wedding photography and lenses...

iamgen

hi all.. i've been lurking around these forums for awhile now and figured i'd pop up and start asking questions! i'm a member of another forum online specifically for canons and have asked the same question there. i'm trying to see if i get a differing of opinions and advice.

i shoot on a 30D and currently have three variable aperture, slow lenses. i'm beginning to shoot weddings and indoor events and need to upgrade my lenses to fast, constant aperture lenses. that being said, i've discussed with many wedding photographers which lenses would make up the ideal arsenal for this line of work. this is the response i've received:

canon 50mm f/1.4
canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (or non-IS)

now having a limited budget and just starting out in this particular section of the industry, i have been looking at sigma and tamron lenses of the same focal length and aperture. obviously, the price difference is incredible due to not having the L glass, the canon name and the image stabilization, where applicable. i have read reviews on the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II Aspherical (IS) and on the sigma f/2.8 APO EX DG Macro HSM. 99% of the people who reviewed the lenses and/or commented on them had nothing but positive things to say about the lenses. the sigma was compared to the canon 70-200mm f/2.8 without IS and the tamron to the obvious canon competition.

the arguments that i've come across are:
- why would you put a non-canon lens on a canon body?
- if you want to give your clients the best you can, why not invest in the best glass?
- these "off brand" lenses won't be compatible with future canon bodies.

and my response has been, "everyone needs to start out somewhere. not every wedding photographer purchased top-of-the-line glass when they first started out. clients look more at image quality than gear."

so, does anyone out there have experience with either the tamron or the sigma? if so, have you had experience with them in low light situations, hand held? how do you feel about these lenses? if you do have either of these lenses, have you used them for events/wedding photography?

i know, many questions and probably too much information.

urbanaries

i have recently acquired both the Tamron and Sigma in question, for my upcoming wedding March 31. I have shot a half dozen or so low light portrait sessions with the Tamron and think its a great lens, very happy with it. Just received the Sigma yesterday but its fast, quiet and sharp so far. Aside from weddings I don't have much use for the telephoto.

I have shot a few weddings but not with my own gear and/or digital SLRs. So this will be my first wedding essentially with the 20D.

I'll post links to the gallery when it's over as to share my results. I may be shelling out the $$$ for the canon IS versions for the rest of my weddings in '07, but we'll see.

I think every argument you've come across seems based in nothing but ignorance. There's nothing inherently wrong with putting a non canon lens on a canon body...I won't even go there. As for the compatibility factor, I know older Sigma lenses aren't all chipped properly for dSLRs, so buy new. Never had the same problem with Tamron's. I have a 20 year old 20-200 4-5.6 tamron that is razor sharp on my 20D.

HTH.

iamgen

urbanaries wrote:

i have recently acquired both the Tamron and Sigma in question, for my upcoming wedding March 31. I have shot a half dozen or so low light portrait sessions with the Tamron and think its a great lens, very happy with it. Just received the Sigma yesterday but its fast, quiet and sharp so far. Aside from weddings I don't have much use for the telephoto.

I have shot a few weddings but not with my own gear and/or digital SLRs. So this will be my first wedding essentially with the 20D.

I'll post links to the gallery when it's over as to share my results. I may be shelling out the $$$ for the canon IS versions for the rest of my weddings in '07, but we'll see.

I think every argument you've come across seems based in nothing but ignorance. There's nothing inherently wrong with putting a non canon lens on a canon body...I won't even go there. As for the compatibility factor, I know older Sigma lenses aren't all chipped properly for dSLRs, so buy new. Never had the same problem with Tamron's. I have a 20 year old 20-200 4-5.6 tamron that is razor sharp on my 20D.

HTH.

why thank you.
precisely the information that i am looking for!

Shay Stephens

I am currently using the 50mm f/1.4, 16-35mm f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

I started with a 16-35mm f/2.8, 100mm f/2.8, and 50mm f/1.8.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a dream lens, but with work, the 100mm will get the job done without being able to tell in the photos which lens was which. And it makes a great backup lens when you get the 70-200 down the road.

Loc

I use to do a lot of wedding photography and used mostly Sigma and Tamron glass on the short end. My long lens was a 70-200 IS. This combo worked as fine as I hoped for and I never felt like I was giving my clients the shaft because my short lenses didn't say "Canon" on them.

