Lens for Weddings Question

elizabeth_Luna · May 7, 2009

Hello all,

I ended up purchasing Canon's 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8 but I also have 17-85mm IS f/4-5.6- Canon 18-55mm f/3.5 and Tamron 28-300mm /3.5-6.3

Should I just sell them? I am kind of regretting the 50 f/1.8 purchase or am I wrong? :scratch

Also I am saving up for a 70/200 but wanted to know if anyone else out there uses them a lot? is it worth the buy?

studio1972 · May 7, 2009

elizabeth_Luna wrote:

Hello all,

I ended up purchasing Canon's 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8 but I also have 17-85mm IS f/4-5.6- Canon 18-55mm f/3.5 and Tamron 28-300mm /3.5-6.3

Should I just sell them? I am kind of regretting the 50 f/1.8 purchase or am I wrong?

Also I am saving up for a 70/200 but wanted to know if anyone else out there uses them a lot? is it worth the buy?

I would highly recommend the 17-55 2.8 as a general purpose wedding lens if you have a cropped sensor camera. I also have the 100mm 2.0 and the 50mm 1.4 and I don't think that I would ever need another lens for weddings (a fisheye would be a nice to have though).

The 17-55 is a very flexible lens suitable for groups and portraits and much better in low light than the 17-85 or 18-55 you have at the moment. Out of the lenses you have at the moment I would just keep the 1.8 primes and the 18-55 (as a spare), sell the 17-85 and the tamron and buy a 17-55 2.8. You don't need over 100mm on a cropped body for weddings and you could probably get away with your 85mm prime and crop in post if necessary (very rarely).

As for the 70-200. The 2.8 IS version is very popular for weddings and is used for shots from the back of church and for portraits. However, you can use primes for these shots which are better in low light and give more control over DoF. The 70-200 is very expensive! If you get the 17-55 you will find yourself using it for 80% of your shots so this should be your priority.

Hope that helps,

Sarah

elizabeth_Luna · May 7, 2009

studio1972 wrote:

I would highly recommend the 17-55 2.8 as a general purpose wedding lens if you have a cropped sensor camera. I also have the 100mm 2.0 and the 50mm 1.4 and I don't think that I would ever need another lens for weddings (a fisheye would be a nice to have though).

The 17-55 is a very flexible lens suitable for groups and portraits and much better in low light than the 17-85 or 18-55 you have at the moment. Out of the lenses you have at the moment I would just keep the 1.8 primes and the 18-55 (as a spare), sell the 17-85 and the tamron and buy a 17-55 2.8. You don't need over 100mm on a cropped body for weddings and you could probably get away with your 85mm prime and crop in post if necessary (very rarely).

As for the 70-200. The 2.8 IS version is very popular for weddings and is used for shots from the back of church and for portraits. However, you can use primes for these shots which are better in low light and give more control over DoF. The 70-200 is very expensive! If you get the 17-55 you will find yourself using it for 80% of your shots so this should be your priority.

Hope that helps,

Sarah

I forgot to mention I am using a 40d as prime and have a 20d So did I make bad decisions on the two that I bought?

jeffreaux2 · May 7, 2009

I sold off my 509mm F1.8. It was hit or miss with focuing....very finicky.....a trait that can't be tolerated when you "have" to get the shot. It's even worse in low light......more unreliable. The 85mm F1.8 is great for low light, but is very limiting on a crop sensor camera. I agree that the BEST option for those cameras is the 17-55 F2.8IS. It's not cheap, but is money in the bank when you "have " to get the shot.

The 17-55F2.8IS and a 70-200 F2.8IS is a great combination for a wedding shooter with crop sensor cameras. I also own the same 85mm as you, but rarely have cause to pull it out. I think Id get more use out of a 50mm F1.4 than the 85mm.

