2nd wedding; which lens

joshhuntnm

I just booked my second wedding for June 14

(Right off the web by the way; a listing in wedj.com--$20 a month--workin so far!!!)

I was frustrated at my first wedding with the low light and want to get a fast portrait lens. I am considering two, and would like to have your thoughts

85 mm 1.8
or
50 mm 1.4

both are about the same price--300 and some change.

Scott_Quier

joshhuntnm wrote:

I just booked my second wedding for June 14

(Right off the web by the way; a listing in wedj.com--$20 a month--workin so far!!!)

I was frustrated at my first wedding with the low light and want to get a fast portrait lens. I am considering two, and would like to have your thoughts

85 mm 1.8
or
50 mm 1.4

both are about the same price--300 and some change.

I have both and use them as backup lenses. The 85mm is a bit long unless you have lots of room to work with. The 50 would probably work. You might want to investigate something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4

With these lenses (and I have all three of them), you have to be very careful of getting your focus just right and being aware of your very shallow DOF - these lenses are very difficult to use in these sorts of settings when opened up. You might want to investigate the possibilities of a constant aperture (f/2.8) zoom - if you can't get the shots you need at f/2.8, you might want to look at increasing your ISO:D

I don't know what other equipment you might have - updating your profile might be a good idea - but you might want to take a look at the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS or the Tammy 17-50 f/2.8 (I've read a lot of people recommending this lens, but have not personally used it). Both of these are well above the $300 mark you quoted, but you didn't indicate that this was the upper limit of your budget. You may want to consider investing a bit more $$ and getting a tool that is more convenient to use - time is everything at a wedding - and more versatile. Think long term investment rather than short term expense - it might help.

Tommyboy

I own both. I can't tell you why, but I use the 50mm f/1.4 almost exclusively. The 85 is good for indoor sports, but the close-in nature of, say, a wedding reception, might call for the 50mm.

That's my 0.02.

Swartzy

The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a great choice and consideration. Yes, the 17-55 IS is incredible but twice as much. I use the 28-75 on one body at weddings. Scott mentioned DOF. That one eye in and one eye out of focus thing comes into play obviously at f/2.8. Distance from subject and focal length will make the difference and find that at 2.8 will work if you keep your distance. I usually do stop down a bit though as each lens is sharper providing you nail your exposures at higher iso's. For no flash ceremonies this would be a great one for the bag.

joshhuntnm

I have the 17 - 35 (actually 16 - 35 on B and H; odd that there are two so close) on my wish list. I am not completely sure where all this is heading, as I say it is my second wedding. I am hoping to upgrade my gear out of cash flow. All that to say, price is an issue.

Long term, I had also thought of the 10 - 22 lens one of these days.

I have a few other lenses on my wish list. A step at a time. I thought I would start with a prime lens. As I say, my frustration at the first one was wanting to take more natural light pics and didn't have the glass and had to really crank up the ISO.

Blurmore

I use the 85 f1.8...it is the lens that will make you a better photographer. If you have a f2.8 standard zoom like a 17-55 f2.8 or 24-70 f2.8 the 50mm f1.8 is almost redundant because you aren't going to be shooting with it wide open that much anyway. The 50 f1.4 is another story as it at f1.8 is pretty sharp and at f2 killer sharp. The great thing about the 85 f1.8 is how well it knocks out backgrounds at f4 anf f5.6 where you would have to shoot at f2 or f2.8 with the 50mm to get like separation. A fast lens is nice, but you aren't always going to be using it wide open. The 85 f1.8 WILL make you use correct focusing technique (rather than focus recompose) and WILL make you choose an appropriate shutter speed. The 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 is more forgiving in both of these areas.

joshhuntnm

Blurmore wrote:

I use the 85 f1.8...it is the lens that will make you a better photographer. If you have a f2.8 standard zoom like a 17-55 f2.8 or 24-70 f2.8 the 50mm f1.8 is almost redundant because you aren't going to be shooting with it wide open that much anyway. The 50 f1.4 is another story as it at f1.8 is pretty sharp and at f2 killer sharp. The great thing about the 85 f1.8 is how well it knocks out backgrounds at f4 anf f5.6 where you would have to shoot at f2 or f2.8 with the 50mm to get like separation. A fast lens is nice, but you aren't always going to be using it wide open. The 85 f1.8 WILL make you use correct focusing technique (rather than focus recompose) and WILL make you choose an appropriate shutter speed. The 50mm f1.8 or f1.4 is more forgiving in both of these areas.

