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 13 Jul 2009 (Monday) 14:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-40 f4 for wedding portraits on 1.3 crop

 
ingr0032
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Feb 2009
     
Jul 13, 2009 14:03 |  #1

hello, i have a question and i understand the answer might be subjective.

mid august i will be attending my aunt's wedding. i am not the photographer but i would like to fire off some shots all the same.

i have just bought a 1d mk ii so money's a bit tight. i want the 35 or 24 1.4 but cannot get the money together before the wedding, so i was considering the 17-40.

my question is, is this lens going to be too slow? the wedding will be at sunset and the area is a tad shaded by trees. i don't know how the noise is on the 1d ii yet but i know that on my 350d i am not fond of shooting at iso 1600. 800 is fine, and 1600 can be a nice B&W shot but i would like a few color shots.

currently i have a 50 1.8 and a 100 2.8 macro (i had to sell a 70-200 2.8 for tuition money.. i really regret it) i'm just looking for opinions, i know it is hard for anyone to offer an answer without seeing the place i'm going to be shooting at.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Dorman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,661 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
     
Jul 13, 2009 14:10 |  #2

40mm or wider may be a bit short for anything other than group shots and full length. F/4 w/ flash should be fine outdoors. You could always use your 50 and 100 for tighter portraits.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogibear
Member
36 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Jul 13, 2009 14:34 as a reply to  @ Dorman's post |  #3

Although I don't own that specific lens I do have experience with what a f4 lens can and can't do. It should be fine while there's sufficient light out but once the lighting starts to drop you may have trouble balancing your flash to the ambient light. While your subject may be properly exposed, the background may be quite dark.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
20,505 posts
Likes: 3433
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jul 13, 2009 14:44 |  #4

yogibear wrote in post #8273294 (external link)
Although I don't own that specific lens I do have experience with what a f4 lens can and can't do. It should be fine while there's sufficient light out but once the lighting starts to drop you may have trouble balancing your flash to the ambient light. While your subject may be properly exposed, the background may be quite dark.

Just bump up the ISO. How do you balance flash and ambient indoords when you need to shoot mutiple rows of people? When using flash, f4 is not that restrictive.


Fuji XT-1, 18-55mm
Sony A7rIV, , Tamron 28-200mm, Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art FE, Sony 85mm f1.8 FE, Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art FE
Fuji GFX50s, 23mm f4, 32-64mm, 45mm f2.8, 110mm f2, 120mm f4 macro
Canon 24mm TSE-II, 85mm f1.2 L II, 90mm TSE-II Macro, 300mm f2.8 IS I

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: AndalucĂ­a
     
Jul 13, 2009 14:50 |  #5

its a great lens on the 1.3 however i sold mine for the "quicker" 24 1.4 which is really 32mm on a 1.3...... f4 is struggling indoors.....


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DennisW1
Goldmember
Avatar
1,802 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Chicago, IL area
     
Jul 13, 2009 14:57 |  #6

ingr0032 wrote in post #8273127 (external link)
hello, i have a question and i understand the answer might be subjective.

mid august i will be attending my aunt's wedding. i am not the photographer but i would like to fire off some shots all the same.

i have just bought a 1d mk ii so money's a bit tight. i want the 35 or 24 1.4 but cannot get the money together before the wedding, so i was considering the 17-40.

my question is, is this lens going to be too slow? the wedding will be at sunset and the area is a tad shaded by trees. i don't know how the noise is on the 1d ii yet but i know that on my 350d i am not fond of shooting at iso 1600. 800 is fine, and 1600 can be a nice B&W shot but i would like a few color shots.

currently i have a 50 1.8 and a 100 2.8 macro (i had to sell a 70-200 2.8 for tuition money.. i really regret it) i'm just looking for opinions, i know it is hard for anyone to offer an answer without seeing the place i'm going to be shooting at.

Without knowing exactly how much light is available its hard to say if it will be too slow or not. You can always use something like Noise Ninja if you really have to bump up the ISO to make exposure.

But, unless you're doing group shots I think the 17-40 is going to be a bit wide, too wide for any single or double head shots. IMO, the 50 on the MkII will be nice for groups unless you're dealing with really large ones, the 100 on the XTi should be great for individual or couple portrait shots.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Misiek
Senior Member
682 posts
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Poland
     
Jul 13, 2009 15:02 |  #7

On a wedding is a lot of people and a lot of unpredictable movement. So get the 17-40 and add a 430exII to it :). A great combo.


Canon 5d1, 5d2, 35L, 85
www.michalandrzejewski​.com.pl (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ingr0032
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Feb 2009
     
Jul 13, 2009 15:02 as a reply to  @ bobbyz's post |  #8

oh yes!! i forgot one crucial detail... i don't have a flash.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dorman
Goldmember
Avatar
4,661 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Halifax, NS
     
Jul 13, 2009 15:04 |  #9

ingr0032 wrote in post #8273444 (external link)
oh yes!! i forgot one crucial detail... i don't have a flash.

You may want to look at a flash unit - even outside and on sunny days the flash is useful for filling in the shadows. Look to rent, buy, or borrow one.

Also, I just noticed that the time of day is sundown. F/4 without flash will be a real struggle.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
briancummins
Senior Member
Avatar
510 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Twin Falls, ID
     
Jul 13, 2009 15:20 |  #10

I recently rented the 17-40L for a wedding, found myself using it the majority of time and fell in love with it. So I just bought one. Indoors, combined with my 430EX it seemed to perform great, outdoors, even better. I agree with above though, you need to rent a flash, f/4 is just not fast enough indoors without.


Current Gear: Sony A7R2, Sony 50 1.8 FE, Sony 28mm f2, Sony A6000, Sigma 30mm, Flashpoint Rovelight, Neewer TT850's, Godox XT's

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JelleVerherstraeten
Goldmember
Avatar
2,440 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
     
Jul 13, 2009 15:23 |  #11

I think f/4 is a bit to low...


-Jelle l Gear l Website (external link) l

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MinhThien
Goldmember
Avatar
1,644 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia
     
Jul 13, 2009 15:29 |  #12

save a little bit and get the 16-35L!


Eric
R6 | rf50L | rf85L DS | ef200L IS | 470ex | 190CXPRO4 | 498RC2 | TT Streetwalker Roller| TT Restro 7 | F-stop Kenti |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Krapo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,018 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
     
Jul 13, 2009 16:04 |  #13

While the 17-40 is a great lens for group shots, it will not give you the typical subject isolation that you usually expect from a portrait.
This being said, you could use your 50mm for that.
I would advice against the 16-35. It is twice the cost of the 17-40 and it is just 1 stop faster.
17-40 + flash is another good option. Just don't expect a completely blurred background


François
---
40D + grip, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L, 17-40 f/4L, 50 f/1.4, 580 EX II
www.casualvision.com (external link)

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

2,286 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-40 f4 for wedding portraits on 1.3 crop
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 RRRAlaskan
809 guests, 239 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.