Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 26 Apr 2010 (Monday) 09:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which lens is better for wedding photography?

 
W1ck3D
Member
147 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Apr 26, 2010 14:12 |  #31

gonzogolf wrote in post #10068981 (external link)
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.

I'll be doing 3 weddings this year (all of them are friends) as photographer. Aside of that I'll probably do 10 or so weddings as a second shooter. Won't get paid for it but just for the learning experience. I've been told by the photographer I might get to work for him next year when my skill is up to the desired level.

Think: budget is only enough to buy 70-200 2.8 II or replace my body and add a prime.

As a hobby I do quite a lot of strobist / model photography.
The 5D definately is on my list but I can't afford to buy it AND buy new lenses (as my 17-55 won't work on a 5D).


Canon 5D mark III - Canon 5D Classic (2x) - Canon EF 24-70 2.8 L USM - Canon EF 70-200 2.8 L IS II USM - Canon EF 50 mm 1.8 II - Canon Speedlite 600 EX-RT - Canon Extender 2x v.III- Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,296 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1779
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 26, 2010 14:20 |  #32

W1ck3D wrote in post #10069059 (external link)
I'll be doing 3 weddings this year (all of them are friends) as photographer. Aside of that I'll probably do 10 or so weddings as a second shooter. Won't get paid for it but just for the learning experience. I've been told by the photographer I might get to work for him next year when my skill is up to the desired level.

Think: budget is only enough to buy 70-200 2.8 II or replace my body and add a prime.

As a hobby I do quite a lot of strobist / model photography.
The 5D definately is on my list but I can't afford to buy it AND buy new lenses (as my 17-55 won't work on a 5D).

You can sell your 17-55 as its in high demand and replace it with a 24-70. And you could get a 5D used and a 70-200 2.8IS mark I for the cost of the mark II and use it until you can afford the MKII. Dont get locked into a plan that doesn't provide options.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
johnbachel
Member
204 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Albany, NY area
     
Apr 26, 2010 14:40 |  #33

First, if you don't have a flash - like the 430EX, I'd start there. This will be a tremendous help for photos of the wedding reception.

With regard to the church, I'm guessing that you won't be able to use flash, because it will disrupt the ceremony. You need a fast zoom with image stabilization, and will have to shoot at 1,600. Try the Tamron 17-50 VR, or the Sigma 17-70 OS - both have image stabilization and wider lens openings than the kit zoom. Image stabilization will be very important, because of the low light.


John

_______________

Equipment: 50D, Sigma 17-70 f:2.8-4 OS, Sigma 70-300 OS, Metz Mecablitz 48 AF-1 strobe.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shooter ­ mcgavin
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Apr 26, 2010 15:15 |  #34

gonzogolf wrote in post #10068399 (external link)
Although someone suggested the 20/30D's I would aim one notch higher the 40D is a much better camera than the 30D.

Obviously the 40D is better, but since the OP seems to have a tight budget, the 20D may be a better choice. It is a very capable camera that many pros have been using for years to make great wedding images. In any case, it's a step above the OP's current xt. For wedding photography, I would argue that two 20D's are better than one 40D, if that's all the budget allows.

I hope this clarifies and helps!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,296 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1779
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 26, 2010 15:23 |  #35

shooter mcgavin wrote in post #10069380 (external link)
Obviously the 40D is better, but since the OP seems to have a tight budget, the 20D may be a better choice. It is a very capable camera that many pros have been using for years to make great wedding images. In any case, it's a step above the OP's current xt. For wedding photography, I would argue that two 20D's are better than one 40D, if that's all the budget allows.

I hope this clarifies and helps!

The 20d is pretty much the xt with better controls. I disagree with your assessment. Sure the 20D was used by wedding photographers and then they moved on as technology improved.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
Apr 26, 2010 15:44 |  #36

Michael Cheddar wrote in post #10068969 (external link)
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.

Primes aren't for everyone, and the 17-55 will do fine. It covers wide to short telephoto at f/2.8 with 3-stop IS. Weddings have been done on 5D's with 24-70s for years, what's stopping an XT with a 17-55? Both cameras max out their analog gain at ISO 1600.

OP: You've done the weddings. You know what exposures you were getting. It's some simple calculations to find what exposures you will be getting with an f/2.8 or f/1.8 or whatever lens.

I suggest f/2.8 zooms and flashes. 17-55 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS is ideal. If you can't afford both right now, get the 70-200 IS first. Alternatives to the 17-55 are the Sigma 17-50 OS HSM, Tamron 17-50, and Tamron 17-50 VC.

If you want to try out primes to see how you like them, start with a Canon 35/2 or Sigma 30/1.4.

Flashes are important. When they are allowed, use them. Fast lenses and cleaner high ISOs will not make up for bad quality light, and shooting at wide apertures limits you because DoF is so thin.