help me understand "focus recompose"

Blurmore

joshhuntnm wrote:

help me understand "focus recompose"

Using the center focus point on the subject, then locking focus and recomposing the frame...For instance...Focusing on the face using the center, then recomposing to give the portrait less "head room" and more of the body. This will shift the narrow plane of focus of a lens at f1.8 to f4 in front of the subject. The correct technique is to change focus points to an off center point and focussing with that point. Most lenses stopped down past f4 (except for longer telephotos) have a wide enough DOF that focus recompose produces satisfactory results.

joshhuntnm

Blurmore wrote:

Using the center focus point on the subject, then locking focus and recomposing the frame...For instance...Focusing on the face using the center, then recomposing to give the portrait less "head room" and more of the body. This will shift the narrow plane of focus of a lens at f1.8 to f4 in front of the subject. The correct technique is to change focus points to an off center point and focussing with that point. Most lenses stopped down past f4 (except for longer telephotos) have a wide enough DOF that focus recompose produces satisfactory results.

it seems like constantly changing the focus point would be time consuming and distracting to what you are doing, no?

Blurmore

joshhuntnm wrote:

it seems like constantly changing the focus point would be time consuming and distracting to what you are doing, no?

I don't know what you shoot...but...it is absolutely necessary for me, and I am constantly changing focus points. I shoot Canon 20D/30D/40D and I use the custome function to put the focus point selection directly on the multi controller, right under the thumb. I use it like a little joystick, it becomes second nature really. Believe me if you are shooting at f1.4 to f2 with the 50mm or f1.8 to f4 with the 85mm YOU WILL get out of focus shots if you are only using the center point, the dof is that shallow. A lens like the 30mm f1.4 mentioned might not be a big issue at f2 but I wouldn't chance it, it is better to use all the focus points available to you.

Scott_Quier

Blurmore wrote:

I don't know what you shoot...but...it is absolutely necessary for me, and I am constantly changing focus points. I shoot Canon 20D/30D/40D and I use the custome function to put the focus point selection directly on the multi controller, right under the thumb. I use it like a little joystick, it becomes second nature really. Believe me if you are shooting at f1.4 to f2 with the 50mm or f1.8 to f4 with the 85mm YOU WILL get out of focus shots if you are only using the center point, the dof is that shallow. A lens like the 30mm f1.4 mentioned might not be a big issue at f2 but I wouldn't chance it, it is better to use all the focus points available to you.

I'll second everything Blurmore has said here - as if my voice adds any significant weight to his comments

joshhuntnm

So, let me get this straight. When you read the reviews of a prime lense they are all glowing, but what you guys are saying is that the depth of field is so narrow under 2 that it is almost unusable unless you are really, really careful?

Blurmore

joshhuntnm wrote:

So, let me get this straight. When you read the reviews of a prime lense they are all glowing, but what you guys are saying is that the depth of field is so narrow under 2 that it is almost unusable unless you are really, really careful?

More like...It will change the way you shoot to get the most out of the lens.

DI-Joe

I shoot with two cameras, a 30D and a 5D, on the 5D, I have my big ol' 70-200 2.8L IS USM and on the 30D I have the 24-105 f/4L IS USM. I had a really really high success rate with this combination at my last wedding in addition to the almost obligatory Nifty Fifty (I chose the f/1.4 version but the 1.8 does work just as well.) I choose zooms because of the dynamics of weddings and your position, you can't always afford the time or the space to roll close or far to your subject. The zoom can help in framing, but for me, I found that it's a bad habit. My 2.8 is either fully at 70 or fully at 200, nowhere in between, essentially it's just two lenses for me. The 24-105 I stay mostly wide(since tele is mostly covered by the other camera.) I found it to be a formidable combination. Granted, the entire rig can be pretty heavy(I harness the two cameras together into an almost H-harness so they can't slip off my shoulders). I'm a pretty big guy and I don't need to worry about the weight of these things. My 5D sports the 70-200, a battery grip with two batteries, and a 580EXII so it's pretty heavy, the 30D slightly lighter, smaller lens, and smaller flash(430EX).