Blurmore · May 7, 2009

I'm not a huge fan of the plastic fantastic. I favor the 85 f1.8, this lens WILL make you a better photographer. It will also bite you in the ass if you are using poor technique. I too used a 17-85 f4-5.6 EF-S IS and I liked it, but as a pure portrait lens it falls down a little compared to the 85 f1.8. The FL of the 85 prime can make it demanding, but the way it compresses the subject and renders the oof elements beats the 17-85 at the long end hands down. Back in the days when I shot weddings with a Hasselblad, I shot portraits with a 150mm Sonnar lens (equivalent of 85mm on a 35mm) which is incomparable for seperation from the background and bokeh. One photographer I worked with shot portraits with a 250MM Sonnar, that was TRULY a challenging lens to shoot portraits with, but the reward was immense. His portraits had UNREAL seperation, and awesome compression. For you I'd dump all but the 17-85 f4-5.6 and the 85 f1.8. With the rest get yourself a proper 70-200 or even a 200 prime. The 17-85 is a comprimise lens, but better than many people think it is. I shot weddings with that lens as a standard zoom for 2 years, it is just as good a lens as the 28-135 IS. Either way I'd say it is better to get yourself a proper 200mm lens at this point, then save up for a higher quality standard zoom.

zoomer · May 7, 2009

I have never used primes.
I am assuming you are just getting started out.
Primes will make your job harder.
As other mentioned a couple good zooms make it easier.
I use the 24-70 2.8 90%
The 70-200 2.8 10%

I have each on its own camera so never have to change lenses.
Changing lenses during the action is not fun or productive.

Just my opinion of course, I am sure other lens combinations work great for other folks.

elizabeth_Luna · May 7, 2009

Yeah I am defiantly going to get me the 70-200 and keeping the 85mm I have been using the 17-85 as my primary lens for the past year. But I have found myself missing shots when poor lighting is available. But now I am kind of scared of the 85mm since you don't have the zoom.. I love the sharpens though. Any pointers?

Candid Arts · May 7, 2009

My list for lenses would be:
A really wide angle lens, I have the 10-22, but fisheye's are also used.
A nice fast standard zoom. 17-55 f/2.8 - This is my next purchase.
A longer zoom. 70-200 f/2.8 - My next purchase after the 17-55.
A good fast prime. I own the 50mm f/1.4. I would have liked to get the 1.2L, but for $1000 difference...I couldn't justify it. Plus the 1.4 is AWESOME!
Plus a good macro for those ring, flower, silverware (all the detail shots). I got the 100mm f/2.8 Macro.

That's my ideal list.

Blurmore · May 7, 2009

elizabeth_Luna wrote:

Yeah I am defiantly going to get me the 70-200 and keeping the 85mm I have been using the 17-85 as my primary lens for the past year. But I have found myself missing shots when poor lighting is available. But now I am kind of scared of the 85mm since you don't have the zoom.. I love the sharpens though. Any pointers?

The most important thing the 85 f1.8 will teach you is to use your off center focal points. I have my focus point selector on the thumbstick direct select thingie on the back of the camera, and I am ALWAYS changing focus points. So far as not having a zoom, sometimes the better picture is in what you HAVE, not in what you COULD get if you had a zoom lens.

elizabeth_Luna · May 7, 2009

That's so true. I have found myself doing that a lot these days anyways. Thanks for the encouragement.

Art Scott · May 7, 2009

elizabeth_Luna wrote:

Hello all,

I ended up purchasing Canon's 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8 but I also have 17-85mm IS f/4-5.6- Canon 18-55mm f/3.5 and Tamron 28-300mm /3.5-6.3

Should I just sell them? I am kind of regretting the 50 f/1.8 purchase or am I wrong?

Also I am saving up for a 70/200 but wanted to know if anyone else out there uses them a lot? is it worth the buy?

My wedding kit has for many years been a 70/210 f2.8 and a 28/70f2.8......I sold the 28/70 smf replaced with a 24/70....still not wide enuff for my likes at times.....so I have decided that if I go Nikon I will get the 17-70f2.8-4.5 and a new 70/200f2.8 macro......if I go OLY it will be the 12-60 (24-120 35mm equiv) and a 70-200f2.8 macro (if available for 4/3 sensors).......

I never liked any 50 I have owned and see no reason for the overlapping of a lot with primes......especially slow primes or slow zooms......unless your camera is a killer at high iso............

just mho

seastack · May 7, 2009

Anyone with experience using the 85 1.2L on full frame for weddings or portrait?

Blurmore · May 8, 2009

seastack wrote:

Anyone with experience using the 85 1.2L on full frame for weddings or portrait?

Yes..this lens is STOOPID sharp, and destroys backgrounds like a vegematic. It can obscure ANYTHING at f1.2, BUT the dof is SO narrow you don't only need to be careful of selecting the correct focus point, but you can have a nose in focus and eyes out, or the right eye in focus (with subject slightly turned away from camera) and the left eye soft. It is a learning experience in and of itself, and on FF it make the DOF even thinner. I don't own one, but I use one occasionally with a photog who has the cash to drop on it and many other elites of glass.

