better equipment. My brides have been VERY happy w/ my results! I charge a very minimal price! In this economy, people are looking for the cheapest. I need to upgrade....Which lens should be my next lens? Any thoughts on the 17-55? is this fast enough and good in low light reception situations for candid shots?

The most flexible/capable kit to have on a cropper camera is something in the 17-50 range coupled with the 700-200 range. It used to be the only kit that fit the bill was the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM and the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. Since that time, the number manufacturers of these sorts of lenses have increased.

For the 17-50(ish) range:

• Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM
  
• Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM
  
• Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC LD Aspherical (IF)
  
• Tamron SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) (note the lack of VC - this lens seems to be testing sharper than the VC version)
  
• Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) (this is a vernerable lens - been around quite a while. It is usually sharp, but has some small issues)
  
• Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS USM - this might be a bit narrow on the short end (like the previous lens), but it can produce stellar results, will focus fast, etc ....
  

• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM - a new and heavy lens. Said to be quite a bit improved over the original version (next in this list)
  
• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
  
• Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
  
• Tamron SP AF70-200mm F/2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro
  

So, the 20 or 30D body would be my number 1 camera and my rebel would be the backup right?....Is the 17-55 lens wide enough for group shots? I think i am going to sell my 300mm and bite the bullet for the 70-200...and, would need a good lens for the group shots which is why i am wondering about the 17-55/?:o

The 17-55 would be fine for most group shots. Any wider than that and you begin to get some distortion anyway. Although someone suggested the 20/30D's I would aim one notch higher the 40D is a much better camera than the 30D. And yes, your xti would be your backup. There has been a significant amount of improvement in IQ and noise performance after the xt.

Would my kit 18-55 lens work fine for now for group shots, since I will need a backup camera and the new zoom lens..money is tight.

joellelee wrote in post #10068384
So, the 20 or 30D body would be my number 1 camera and my rebel would be the backup right?....Is the 17-55 lens wide enough for group shots? I think i am going to sell my 300mm and bite the bullet for the 70-200...and, would need a good lens for the group shots which is why i am wondering about the 17-55/?:o

You have the 18-55. Is 18mm wide enough? 17mm is just a bit wider...

joellelee wrote in post #10067585
Any thoughts on the 17-55? is this fast enough and good in low light reception situations for candid shots?

As fast as any other f/2.8 lens.

joellelee wrote in post #10068453
Would my kit 18-55 lens work fine for now for group shots, since I will need a backup camera and the new zoom lens..money is tight.

It would work fine if you have enough light. How much experience do you have shooting groups? Why do you think it won't work?

joellelee wrote in post #10068453
Would my kit 18-55 lens work fine for now for group shots, since I will need a backup camera and the new zoom lens..money is tight.

If it is the IS version of the lens its a nice lens. The non IS version of the kit lens is pretty terrible and shouldnt be used for anything involving pay.

There has been no mention of lighting. How are you lighting these group shots?

7D + 85 1.8 or only invest in 70 200 2.8 IS II

I have done a wedding as a second shooter the day before yesterday with only my 17-55 2.8 IS USM. (note: I don't get paid for it, pure for the fun and learning experience of it I sometimes tag along with a pro). The results are very nice. 2.8 works very well in a church although I use it in combo with my flash. The lens is super sharp.

Not to steal this topic but I happen to have a similar question and I don't want to start yet another topic:

The thing I miss most now is the zoom. I'm not sure whether I should first invest in a 7D (to replace my 350D) with 85 1.8 (for some extra zoom) or that I should invest in a 70-200 2.8 mkII. What would you guys do?

joellelee wrote in post #10067585
Any thoughts on the 17-55? is this fast enough and good in low light reception situations for candid shots?

To be honest. NO. I highly recommend The 85mm ƒ1.8 for what your doing. Just zoom with your feet. the 17-55 ƒ/2.8 on your rebel may not even come close to cutting it with your ISO at 1600 in most reception halls. If your thinking low light, go prime. fast. wide aperture primes.

W1ck3D wrote in post #10068956
I have done a wedding as a second shooter the day before yesterday with only my 17-55 2.8 IS USM. (note: I don't get paid for it, pure for the fun and learning experience of it I sometimes tag along with a pro). The results are very nice. 2.8 works very well in a church although I use it in combo with my flash. The lens is super sharp.

Not to steal this topic but I happen to have a similar question and I don't want to start yet another topic:

The thing I miss most now is the zoom. I'm not sure whether I should first invest in a 7D (to replace my 350D) with 85 1.8 (for some extra zoom) or that I should invest in a 70-200 2.8 mkII. What would you guys do?

What are you shooting? Since you are threadjacking a question about wedding shots, I would say no you dont want a 7D, but rather a 5D or 5DII, regardless of lens.

Michael Cheddar wrote in post #10068969
To be honest. NO. I highly recommend The 85mm ƒ1.8 for what your doing. Just zoom with your feet. the 17-55 ƒ/2.8 on your rebel may not even come close to cutting it with your ISO at 1600 in most reception halls. If your thinking low light, go prime. fast. wide aperture primes.

+1

In most receptions, f/1.4 is barely sufficient for not using a flash. I'd be wide open, ISO1600, and borderline shutter speeds. You need to start working on learning lighting (flash/speedlights/str​obes/whatever....)