Best wedding glass

joshhuntnm

I am looking for some advice. Let's assume money is no object, but you can only get one lens to shoot weddings. OH, and lets assume you shoot Canon. Nikon guys, start your own thread!!!

jeffreaux2

joshhuntnm wrote:

I am looking for some advice. Let's assume money is no object, but you can only get one lens to shoot weddings. OH, and lets assume you shoot Canon. Nikon guys, start your own thread!!!

I don't think there is a one lens answer to your question. I have shot an entire ceremony with an 85mm prime, but it would not have worked out for any of the others I have done. I shot my most recent entirely with the 17-55 F2.8IS...the lady assisting me used my 28-75mm(which I used to use almost exclusively) and she had trouble finding enough room for some shots. Some will say the 70-200 F2.8....I see plenty useing ultrawides. Much of this depends on venue. Then there is Canon's own 24-70F2.8L.

I wish there were a zoom lens in the 17-85mm F2.8IS variety that had image quality to rival the 17-55 F2.8IS.....but alas there is no such animal!!:D

Richard

I moved this to Cameras, as it's about lenses, not shots.

ziggy53

joshhuntnm wrote:

I am looking for some advice. Let's assume money is no object, but you can only get one lens to shoot weddings. OH, and lets assume you shoot Canon. Nikon guys, start your own thread!!!

According to your profile you are using a Canon XTi/400D.

Hands down, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is a great, all-purpose wedding and event lens for a Canon crop 1.6x camera. The EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (with IS if you wish) is very complimentary for more distant subjects. I also have a 10-20mm for some creative stuff and establishing shots. (I don't always use it however.)

For the 1D/1Ds/5D cameras (crop 1.3x and FF) I suggest the EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM for the general purpose zoom and the 70-200mm again for longer. Either the EF 16-35mm, f2.8L USM II or the EF 17-40mm, f4L USM would work well for the super-wide application.

ChatKat

Lots of choices
Some of it will depend on style too.
Some people like fixed focal length because it gives images a cohesive look to them; Zooms are great because you can stay put and then the lens will do the work for you.

That said my favorite lens is the 24-70 2.8L and for a wedding (on my 5d)
along with the 70-200 2.8is are the lenses that I would use. The 50 1.2 is also one lens I would use for the reception for dark light with the 85 1.8,
A 100 2.8 Macro for rings and table detail

Shima

Thanks to the recommendation of several of the fellows above, I'm actually trading my awesome 24-105 (which I love so this was hard to do) for the 17-55 (which will be here on Wednesday!). As mentioned the 17-55 is designed for 1.6 crop bodies, and although it lacks the "L" label it is (from what I'm told) very sharp, fast, and has IS which I can't live without on at least one of my lenses

I am very excited for it to arrive and I shoot a bunch of weddings in the summers.

(though I do also want to upgrade to to a 70-200 f2.8/L IS USM eventually as well for weddings... until then all my budget can handle is the Sigma 2.8 I presently use)

evoryware

I had a choice between the 24-70 and the 17-55 but they sold out of the 17-55's due to the last Canon rebate. They didn't even have a demo for me to try. There's not a day I come to this forum that I don't see a post saying 17-55 and I wonder what I'm missing out on. :cry

joshhuntnm

joshhuntnm wrote:

I am looking for some advice. Let's assume money is no object, but you can only get one lens to shoot weddings. OH, and lets assume you shoot Canon. Nikon guys, start your own thread!!!

Let me come at this another way. I recently (6 weeks or so) got what I consider my first "real" glass--85mm 1.8 prime. I am hooked on that level of sharpness, but, obviously would like to have some zoom in the "normal" range. Can I safely assume that most any Canon over $1000 is going to be very sharp--along the lines if not better than my prime?

If that is the case, then, it things are a little easier--we are just talking about how wide is the apeture and how much zoom both ways. Those are easy to quantify. "sharp" and "really sharp" and "extra sharp" are a little hard to distinquish

One other question. I have a niece who is into phtography and she said that a ruel of thumb is the greater the zoom range, the worse the sharpness. Is that true?