Matthew Saville · May 8, 2009

seastack wrote:

Anyone with experience using the 85 1.2L on full frame for weddings or portrait?

Amen to what Blurmore said. THE most amazing 85mm lens, ever. You really gotta get a 1-series though to properly focus with it, it's just TONS of glass, and even the 5D etc. AF algorithms are very hit-and-miss.

However, the 85 1.8 is VERY practical, and with a faint bump in contrast / sharpening, most viewers will NEVER tell the difference from a 1.2 shot.

In general, here is some advice for Elizabeth: Decide NOW how long and how many events you will have to photograph before you switch to full-frame. If you've got at least a year or a dozen photo shoots in your pre-FF future, then YES YES YES, invest in some crop-sensor lenses. They will make your life WAY easier, and the resale value will be just fine. It'll cost a LOT less than renting, and you'll love the perfect matching of focal ranges.

Get the Canon 17-55 if you can afford it, because the Tamron, Tokina etc. all don't have the same autofocus motor. Sigma now makes a HSM version of their 18-50, but it's still what, $500?

Then, well I'll be honest- I hate the 70-200 2.8's. All of them, Canon, Nikon, etc. They're heavy as rocks and monstrously obtrusive. I just don't like using them in a photojournalism capacity. GREAT for wildlife, where you get more reach and impress all the other photographers. But for weddings? I am HEAD OVER HEELS IN LOVE with my Sigma 50-150 2.8. Yeah, it doesn't have stabilization, but if you REALLY need that, use a monopod. I just cannot get enough of how small, light, SHARP, and affordable this lens is. Mk2 or mk1, it doesn't seem to matter very much, just get one.

Then, also, DO get a prime. Because you have a crop sensor, you'll need at least f/1.8 to get some really shallow DOF if the need arises. Yes, you gotta shoot-shoot-shoot with the 50 1.8 in order to get one in-focus shot. But that's what digital is all about! Or since you have a crop sensor, you could get the 28 1.8, and just use it as sort of a medium-range lens now and then it can become a true wide-angle later when you upgrade to FF...

Alright I gotta get some work done, enough foruming!
=Matt=

elizabeth_Luna · May 8, 2009

Matthew Saville wrote:

Amen to what Blurmore said. THE most amazing 85mm lens, ever. You really gotta get a 1-series though to properly focus with it, it's just TONS of glass, and even the 5D etc. AF algorithms are very hit-and-miss.

However, the 85 1.8 is VERY practical, and with a faint bump in contrast / sharpening, most viewers will NEVER tell the difference from a 1.2 shot.

In general, here is some advice for Elizabeth: Decide NOW how long and how many events you will have to photograph before you switch to full-frame. If you've got at least a year or a dozen photo shoots in your pre-FF future, then YES YES YES, invest in some crop-sensor lenses. They will make your life WAY easier, and the resale value will be just fine. It'll cost a LOT less than renting, and you'll love the perfect matching of focal ranges.

Get the Canon 17-55 if you can afford it, because the Tamron, Tokina etc. all don't have the same autofocus motor. Sigma now makes a HSM version of their 18-50, but it's still what, $500?

Then, well I'll be honest- I hate the 70-200 2.8's. All of them, Canon, Nikon, etc. They're heavy as rocks and monstrously obtrusive. I just don't like using them in a photojournalism capacity. GREAT for wildlife, where you get more reach and impress all the other photographers. But for weddings? I am HEAD OVER HEELS IN LOVE with my Sigma 50-150 2.8. Yeah, it doesn't have stabilization, but if you REALLY need that, use a monopod. I just cannot get enough of how small, light, SHARP, and affordable this lens is. Mk2 or mk1, it doesn't seem to matter very much, just get one.

Then, also, DO get a prime. Because you have a crop sensor, you'll need at least f/1.8 to get some really shallow DOF if the need arises. Yes, you gotta shoot-shoot-shoot with the 50 1.8 in order to get one in-focus shot. But that's what digital is all about! Or since you have a crop sensor, you could get the 28 1.8, and just use it as sort of a medium-range lens now and then it can become a true wide-angle later when you upgrade to FF...