I suppose you're going to have to find out what you're comfortable with. I stay away from primes at weddings only because sometimes you just don't have the room to move and you become obtrusive while trying to move closer or move further back and guests don't like that. In addition, as I said above, weddings are dynamic and you're not going to have time to find your distance a good bit of the time.

Hope that helps.

jeffreaux2

For a $300ish budget I would take a look at the Tamron 28-75 F2.8

The Canon17-55F2.8IS is sharper, but costs much more.

photogmomma

I LOVE LOVE LOVE my 50mm 1.4. Loved my 1.8, too, but got a LOT more in focus shots with the 1.4. I generally set it at about 2.0 if possible. I shoot with a 5D and my low light shots are really amazing. (Not because of me, trust me! !)

I'm the queen of low light shots. I love my 28-70 f/2.8 L lens - it really rocks. But when I'm in really low light, I toss on my 50mm almost exclusively. (I might play with my 85mm, but honestly, I don't use it as much as I'd like to - it doesn't focus as close for some odd reason.)

Just my penny's worth! Good luck!

photogmomma

DI-Joe wrote:

Granted, the entire rig can be pretty heavy(I harness the two cameras together into an almost H-harness so they can't slip off my shoulders). I'm a pretty big guy and I don't need to worry about the weight of these things. My 5D sports the 70-200, a battery grip with two batteries, and a 580EXII so it's pretty heavy, the 30D slightly lighter, smaller lens, and smaller flash(430EX).

OMG! You're INSANE! ! I"m pretty big (5'10" and not skinny nor out of shape!), but I get exhausted lugging around my 70-200 or even my 28-70 all night long. ! I think that's part of the reason I LOVE my 50mm. (And probably part of the reason I don't enjoy doing weddings.) But I know a LOT of others that do the same thing - two cameras.

At weddings, during the ceremony I have my 5D (24-70mm) and my 30D (70-200mm for the extra distance with the crop factor), but the reception is strictly one camera for me. I tried two cameras once and it threw me off.

I think the key is walking around during a party or something before the wedding and seeing what works for you. If two cameras does it, awesome!

Scott_Quier

DI-Joe wrote:

I shoot with two cameras, a 30D and a 5D, on the 5D, I have my big ol' 70-200 2.8L IS USM and on the 30D I have the 24-105 f/4L IS USM. I had a really really high success rate with this combination at my last wedding in addition to the almost obligatory Nifty Fifty (I chose the f/1.4 version but the 1.8 does work just as well.) I choose zooms because of the dynamics of weddings and your position, you can't always afford the time or the space to roll close or far to your subject. The zoom can help in framing, but for me, I found that it's a bad habit. My 2.8 is either fully at 70 or fully at 200, nowhere in between, essentially it's just two lenses for me. The 24-105 I stay mostly wide(since tele is mostly covered by the other camera.) I found it to be a formidable combination. Granted, the entire rig can be pretty heavy(I harness the two cameras together into an almost H-harness so they can't slip off my shoulders). I'm a pretty big guy and I don't need to worry about the weight of these things. My 5D sports the 70-200, a battery grip with two batteries, and a 580EXII so it's pretty heavy, the 30D slightly lighter, smaller lens, and smaller flash(430EX).

I suppose you're going to have to find out what you're comfortable with. I stay away from primes at weddings only because sometimes you just don't have the room to move and you become obtrusive while trying to move closer or move further back and guests don't like that. In addition, as I said above, weddings are dynamic and you're not going to have time to find your distance a good bit of the time.

Hope that helps.

I also run with 2 cameras (Canon 30D). Each camera also has the BG-E2 battery grip with 2 cells in it (love not having to worry about battery power all day long). On one I have either the 17-55 f/2.8 or the 24-105 f/4 (depending on how I feel) and on the other I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

I also have them in a harness arrangement. I use a photog vest that has a couple of D-rings at the shoulders. I have short straps on each camera and run those straps through a carabiner and that through the D-ring. Takes that load (and it is a load, but you get used to it after a couple of events ) and distributes is across my shoulders rather than around my neck. I learned this trick for Nik and then modified it for my purposes.

dawssvt

Scott_Quier wrote:

I don't know what other equipment you might have - updating your profile might be a good idea.