Tee Why

I'd go with 17-55mm f2.8 IS as well.
Everything else being the same, generally higher the zoom range, the lesser the IQ. Most prograde zooms tend to be about 3x or less.

ziggy53

joshhuntnm wrote:

... "sharp" and "really sharp" and "extra sharp" are a little hard to distinquish

One other question. I have a niece who is into phtography and she said that a ruel of thumb is the greater the zoom range, the worse the sharpness. Is that true?

"Sharp enough to sell" should be your mantra. Absolute sharpness is not necessary, but focus accuracy is extremely important. Utility and versatility is also important and I don't think you see too many wedding photographers swapping lenses because much of the time, there is no time. Responsiveness and accuracy is what you pay the big money for.

A good quality zoom is worth it's weight but only if it does what you want, when you want.

The reason the Canon EF 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is so revered is because it combines a bunch of desireable qualities into one lens:

Flexibility of focal lengths. 17-55mm happens to be extremely important to the way I shoot most of a wedding, so this tends to be the most used lens on the crop 1.6x body.

Sharp enough, even wide open. This is vital when you don't have much light to work with, like during the ceremony, but it's also important for DOF control.

Quick and accurate focus. If you have to take multiple images to insure sharpness, you're wasting time and possibly risking shots.

Responsiveness, especially in low light. If you have to wait on a shot, a lot of the time the prime opportunity will be lost.

---

Hopefully you are getting the idea that a good wedding lens kit is what works well and works consistantly and works with fluidity in your style.

joshhuntnm

ziggy53 wrote:

"Sharp enough to sell" should be your mantra. Absolute sharpness is not necessary, but focus accuracy is extremely important. Utility and versatility is also important and I don't think you see too many wedding photographers swapping lenses because much of the time, there is no time. Responsiveness and accuracy is what you pay the big money for.

A good quality zoom is worth it's weight but only if it does what you want, when you want.

The reason the Canon EF 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM is so revered is because it combines a bunch of desireable qualities into one lens:

Flexibility of focal lengths. 17-55mm happens to be extremely important to the way I shoot most of a wedding, so this tends to be the most used lens on the crop 1.6x body.

Sharp enough, even wide open. This is vital when you don't have much light to work with, like during the ceremony, but it's also important for DOF control.

Quick and accurate focus. If you have to take multiple images to insure sharpness, you're wasting time and possibly risking shots.

Responsiveness, especially in low light. If you have to wait on a shot, a lot of the time the prime opportunity will be lost.

---

Hopefully you are getting the idea that a good wedding lens kit is what works well and works consistantly and works with fluidity in your style.

interesting. That is the one I had landed on, when my son pointed me to this one Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Autofocus Lens

not 2.8, not quite as wide, but a lot longer. I tend to like close ups, and with my 1.8 I find the depth of field is SO narrow, I found myself leaning that way.

ziggy53

joshhuntnm wrote:

interesting. That is the one I had landed on, when my son pointed me to this one Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Autofocus Lens

not 2.8, not quite as wide, but a lot longer. I tend to like close ups, and with my 1.8 I find the depth of field is SO narrow, I found myself leaning that way.

A fair number of people do use the EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM for wedding work, but I really like the option of f2.8, plus the 24mm is only moderately wide where 17mm is right around twice as wide as normal/standard on a crop 1.6x camera.

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm, f3.5-f4.5 does make a pretty good compliment to the EF 24-105mm if you decide to go that route.

ChatKat

24-105
I have both the 24-105 4.0 and 24-70 2.8

There is a slight difference in the finished images with the two lenses.
I love low depth of field work and there is a softer look on the 24-70
The 24-105 is always tack sharp. Always. I use it in my studio or for outdoors walking around - BUT I use it on my 5d - I bought the 24-70 for the 1.6 20d and while I use it on my 5d - I don't use it on the 20d. They are comparable lenses - the 24-105 was made for the 5d and the same focal length on the crop camera is the 24-70. The IS gives you the equivalent to the 2.8. But the 24 is NOT wide enough for the 1.6 crop factor in either case - and most of the wedding photographers I know keep the 16-35 on their camers ALL the time. I have the Sigma 12-24 if I need wide but it was designed for FF cameras so I don't have the 16-35 - YET

ziggy53 wrote:

A fair number of people do use the EF 24-105mm, f4L IS USM for wedding work, but I really like the option of f2.8, plus the 24mm is only moderately wide where 17mm is right around twice as wide as normal/standard on a crop 1.6x camera.