Alright I gotta get some work done, enough foruming!
=Matt=

Matt THANK YOU for that information... and everyone else.

for once my mind is clear haha I played around with the 85 1.8 today I love the sharpness it picked up everything but I can see how it can be a nightmare at a wedding if I don't focus...

elizabeth_Luna · May 9, 2009

One last question and it may be a dumb one - After playing around more with the 85 1.8 and reading a ton more about this and other len's this shouldn't be used as a prime huh

It's more a portrait lens IMO - sigh what to do!! what does everyone else use 80% of the time?

Candid Arts · May 9, 2009

elizabeth_Luna wrote:

One last question and it may be a dumb one - After playing around more with the 85 1.8 and reading a ton more about this and other len's this shouldn't be used as a prime huh It's more a portrait lens IMO - sigh what to do!! what does everyone else use 80% of the time?

I use my 24-105, but that's only because I don't have the 17-55 2.8. For a cropped sensor camera...get the 17-55 2.8. No question.

Blurmore · May 9, 2009

elizabeth_Luna wrote:

One last question and it may be a dumb one - After playing around more with the 85 1.8 and reading a ton more about this and other len's this shouldn't be used as a prime huh It's more a portrait lens IMO - sigh what to do!! what does everyone else use 80% of the time?

You are having terminology difficulties. Prime refers to any lens of fixed focal length. Your "primary" lens is one that you shoot most of your shots with. It is most of the time a "standard zoom" 24-70 17-55 17-85 28-135 no one is suggesting that an 85 mm lens should be your primary lens. It is better suited to portraits. But I do believe I could shoot a wedding with just 2 prime lenses and a do a great job those lenses would be (on a crop body) a 24 or 28 mm and a 85mm or 60mm macro.

elizabeth_Luna · May 9, 2009

Blurmore wrote:

You are having terminology difficulties. Prime refers to any lens of fixed focal length. Your "primary" lens is one that you shoot most of your shots with. It is most of the time a "standard zoom" 24-70 17-55 17-85 28-135 no one is suggesting that an 85 mm lens should be your primary lens. It is better suited to portraits. But I do believe I could shoot a wedding with just 2 prime lenses and a do a great job those lenses would be (on a crop body) a 24 or 28 mm and a 85mm or 60mm macro.

Yeah no one here suggested it - it was suggested from a fellow friend but after reading more and trying it out. forgive me if I misinterpreted that

For now I will use both 85 1.8 and 17-85 until I have enough $$ money for the 17-55 2.8 I am close to getting it. Thank again everyone for your input and patience with me

Shima · May 10, 2009

When I was only using crop bodies (30D and 40D) the 17-55 f2.8 IS was my bread and butter lens for weddings. I used it for 90% of my shots. The 70-200 f2.8/L IS was and still is w/ FF my primary ceremony lens, and I use it occasionally during the reception for some candid far away shots, but due to the weight, I tend to stick to using it for ceremony only as much as possible.

When I switched to Full Frame (5D Mark II) I sold the 17-55 because it wasn't compatible and picked up the 35 f1.4/L. Now I'm really a prime girl, the only zoom I still own is my 70-200 (and I'll never sell it).

That being said, having a 35L I don't use my 50 1.4 anymore... I will likely sell it eventually. I love my 135 f2/L that I also have, and plan to finish off the "holy trinity of primes" that many have called the 35L 135L and yes the 85L... but the 85L is the most expensive of all 3, so it's currently on the waiting list until I have money to burn again.

Full frame or crop body though, the 100 f2.8 Macro is a great lens to have in your line up for doing details, ring shots, and just really sharp anything portraits. I've gotten a lot of varied great shots with it. I only use it for maybe 5% of wedding photos, but it always performs fantastically for me and I wouldn't do the ring shots with any other lens.

A side note, currently I have one FF and one crop body... it's really neat to be able to flip flop lenses on the bodies and get totally different focal length equivalents. Makes 2 lenses feel like 4. Granted, I really want to go all full frame eventually, but until then it's a neat bonus of shooting w/ both types.

elizabeth_Luna · May 10, 2009

Thank you CAT I am excited to purchase the 17-55 now!:D I just purchased my 40d from a 20d So I wont be going FF anytime soon. I do look forward to it in the future tho.

mmmatt · May 10, 2009

I've been shooting proms to keep the money wheel rolling and my 24-70 f2.8L has developed some focusing issues. (this is my 75% of the time wedding lens on my 5d) and I dropped and smashed my backup a while ago so I have been shooting with primes a lot the past week or two. (new backup just showed up yesterday) I disagree with Matt on the 50 f1.8 and its focusing. It has saved me in my time of need. In extreem low light, because of the large aperture, that and my 135 f2L are the only lenses I can auto focus with. All my 2.8 lenses struggle when it gets really dark. In a wedding situation it isn't often super dark like that but it does happen.

