Is F2.8 enough?

A lot of my lenses are 2.8 and I find them fast enough, shooting 1600 or 3200 ISO and keeping my shutter in the 1/60 range. No one is going to be able to give you a definitive answer since every church is different. I have shot in a church with enough light to shoot ISO 400 at 2.8 at 1/60....
you really should look into a longer lens, something in the 100mm or longer range...

vinmunoz wrote in post #14685447
Good to know about the 2.8... i question answered.

Long lens? you meant zoom lens like my tamron 18-270(3.5-6.3 slow)?

I also have a Sigma 17-50mm F.2.8

Long lens = longer focal length. 17-50 is shorter than 60.

I would say the BARE MINIMUM for doing a wedding is a wide (the 17-50 should cover that) and a long (70-200, for example).

thanks Lowrider.... I need a longer lens with constant F2.8 then... $$$$

also, this is good if i have another body.

He probably means 70-200mm and to do so you'd need to have at least a f/2.8 if not, a f/2.8 with IS.

One thing to keep in mind, and I understand this wedding is free, etc... but if this is a precursor to future wedding shooting, then eventually investment in faster lenses will happen and some wedding situations just aren't going to lend themselves to shooting without a flash. If going the fast lens route, keep in mind that shooting wide open most of the time means shallow depth of field, so only one face in your shot might be in tight focus while all others are blurred out (which, I know, might be the goal, but not with all photos. If you have any flexibility for moving around, then I don't see why the 60 would be a bad choice, what's that, 96mm? The 17-50 might be the route you'll want though, you'll want some wide shots as well.

vinmunoz wrote in post #14685474
thanks Lowrider.... I need a longer lens with constant F2.8 then... $$$$

also, this is good if i have another body.

Weeeeeeeell....you *can* do weddings with a 70-200 f4L non-IS...I have. But it's not fun. If you could swing the 2.8, and especially the 2.8 IS, you'd be much better off.

Of course, that's big money. I lover the versatility of zooms at weddings/events, but you *could* try something like a 135L, which is not stabilized, but goes all the way down to f2...of course it's a prime, so that can be limiting (but it sells for much less than the 70-200L 2.8 IS II...around half the price, if memory serves).

vinmunoz wrote in post #14685372
Sir Ed, i know it's not enough. That's why i'm asking here for tips. You don't have to make it in red color like you're yelling at me.

Many churches don't allow flash.

i said: "if you can't use flash i would want a faster lens." that's not just a tip; it's the whole thing .

ed

Can't invest in the 70-200 yet.

That's the problem with fast lens route, shallow depth of field.

Maybe I'll stay stay with my current setup.

How about swapping my 60mm to 50mm F1.4 just for the flexibility of having larger than 2.8 aperture? i hate to let go my 60mm but if i have to then I have to.

bdpaco wrote in post #14685454
A lot of my lenses are 2.8 and I find them fast enough, shooting 1600 or 3200 ISO and keeping my shutter in the 1/60 range. No one is going to be able to give you a definitive answer since every church is different. I have shot in a church with enough light to shoot ISO 400 at 2.8 at 1/60....
you really should look into a longer lens, something in the 100mm or longer range...

true. so if you guess wrong about the light there'll still be uncle bob and his P&S .

ed

What about renting a 70-200 2.8L IS?

vinmunoz wrote in post #14685528
Can't invest in the 70-200 yet.

That's the problem with fast lens route, shallow depth of field.

Maybe I'll stay stay with my current setup.

How about swapping my 60mm to 50mm F1.4 just for the flexibility of having larger than 2.8 aperture? i hate to let go my 60mm but if i have to then I have to.

good move. i shot a wedding in a church that was darker than the bowels of hades with a 50 1.4 and 100 f2.

ed

the problem is i only have one body. If i have two bodies, i would use the 17-50 and 70-200 in the other.

I would stay in 2.8 and use ETTR technique if i have to.

vinmunoz wrote in post #14685528
Can't invest in the 70-200 yet.

That's the problem with fast lens route, shallow depth of field.

Maybe I'll stay stay with my current setup.

How about swapping my 60mm to 50mm F1.4 just for the flexibility of having larger than 2.8 aperture? i hate to let go my 60mm but if i have to then I have to.

I don't get it...on the one hand you say the shallow DOF is a problem with a 2.8 lens, then in the next breath you want to get a 1.4 lens. Makes no sense.

Also...if you want to do weddings with 50mm being your longest lens...best of luck, you're going to need it!

i said to have the flexibility...

How about sell the 60 and..

get the 100mm F2.8 Macro along with my Sigma 17-50mm F2.8

You want flexibility? Get an FL that you don't already have covered...THAT will add much more flexibility than adding a stop or two to an existing (and arguably rather limited) FL line-up.

But anyways...the sun's coming out, I'm off to bum around the beaches...good luck deciding