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm, f3.5-f4.5 does make a pretty good compliment to the EF 24-105mm if you decide to go that route.

Scott_Quier

joshhuntnm wrote:

I tend to like close ups, and with my 1.8 I find the depth of field is SO narrow, I found myself leaning that way.

I gotta jump in here with some points:

• The DOF of the 85mm 1.8 is defined by the aperture used at the time the photo is taken, not the maximim aperture available. If DOF is not wide enough, stop down the lens a bit. This is a tough lens to use wide open, especially when one is up close and personal. Go to DOFMaster and study the information until an understanding of the relationships between the following is found:
  • Camera to subject distance
  • Sensor size
  • Focal length
  • Lens aperture
  • Depth of Field
  • Hyperfocal distance
• Few, if any, zooms are going to be as sharp as a good (or better) quality prime. The prime is engineered to handle only one focal length. There are a fewer compromises to be made in the optical design of a prime than there are in the design of a zoom. Each compromise comes, by definition, with a cost and that cost is either maximum aperture or sharpness or both.
• The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a very flexible lens. There are a number of weddings where I could have photographed the entire event with just that one lens. It is very sharp, but not as sharp as any of my primes (see previous point).
• There is no perfect lens nor any one lens that will cover all the bases. One must select the glass to be used based on the conditions encountered and the effect attempted. Not every lens is a hammer and not every gig is a nail.

joshhuntnm

ChatKat wrote:

there is a softer look on the 24-70
The 24-105 is always tack sharp. Always.

this is the heart of my delema/ frustration. how would one know this just by looking at specs?

ziggy53

joshhuntnm wrote:

this is the heart of my delema/ frustration. how would one know this just by looking at specs?

You are much better off "glancing" at the specs, reading several professional reviews and then studying user reviews and samples looking for consistently good comments and good examples.

In the Canon world (I presume your interest), competent lens reviews:

http://photozone.de/canon-eos
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

For user reviews, start here, at the Digital Grin, and do a Google search against the particular lenses you wish to consider. Then do the same for other popular forums.

For examples you may find some here, but you can also go to PBase and look up lenses by manufacturer:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras

ziggy53

ChatKat wrote:

... The 24-105 is always tack sharp. Always. I use it in my studio or for outdoors walking around - BUT I use it on my 5d ...

I have a local photographer friend with the Canon 5D and EF 24-105mm, f4L combination and she too uses it for studio work as well as school event stuff. (She got out of wedding work and refers that to me.)

I had the opportunity to shoot along side her at a high school play and she had that combination. I was using a Canon 1D MKII with the *EF 28-80mm f2.8-f4L and I seemed to acquire focus much faster in the low light than she could. I did purchase a disk of her images, my son was in the play, and what she got was very sharp.

*(Very old ancestor to the EF 24-70mm, f2.8L)

JohnBiggs

I recently went out with a group of some long time pro wedding photogs. I was suprised by the stuff they shot with. I mean they were using 18-200 tamrons and such. In fact I was one of the only one with 2.8 glass. The other had a Tamrom 28-75 f2.8.

I don't know what you should take from this, but this was a group of 20 pro wedding photographers who have been shooting for about 20 years each.

I have since worked with a few of them and I noticed the 18-200s have a hard time focussing in low light. But thats a given with such a lousy aperture.

ChatKat

BIGGStudios wrote:

I recently went out with a group of some long time pro wedding photogs. I was suprised by the stuff they shot with. I mean they were using 18-200 tamrons and such. In fact I was one of the only one with 2.8 glass. The other had a Tamrom 28-75 f2.8.

I don't know what you should take from this, but this was a group of 20 pro wedding photographers who have been shooting for about 20 years each.

I have since worked with a few of them and I noticed the 18-200s have a hard time focussing in low light. But thats a given with such a lousy aperture.