Anyways, I love shooting with primes. The prom stuff I have been shooting has been good for developing new skills and shooting with primes is one of those. I tend to run people over sometimes backing up to compose, and turn my camera a lot to get one more face in the corner of the frame, but I like the resulting compositions and the challenge. Definitely have some fast primes in your bag for when the need arises. Regardless of whether or not you shoot them wide open, the camera will focus with the lens wide open and if it doesn't get enough light your AF won't work.

also, like blurmore said, you can use the little joystick thingy on the back of your 40d to adjust focusing points and that works really well. that is called the "multi controler" and to turn that feature on you have to go into the custom functions menu. However, unless you are shooting a 1D MKxxx body, you will struggle with the outside focusing points in low light as well. The 1D series has far better focusing than any other Canon. The center point is basically the same but the outside points are far better. It is good to be able to use that method of focusing as well as the focus and recompose method because neither is best all the time.

Matt

elizabeth_Luna · May 20, 2009

elizabeth_Luna wrote:

Hello all,

I ended up purchasing Canon's 85 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8 but I also have 17-85mm IS f/4-5.6- Canon 18-55mm f/3.5 and Tamron 28-300mm /3.5-6.3

Should I just sell them? I am kind of regretting the 50 f/1.8 purchase or am I wrong?

Also I am saving up for a 70/200 but wanted to know if anyone else out there uses them a lot? is it worth the buy?

OK so I had a wedding last week and I tried to use the 85 and it was way to difficult for me especially because I didn't have the space to move around. I ended up returning the 85 and purchasing the 17-55 2.8 - I am now saving for the 70-200 2.8 is there a huge difference between the USM and IS version?

elizabeth_Luna · May 20, 2009

/bump

levelabove · May 20, 2009

Wedding Photography Lenses
I have several bodies and lenses (Canon). I find without a doubt for me the most versatile lense is the 24-105L f4.
I also have the 70 -200 f2.8. It has the best quality of any lens ever but realise that many wedding do NOT give you the room to work a 70mm lens ans i am using full frame bodies

See some of my wedding work at :
www.visionphotographyinc.com

bodies: Canon5D mk2, Canon 5D, Canon 40D, Canon 20D
lenses: 70 -200 f2.8L, 24 - 107 f4-5.6L, 50f1.4, 10-22 (only fits the crop sensor bodies)

Candid Arts · May 20, 2009

I think both 70-200 2.8's are USM, just one is IS and one is NOT IS. You'll want the IS version if you can afford it. It will give you 1-2 stops faster shutter speeds, which is EXTREMELY helpful at 200mm.

That 17-55 is AMAZING! I just rented one from Borrow and got it yesterday, I LOVE IT. AND WANT IT NOW. It is most certainly my next major purchase in camera equipment. Good luck.

elizabeth_Luna · May 20, 2009

levelabove wrote:

I have several bodies and lenses (Canon). I find without a doubt for me the most versatile lense is the 24-105L f4.
I also have the 70 -200 f2.8. It has the best quality of any lens ever but realise that many wedding do NOT give you the room to work a 70mm lens ans i am using full frame bodies

See some of my wedding work at :
www.visionphotographyinc.com

bodies: Canon5D mk2, Canon 5D, Canon 40D, Canon 20D
lenses: 70 -200 f2.8L, 24 - 107 f4-5.6L, 50f1.4, 10-22 (only fits the crop sensor bodies)

True I thought about that - but how does the 24-105L due with poor light? I was also planning on using the 70-200 for ceremony and reception.

Candid Arts · May 20, 2009

elizabeth_Luna wrote:

True I thought about that - but how does the 24-105L due with poor light? I was also planning on using the 70-200 for ceremony and reception.

The 24-105 most certainly likes its light. It is by far not a low light lens. However, in good light...phenomenal.

elizabeth_Luna · May 20, 2009

Ok thanks for your input~

Lens for Weddings Question

Comments