If you don't make much of any money for your work, you should start charging more. I realize you've chosen the low-budget market, but do you plan on staying there? You have no obligation to do favors for those who think quality photography can be done for next to nothing. You should at least make enough money to subsidize your transportation and photographic equipment.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iFloyd
Senior Member
Avatar
439 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Hawaii
     
Apr 26, 2010 16:58 |  #37

you definitely need a quick zoom--rent the 70-200 mark ii


gear | flickr (external link) | blog (external link) | website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
Avatar
2,227 posts
Likes: 81
Joined Oct 2009
     
Apr 26, 2010 17:14 |  #38

You may want to watch this before deciding what you want to get:

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs (external link)


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DA (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shooter ­ mcgavin
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Apr 27, 2010 10:13 |  #39

gonzogolf wrote in post #10069427 (external link)
The 20d is pretty much the xt with better controls. I disagree with your assessment. Sure the 20D was used by wedding photographers and then they moved on as technology improved.

That's fine that you disagree, but I don't think anything you said really contradicts anything that I said.

I'm not really sure if the xt has the same sensor as the 20D, but the 20D's improved controls and speed alone would be beneficial for a wedding photographer who needs to make fast adjustments. Sure, most pros have since moved on from the 20D, but just because better cameras have come out, that does not make the 20D worse, or any less capable of making the professional images it made 6 years ago
.
My point was that if money is an issue, having two 20D's for a wedding would be better than having only one 40D. Being able to switch between two lenses very quickly and having a backup in case one malfunctions far outweighs the technical benefits the 40D would give.

But this is a lens section, and the OP's question was about lenses, so I digress...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Maureen ­ Souza
Ms. MODERATOR     Something Spectacular!
Avatar
33,294 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4712
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Central California
     
Apr 27, 2010 10:17 |  #40

I have 3 fave wedding lenses...... the 85/1.2, the 135 and the 24-70. I have 2 bodies so after the formal portaits are done with the 85, I switch to my 24-70 on the 5DII and my 135 stays on my 50D.


Life is hard...but I just take it one photograph at a time.

5DMK4
7DMK2
Canon Lenses: 50/1.4, 135/2.0, 100-400mm II, 24-70/2.8 II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Apr 27, 2010 10:27 |  #41

gonzogolf wrote in post #10069427 (external link)
The 20d is pretty much the xt with better controls. I disagree with your assessment. Sure the 20D was used by wedding photographers and then they moved on as technology improved.

That's like saying the 7D is a t2i with better controls. Which is sorta true, but not really.

20D has 9 AF points with a high precision center, larger pentaprism viewfinder, ISO 3200, 5fps, and of course the better build, grip, controls. Horrible LCD, though...


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aboss3
Goldmember
Avatar
2,616 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: LOS ANGELES
     
Apr 27, 2010 10:28 |  #42
bannedPermanent ban

For the wedding, 24-70 should be on the camera at all times......before being replaced by 70-200 f/2.8, and back! :D


Gear | My gear is changing faster than I can update the signature
VoyageEyewear (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,296 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1779
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 27, 2010 10:37 |  #43

tkbslc wrote in post #10075207 (external link)
That's like saying the 7D is a t2i with better controls. Which is sorta true, but not really.

20D has 9 AF points with a high precision center, larger pentaprism viewfinder, ISO 3200, 5fps, and of course the better build, grip, controls. Horrible LCD, though...

My point was, both the xt and the 20D are horrible low light performers. Even with fast glass she isnt going to have enough light to work in a lot of churches. The 40D is much better at higher iso's (although there are better still) and would be a significant upgrade over her XT as opposed to buying a very similar performing, albeit better organized, camera.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
3,498 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2008
Location: California
     
Apr 27, 2010 14:31 |  #44

gonzogolf wrote in post #10075254 (external link)
My point was, both the xt and the 20D are horrible low light performers. Even with fast glass she isnt going to have enough light to work in a lot of churches. The 40D is much better at higher iso's (although there are better still) and would be a significant upgrade over her XT as opposed to buying a very similar performing, albeit better organized, camera.

The XT and 20D don't share the same sensor.

What's wrong with ISO 1600? We've been stuck there all the way until the 1DIII, and even then the 1DsIII stopped at 1600. 3200+ didn't became "normal" until the 5DII less than two years ago. And all of a sudden no one can do weddings at ISO 1600, apparently.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,296 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 1779
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 27, 2010 14:38 |  #45

toxic wrote in post #10076783 (external link)
The XT and 20D don't share the same sensor.

What's wrong with ISO 1600? We've been stuck there all the way until the 1DIII, and even then the 1DsIII stopped at 1600. 3200+ didn't became "normal" until the 5DII less than two years ago. And all of a sudden no one can do weddings at ISO 1600, apparently.

Its not the top iso on the dial, but rather how much noise you have at that stop. My 40D is much cleaner than my 30D was at 800 let alone higher.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,748 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which lens is better for wedding photography?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is raghupiyu
907 guests, 320 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.