Yes, the 24-105 is not the best in lower light. Hence, I have the 24-70 2.8 which is wonderful as is the 50 1.2 and 85 1.8.

I have one Tamron and one Sigma Lens. The tamron is only for personal travel when I want to go light and long and the Sigma is wonderful - 12-24 - made for full frame camera. I wound NEVER use the Tamron for a wedding or any other pro images. I think you get what you pay for and none of the images on my original 18-200 were tack sharp.

Josh, if I were only buying one lens for a wedding, I'd start with the 24-70 or 17-55 and then would opt for (or rent) the 70-200 2.8 - with or without IS.

20DNoob

ziggy53 wrote:

I have a local photographer friend with the Canon 5D and EF 24-105mm, f4L combination and she too uses it for studio work as well as school event stuff. (She got out of wedding work and refers that to me.)

I had the opportunity to shoot along side her at a high school play and she had that combination. I was using a Canon 1D MKII with the *EF 28-80mm f2.8-f4L and I seemed to acquire focus much faster in the low light than she could. I did purchase a disk of her images, my son was in the play, and what she got was very sharp.

*(Very old ancestor to the EF 24-70mm, f2.8L)

Gotta love how the 2.8 glass activates those cross type sensors for AF.:D

joshhuntnm

20DNoob wrote:

Gotta love how the 2.8 glass activates those cross type sensors for AF.:D

I am not sure I know what that means.

joshhuntnm

ziggy53 wrote:

You are much better off "glancing" at the specs, reading several professional reviews and then studying user reviews and samples looking for consistently good comments and good examples.

In the Canon world (I presume your interest), competent lens reviews:

http://photozone.de/canon-eos
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

For user reviews, start here, at the Digital Grin, and do a Google search against the particular lenses you wish to consider. Then do the same for other popular forums.

For examples you may find some here, but you can also go to PBase and look up lenses by manufacturer:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras

do you put much stock in the review at B and H?

joshhuntnm

Scott_Quier wrote:

I gotta jump in here with some points:

• The DOF of the 85mm 1.8 is defined by the aperture used at the time the photo is taken, not the maximim aperture available.

yeah, I understood that. My point was I am surprized how often I use my 1.8 at about 4. Say I am considering two lenses:

24 - 70 2.8 or
24 - 105 f/4 IS

the later is compeling to me because I so often shoot at 4 anyway. the extra focal length seems to outweigh, in my mind, the extra f stop, especially considering the later is IS. IT sounds cool to have a 2.8 lens, but, is it really the better choice?

Another issue for me is that I want to fit this lens into an overall strategy of lenses. perhaps this is the route to go

24 - 105 first

then really wide: 10 -22

then long 70 - 200

and really long

100 - 400

ziggy53

joshhuntnm wrote:

do you put much stock in the review at B and H?

B&H and Adorama have user reviews. You never really know the caliber of people who write the reviews so I would take them with a "grain of salt". If you see a trend or consensus that might mean something.

If you see something written at one of the formal review sites I mentioned and you see users making the same comments, it's probably more than simple opinion.

Take your time and check as many sources of information as you can for a major purchase. It's your money, your time, your decision and ultimately your problem if you make a poor choice, but the opinion we offer here is always worth exactly what you paid for it.

(Naw, really, lot's of good folks here. )

claudermilk

Re: f2.8 vs slower lenses. Yes, it is a big difference. an f4 lens can never get to f2.8, so you cannot get the same shutter speed. IS is not an equivalent. It's a crutch for camera movement. Shutter speed is what stops subject motion (yes, I know I'm beating a dead horse). Anyway my point is f4 + IS <> f2.8.

At f4 the slower lens is wide open & at one of it's least sharp settings; at the same setting, the f2.8 lens is now stopped down a full stop--it's getting into it's sweet spot. IMHO if you're frequently shooting moving subjects in low light, yes it's the better choice.

F2.8 also allows you a narrower DOF if that's what you are after, helping with isolating the subject.

I also happen to think the 24-70 is both plenty sharp and perfectly fine on a crop sensor camera. Horses for courses; I don't presume that my own preferences & needs apply to everyone else.

ziggy53

joshhuntnm wrote:

I am not sure I know what that means.