There's a lot of L-itism and pixel peeing out there so just be weary of the criticisms you get. Focus on the quality of your images

Blurmore

I shoot weddings professionally and I started out as an assistant and second shooter with the 17-85 EF-S IS. It was an adequate lens but is variable aperture and not sharp wide open and it distorts greatly at the wide end. My second lens was the 85 f1.8 which I still have and use on every job. It is a tricky focal length to work with on a crop body but rewards and trains good technique with excellent results. My third lens was a lensbaby, which I use with closeup lenses for macro/flower/table work. Then I got a 70-200 f4 L, I love this lens. I know people LOVE their 70-200 f2.8 IS, but for hand holdability, weight, convience and price you can't go wrong with this lens. I would even consider replacing it with the IS f4 version instead of "upgrading" to the 2.8. I shot 2 weddings as the primary shooter and realized the 17-85 had to go. I replaced it with the 17-55 f2.8 IS and expected a lot from the 1100 dollar lens. Specifically I expected the same quality as the 24-70 f2.8 L. It is worth it. As a wedding photographer the standard zoom is the most important lens in your kit and should be where you spend your money. If you wanna go cheap go cheap on the tele-zoom or tele-prime and get a nice sturdy tripod. The next lenses I'm looking for are a fisheye and a 300mm or longer prime (possibly a screwmount). Really I'm waiting for Canon to update the 300mm f4 IS to the current 4 stop image stabilizer. I highly recommend the 17-55 EF-S f2.8 or if you plan on upgrading to a non EFS body the 24-105 IS L, the IS WILL change the way you shoot, and open possibilities you never thought of. If you are considering the offerings from Sigma and Tamron I would suggest trying them at a professional retail camera store. I think in the fast fixed aperture standard zoom range the optical quality of both Tamron and Sigma are very good, probably within the realm of pixel peeping when compared to the offerings from Canon. What I would look at in the in store comparison is the focus speed and accuracy. My friends who use Nikon and offerings from Tamron and Sigma really like them, people who I know who use Canon and 3rd party are not as happy. Try before you buy.

iamgen

Blurmore wrote:

As a wedding photographer the standard zoom is the most important lens in your kit and should be where you spend your money. If you wanna go cheap go cheap on the tele-zoom or tele-prime and get a nice sturdy tripod.

that's another argument that i've heard.. since the 17-55 (or 50, depending on the brand) would be my "workhorse" lens, i "should" spend the money and get the canon. but on the flipside, i've read countless reviews on the tamron where people have had it for years, never had a problem with it, it's sharp even in low light, etc.

since i'm just starting out, i'm focused more on the quality of my images than the L glass that i don't have. if i can produce the same type of images on a tamron than on a canon based upon reviews and sample shots that i've seen and forego the image stabilization for now, i know that in the end when i'm profiting regularly i'll have the IS and L glass that everyone bows down to..

the godfather

Well it sounds like your well on your way.

I would not worry about what kind of lens your using. More importantly...do you have a nice flash to use (550, 580, etc) for the times you need it? Do you have someone else you know that could serve as a backup shooter (to make sure all important shoots are covered)? Do you have lots of batteries and cf cards to make sure you can keep clicking all day long?

Camera gear is fluid and easy to buy and sell. It should be the last thing on your mind going into a wedding.

Also could you please list the lenses and support gear you have right now so we can give you a better upgrade path.


Good luck and happy shooting, weddings are fun.

iamgen

well.. today was shopping day..

i went out and bought another 30D body as my backup.. got the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8.. and a new bag.. another flash.. a tripod..



thank you to everyone who contributed in this thread. i really appreciate it.

LiquidAir

Shay Stephens wrote:

I am currently using the 50mm f/1.4, 16-35mm f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

I started with a 16-35mm f/2.8, 100mm f/2.8, and 50mm f/1.8.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is a dream lens, but with work, the 100mm will get the job done without being able to tell in the photos which lens was which. And it makes a great backup lens when you get the 70-200 down the road.

Shay, which body are you putting those on? For event work the widest lens I currently use on the 5D is a 35/1.4. Am I missing much because I don't have fast lens wider than that? I am contemplating the new 16-35/2.8 II as a possible lens in my future.

As for non-Canon lenses, I currently shoot most of my even work with Canon primes. However, I have seriously considered picking up the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for those situations where I really need a fast zoom.

Shay Stephens

LiquidAir wrote:

Shay, which body are you putting those on? For event work the widest lens I currently use on the 5D is a 35/1.4. Am I missing much because I don't have fast lens wider than that? I am contemplating the new 16-35/2.8 II as a possible lens in my future.

I am shooting with 20D's so the 16mm turns out to be around 26mm. As far as missing anything, I can't say. 28mm is my sweet spot for wide, I don't really crave anything wider. So if your comfort zone is currently satisfied with the 35mm, I wouldn't worry about changing.