Need a new inside wedding lens

LeeLynn

I use the Canon Rebel Xti and I'm starting to shoot more and more weddings... most of them being indoors with low lighting. I'm self-taught and really don't know a lot of the technical aspects yet, but I'm slowly learning.
I need a faster lens for low-lighting situations (ie: churches / reception halls). Can anyone recommend anything for me? I greatly appreciate all help & info that is offered! Thank you!

Heather

ziggy53

Heather,

Great standard zooms for a crop 1.6x Canon camera:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF)
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro

swintonphoto

ziggy53 wrote:

Heather,

Great standard zooms for a crop 1.6x Canon camera:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF)
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro

SavedByZero

ziggy53 wrote:

Heather,

Great standard zooms for a crop 1.6x Canon camera:

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF)
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro

Don't forget the stroboframe and off camera flash cord and shoe. And also start thinking about getting a quantum battery pack for your flash.

Scott_Quier

with Ziggy RE: the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. This is a sweet lens though I can't seem to find a copy for sale at any of the on-line stores with which I would be willing to do business. Another lens to consider is the EF 24-70 f/2.8L. It's not quite as wide as the 17-55, but it is one sweet lens as well.

LeeLynn

Thank you all for the information! I do have another question. What is the main difference between the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? .. Obviously the Tamron is quite a bit less expensive. I'm finding the Tamron for $450 and the Canon for $1100. Is there much of a difference besides just the name?

I really need to get a back up camera so if I can save the money on the Tamron and still get the same quality then I'd rather do that.... but I don't want to jeopardize quality at all.

OH and I do already have the stroboframe & the off camera flash cord & shoe!

Thanks again!

Scott_Quier

LeeLynn wrote:

Thank you all for the information! I do have another question. What is the main difference between the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? .. Obviously the Tamron is quite a bit less expensive. I'm finding the Tamron for $450 and the Canon for $1100. Is there much of a difference besides just the name?

I really need to get a back up camera so if I can save the money on the Tamron and still get the same quality then I'd rather do that.... but I don't want to jeopardize quality at all.

OH and I do already have the stroboframe & the off camera flash cord & shoe!

Thanks again!

The first and most obvious difference is that the Canon lens has IS. The IS technology doesn't stop subject motion, but it does do a wonderful job of mitigating camera shake. I've seen claims indicating that it can give you an additional 2+ stops of hand-hold-ability. There are many times when shooting weddings/receptions where the IS has made the difference for me. Just something to consider.

Optics: I don't know as I've not held the Tammy 17-50. If it's anything like the Tammy 28-75, it's a real winner.

BTW - If you don't have a backup camera at the event, you are pretty much hanging it all out there and hoping for the best. Very precarious position to put yourself into.

ziggy53

LeeLynn wrote:

Thank you all for the information! I do have another question. What is the main difference between the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? .. Obviously the Tamron is quite a bit less expensive. I'm finding the Tamron for $450 and the Canon for $1100. Is there much of a difference besides just the name? ...

The Canon lens is image stabilized to reduce camera shake. I believe it will also find focus faster. (Say that 10 times really fast, "find focus faster".)

I don't have this lens yet but it is the very next item on my list, probably within a month.

urbanaries

LeeLynn wrote:

Thank you all for the information! I do have another question. What is the main difference between the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? .. Obviously the Tamron is quite a bit less expensive. I'm finding the Tamron for $450 and the Canon for $1100. Is there much of a difference besides just the name?

Yes, there really is a huge difference. I owned the 17-50 and used it for 4 weddings before ponying up for the 17-55. The Tamron is as sharp lens, especially stopped down. The Tamron's focus speed and accuracy in low light is significantly less than the 17-55. My keeper rate went WAY up in the focus arena, and even more because of the IS. The IS is fantastic in this lens....it has enabled me to take handheld shots I'd never dream of taking without a tripod. And as a wedding photographer you know you rarely have time to schlep out the tripod every time you turn a corner and see a shot opportunity.

Canon 17-55, F2.8, ISO800, 17mm, 1/20 sec.

LeeLynn

Well I think that does it. I think I'll be getting the Canon very shortly.

OH.. and I do have 2 backup FILM cameras ... just not a backup digital. So I make sure to carry the film cameras & plenty of film with me just in case my digital blow up in my face. After the lens then the backup digital camera will be next on my list.
Thanks again for all of your help & info!!

LeeLynn

urbanaries wrote:

Yes, there really is a huge difference. I owned the 17-50 and used it for 4 weddings before ponying up for the 17-55. The Tamron is as sharp lens, especially stopped down. The Tamron's focus speed and accuracy in low light is significantly less than the 17-55. My keeper rate went WAY up in the focus arena, and even more because of the IS. The IS is fantastic in this lens....it has enabled me to take handheld shots I'd never dream of taking without a tripod. And as a wedding photographer you know you rarely have time to schlep out the tripod every time you turn a corner and see a shot opportunity.

Canon 17-55, F2.8, ISO800, 17mm, 1/20 sec.

That is such a beautiful picture!

urbanaries

LeeLynn wrote:

That is such a beautiful picture!

Only as good as the lens....:D

Thanks!!!