Some modern dSLR cameras (many nowdays) have "cross type" autofocus sensors at least as the central sensor. A cross type sensor is sensitive to both vertical and horizontal edges for focus.

Some cross sensors are additionally sensitive to lenses of f2.8 apertures or larger, and will work better at lower light levels as well as provide greater focus accuracy with an aperture of f2.8.

The Canon 40D, for instance, has a central sensor that is both cross type and extra sensitivity at f2.8. All 9 autofocus sensors are cross type.

The Canon 1D MKII has 45 AF points and they are of the Area SIR type. This is considered an upgrade over the cross type CT SIR of the 40D.

All autofocus is not created equally.

ChatKat

Rent or Borrow...
I don't even think that opinions are worth everything. You have to TRY them and see what works for your individual style.

See if you can borrow the 24-105 - even for a few hours or rent them. Sometimes a good camera store will let you go in and on site play with them.

A few years ago I went to a PPA Super Monday event where a Wedding Photographer spent the day opening his bags of tricks for us. One thing I walked a way with was that his favorite portrait setting was 4.0 at 40mm 1/40th. F4 i- f5.6 are pretty good for portraits. See what settings you or others have for the images you like best. That will be a good indicator for what glass.

Lovesong

Josh-
If you're after some decent user reviews, you should check out fred miranda's site. Most of the people there know what they are doing (unlike the reviews at B&H or amazon.com), and, for the most part, you can get a good idea of what a lens is good (and not so good at).

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

That being said, the 24-70 is a wonderful lens, and it practically lives on my 5D. I had some back focusing issues with it, but after a quick trip to Irvine, it is dead on (I would say on par with my 50mm 1.4).

joshhuntnm

claudermilk wrote:

Re: f2.8 vs slower lenses. Yes, it is a big difference. an f4 lens can never get to f2.8, so you cannot get the same shutter speed. IS is not an equivalent. It's a crutch for camera movement. Shutter speed is what stops subject motion (yes, I know I'm beating a dead horse). Anyway my point is f4 + IS <> f2.8.

At f4 the slower lens is wide open & at one of it's least sharp settings; at the same setting, the f2.8 lens is now stopped down a full stop--it's getting into it's sweet spot. IMHO if you're frequently shooting moving subjects in low light, yes it's the better choice.

F2.8 also allows you a narrower DOF if that's what you are after, helping with isolating the subject.

I also happen to think the 24-70 is both plenty sharp and perfectly fine on a crop sensor camera. Horses for courses; I don't presume that my own preferences & needs apply to everyone else.

so, here is my learning:
f4 on f4 (max) glass is not as sharp as f4 on 2.8 or 1.8 (etc) glass.

I appreciate all your patience and help. I am learning. The more I learn, the more ignorant I feel.

ziggy53

joshhuntnm wrote:

so, here is my learning:
f4 on f4 (max) glass is not as sharp as f4 on 2.8 or 1.8 (etc) glass.

I appreciate all your patience and help. I am learning. The more I learn, the more ignorant I feel.

Unfortunately while that rule works some of the time, it can vary according to particular lenses so you really need to do some research and, if possible, testing.

Again, sharpness means nothing by itself. You have to consider every aspect of a lens' performance to determine whether a particular lens deserves to be in "your" kit.

Curvilinear distortion, focus hunting, axial accuracy, focus speed, etc. can all conspire to make a "sharp" lens otherwise unusable or undesirable.

ChatKat has some sound advice. You might want to find/rent the lenses in question and do some testing to determine suitability.

JohnBiggs

joshhuntnm wrote:

so, here is my learning:
f4 on f4 (max) glass is not as sharp as f4 on 2.8 or 1.8 (etc) glass.

I appreciate all your patience and help. I am learning. The more I learn, the more ignorant I feel.

Also f4 glass will have a harder time focussing than f2.8glass set to f4.

Focussing uses the widest aperture of the lens.

My point was that so many people get hung up on 2.8 glass. I know I did too. But now after seeing these pros with all those years of experience using crappy lenses, I am starting to question this.

My next lens will be the 24-105 f4 for my wedding work. I'll let you know how it goes when I get it.