The OP is my dad. He is shooting with an XTi with Canon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and Canon 580EX II.

I have read that it takes more effort to make the 50mm f/1.4 focus on the majority of the pictures in comparison to the 50mm f/1.8. Can someone shed some light on that for me?

Scott_Quier

dawssvt wrote:

The OP is my dad. He is shooting with an XTi with Canon 28-200M f/3.5-5.6 and Canon 580EX II.

joshhuntnm, I don't know how far you've gotten with gearing up beyond what's indicate above, but I would like to ask you to read this thread. In particular, post #12. Scary story.

dawssvt

Scott_Quier wrote:

joshhuntnm, I don't know how far you've gotten with gearing up beyond what's indicate above, but I would like to ask you to read this thread. In particular, post #12. Scary story.

Well, his first wedding was only a couple weeks ago. This wedding was for one of my very good friends. We showed him some of my Dad's past shots of family stuff. My dad made sure that he understood that this would be his first wedding, so it probably would not be as good if they were to go out and hire someone for $1,500, but he would do his best.

My dad actually went to Best Buy and bought a 40D just in case his XTi died on him and just left it in the trunk. He ended up returning it after the wedding.

He was also using (2) Canon 430EX's on Umbrellas for the before and after shots. I thought the pictures turned out pretty well for it being his first time.

A few examples...

Blurmore

I think you dad did a great job...these are very solid shots.

On the topic of slinging 2 cameras...I RARELY ever carry 2 and if I do one has a standard zoom with a flash and the other no flash and either the 85mm f1.8 or zoom fish. I also don't use a neck strap. I came from the medium format world where almost NO ONE wore a Mamiya C330 or Hasselblad around their neck (although DIjoe sounds like he would be big enough). Camera brackets had feet so you could put them down without falling over. Basically I don't know a lot of people who use a bracket and a strap, it is a combination garanteed to get tangled. I understand WHY people carry 2 cameras but I just don't think it fits my style. I think it fits more of a PJ/ultra coverage style where people are trying to cover EVERY moment regardless of its editorial value. I don't book people that want "that" photographer. Occasionally at a reception during speeches I wish I had a longer lens to catch reactions, but I am usually working with someone else and we are concentrating on different groups of people. I also feel that if you are USING 2 cameras and one is your backup, it somewhat defeats the purpose of having a backup (although I admit that a simultaneous camera failure would be EXTREMELY unlikely). Basically I feel like I could shoot a wedding and give good coverage with 3 primes 28mm 50mm and 200mm because back in the day thats what I had for the Hasse a 40mm Distagon, an 80 mm Planar and a 150mm Sonnar with a 2x converter. You have to constantly put yourself in the right place to get the shot with lens you have, and WAIT and be sure you have the perfect shot when it comes. And if that doesn't work you can crop a lot from a 6x6cm negative. Another thing about looking like you are going into comabt with a camera is that look doesn't work for every job. When I started assisting, BLACK TIE in the circles I worked meant BLACK TIE for everyone, and you look like a total tool with 2 cameras strapped on you wearing a tux. I don't run into that much anymore because I don't book that echelon of job, and I tell clients how (and why) I dress during my consultation. No one's way is the only way, everyone needs to find what works best for them, and more importantly be able to sell that to clients.

joshhuntnm

Scott_Quier wrote:

I also run with 2 cameras (Canon 30D). Each camera also has the BG-E2 battery grip with 2 cells in it (love not having to worry about battery power all day long). On one I have either the 17-55 f/2.8 or the 24-105 f/4 (depending on how I feel) and on the other I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

I also have them in a harness arrangement. I use a photog vest that has a couple of D-rings at the shoulders. I have short straps on each camera and run those straps through a carabiner and that through the D-ring. Takes that load (and it is a load, but you get used to it after a couple of events ) and distributes is across my shoulders rather than around my neck. I learned this trick for Nik and then modified it for my purposes.

I am having a hard time picturing this set up. have someone take a pic of you with two cameras strapped to you some time, yes?

