Why not my lens?

A friend of a friends photographer backed out of a photographing a wedding reception that will be occurring in four days (Saturday the 28th) and they have asked me to do the photography. I suspect that the gig didn't pay much but that is a different story.

I've explained I am an enthusiast not a professional, but they are out of options. So in preparation I've been practicing my indoor technique and reading the forums here. One big question has really hit me. I have not read one reference to using the lens I intend to use as my primary lens. I intend to use a Canon EFS 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens. I'd like feedback as to why this is not a popular lens and/or what problems need to be compensated for if this isn't the appropriate lens. The only other lenses I own are the Canon EFS 18-55 that came with my camera and a Canon EF 17-200 1:2.8 (non-IS). The camera body I am using is a EOS Rebel XTi, I will be using a Canon 430EX II as a flash.

Thanks in advance for any advice.

Not sure, I'm interested in this question as well, since I have the exact same lens.

I bet the maximum aperture is not quite large enough for indoor photography. You are using a flash, so that should help out.

Wedding photographers don't use that lens often because it has a very slow (f/5.6) maximum aperture. This limits the ability of the lens to gather light. You can compensate this to some extent with the flash, but in a lot of situations you are going to suffer from very dark backgrounds as the f/5.6 aperture will not allow for dragging the shutter techniques with anything approaching a reasonable shutter speed.

At f/5.6 you can light the subjects with flash (bounced, hopefully) but the rule of light falloff from flash means anything other than a very close background will be dark.

You will also be unable to blur out backgrounds as effectively in outdoor portraits.

These are not show stoppers. Pick your background carefully for formals. Shoot people near walls inside when you can.

The reason nobody talks about the f/4.0-5.6 is because it's generally regarded as an everyday, Joe Blow walk around lens in daylight. It just isn't fast enough for use in the average church venue with crappy light.

That 18-55 kit lens is a little better but not much at f/3.5. That 70-200 will be fine though.

Its slow to focus, doesn't have a wide aperture and its also generally a bit soft.... if its all you have though then just go with it, we used it at the first wedding we photographed for free but ditched it for faster better glass straight after that.

Your lens is fine, you just need to know how to use it and its pitfalls. The guy who let me tag long for a while when I started out used that lens for all the weddings he shot and it worked out fine. It's just not the lens of choice for most because it's a little on the slow side.

I've used two copies of the lens, neither were sharp or focused accurately. Rent/borrow at 17-55 F2.8 IS if you can, you'll get better photo. Shoot high ISO at the reception, 1600 or so.

tim wrote in post #9076126
I've used two copies of the lens, neither were sharp or focused accurately. Rent/borrow at 17-55 F2.8 IS if you can, you'll get better photo. Shoot high ISO at the reception, 1600 or so.

I'm not getting paid for this event so renting is out, but I do appreciate the suggestion. The sad thing is I bought my lens specifically for indoor photography at the advice of a camera store owner. (No not clerk, owner). My education into my new found hobby looks like it might be expensive.

One follow up question: I was under the impression that any ISO higher than 400 would start to make the photos grainy, so I haven't used any of the higher ISO settings. Am I right? Will an ISO higher than 400 on my camera result in grainy photos?

JackRFlint wrote in post #9076209
I'm not getting paid for this event so renting is out, but I do appreciate the suggestion. The sad thing is I bought my lens specifically for indoor photography at the advice of a camera store owner. (No not clerk, owner). My education into my new found hobby looks like it might be expensive.

One follow up question: I was under the impression that any ISO higher than 400 would start to make the photos grainy, so I haven't used any of the higher ISO settings. Am I right? Will an ISO higher than 400 on my camera result in grainy photos?

What camera do you have? Realistically ISO 800 is pretty good on any Canon dSLR, ISO 1600 is good on most and ISO 3200 on some.

JeffreyG wrote in post #9076220
What camera do you have? Realistically ISO 800 is pretty good on any Canon dSLR, ISO 1600 is good on most and ISO 3200 on some.

I mentioned it earlier but should have repeated it. I am using a Rebel XTi.

JackRFlint wrote in post #9076209
I'm not getting paid for this event so renting is out, but I do appreciate the suggestion. The sad thing is I bought my lens specifically for indoor photography at the advice of a camera store owner. (No not clerk, owner). My education into my new found hobby looks like it might be expensive.

One follow up question: I was under the impression that any ISO higher than 400 would start to make the photos grainy, so I haven't used any of the higher ISO settings. Am I right? Will an ISO higher than 400 on my camera result in grainy photos?

There's a new Tamron 18-50 f2.8 with image stabilisation that'd work well. might be worth considering.

On my 7D I use ISOO6400 happily, ISO12,800 if necessary. On my 40D I use 3200 when I need it, and on my 20D I use 1600 and 3200 if I need it. ISO400 is fine on pretty much any camera, even a earlier Nikon.

JackRFlint wrote in post #9076287
I mentioned it earlier but should have repeated it. I am using a Rebel XTi.

Play nice eh? I have no idea what an XTi is personally, Canon keep releasing cameras with seemingly random combinations of letters and numbers, I have no interest in keeping track of them all.

Thanks to everyone for sharing your knowledge. I'll post an update after the reception and let everyone know how it went. I'll keep reading this thread and responding as necessary but I believe my question was answered. I need start saving for a 17-55 F2.8 IS.

out of all the lenses you have that one is probably better due to having the IS capability...
I've heard some people have had good copies of it and its fine.. Xti is the 350 or 400D I believe...

I use the 17- 85 for my backup zoom at all my weddings. I have never had a problem with image quality...this lens is fine. Indoors it is a bit slow but if you are using flash no probs.
I was afraid of high ISO for a long time (worried about picture quality when enlarged) untill I tested it.....I was amazed at just how good 800 ISO could be even when blown up larger.....and these were taken with the 17-85.
Good Luck Val

Shooting in Raw will help a lot. I usually don't go any higher that 800 iso on my XTi. 17-55 2.8IS is a great low light lens, 50mm1.8 would be a nice cheap alternative as well. I used the 50mm, onboard flash and iso 800 and churned out some decent photos from a low light wedding.