Elaine

dawssvt wrote:

I have read that it takes more effort to make the 50mm f/1.4 focus on the majority of the pictures in comparison to the 50mm f/1.8. Can someone shed some light on that for me?

I think it's the other way around. The 1.4 has a better reputation for accuracy than the 1.8.

Scott_Quier

Blurmore wrote:

I think you dad did a great job...these are very solid shots.

these are very solid - you and your client should be quite happy with them.

Blurmore wrote:

On the topic of slinging 2 cameras...I RARELY ever carry 2 and if I do one has a standard zoom with a flash and the other no flash and either the 85mm f1.8 or zoom fish. I also don't use a neck strap. I came from the medium format world where almost NO ONE wore a Mamiya C330 or Hasselblad around their neck (although DIjoe sounds like he would be big enough). Camera brackets had feet so you could put them down without falling over. Basically I don't know a lot of people who use a bracket and a strap, it is a combination garanteed to get tangled. I understand WHY people carry 2 cameras but I just don't think it fits my style. I think it fits more of a PJ/ultra coverage style where people are trying to cover EVERY moment regardless of its editorial value. I don't book people that want "that" photographer. Occasionally at a reception during speeches I wish I had a longer lens to catch reactions, but I am usually working with someone else and we are concentrating on different groups of people. I also feel that if you are USING 2 cameras and one is your backup, it somewhat defeats the purpose of having a backup (although I admit that a simultaneous camera failure would be EXTREMELY unlikely). Basically I feel like I could shoot a wedding and give good coverage with 3 primes 28mm 50mm and 200mm because back in the day thats what I had for the Hasse a 40mm Distagon, an 80 mm Planar and a 150mm Sonnar with a 2x converter. You have to constantly put yourself in the right place to get the shot with lens you have, and WAIT and be sure you have the perfect shot when it comes.

You're right about getting in the right spot for the shot and waiting for it to happen. I'm not, yet, 100% on this but it's coming. Someday, I'll have a much better handle on the timing - it's coming.

Blurmore wrote:

And if that doesn't work you can crop a lot from a 6x6cm negative. Another thing about looking like you are going into comabt with a camera is that look doesn't work for every job.

I did two jobs where I looked like that. That didn't last long and for exactly that reason.

Blurmore wrote:

When I started assisting, BLACK TIE in the circles I worked meant BLACK TIE for everyone, and you look like a total tool with 2 cameras strapped on you wearing a tux. I don't run into that much anymore because I don't book that echelon of job, and I tell clients how (and why) I dress during my consultation.

Me as well. I don't think I would be a good fit for that "level" of client - I still too much of a individualist/non-conformist to put up with that sort of restraining clothing. No one photographer is right for every possible client. During the initial consult, it's as much about me sizing up the prospective client(s) as it is about them sizing me up. Either party can (and should) back away from the table if the fit isn't there.

Blurmore wrote:

No one's way is the only way, everyone needs to find what works best for them, and more importantly be able to sell that to clients.

- especially if you want to work for that client!

joshhuntnm wrote:

I am having a hard time picturing this set up. have someone take a pic of you with two cameras strapped to you some time, yes?

Josh - I've got a couple of shots from the most recent wedding that were taken by the second shooter (thanks Karrie). If one fits the bill, I'll post it tonight when I get home.

Scott_Quier

Me with 2 Cameras - by request
By request, here's the first of two photos of how I carry two cameras.

When you look at these, please understand that

1. I didn't takes these
2. I didn't take any time to process these
3. I boosted fill and exposure to bring out the detail in the black - the rest of the photo suffered as a direct result...

If you look close, you can see a 3/8" web strap running through one of the strap loops on the camera and from there through a carabiner which, in turn, is attached to one of the D-Rings on the Domke vest.

The glasses? Well, let us just say that the lenses in my eyes aren't as flexible as they used to be!:D

Scott_Quier

Second Shot
And the second one

DI-Joe

Scott_Quier wrote:

And the second one

which vest is that? I must have it.

Scott_Quier

DI-Joe wrote:

which vest is that? I must have it.

Given the possibility that you are serious here's the link.

joshhuntnm

You look like Dan Akroyd!

DI-Joe

Scott_Quier wrote:

Given the possibility that you are serious here's the link.

Thanks scott. *slo-mo high five*