I need a new lens Wedding / Portrait / Sport / Landscape Photography Any Suggestions?

Jeremy Winterberg · January 2, 2009

I currently use a Canon XSi and have these lenses: 18-55mm f/3.5 IS, 50mm f/1.8 II, 75-300mm f/4

I know I dont have the most extravagent camera in the world, but its all I could afford, and thinking back I wish I would've gotten the 40D instead, but I didn't know much about DSLR cameras then. (then=October) I've always been good at photography, I just never got serious about it till the past few months, and now I want to take it to the next level... Starting my own Studio!

I need a lens that can be used for Weddings, Portrait sittings, Sports games, and Landscape photography.

When I can afford one, I will be getting one of them fancy new Canon 5D Mark II's. Which means I need something that can work with my XSi and the 5D Mark II. As far as I know all EF lenses work with all the EOS cameras correct?

So, this is what I was thinking of getting, but the price is more than what I can afford, so I wont be getting it for a couple months, since my studio has no clients yet (aka no money there) and my current studio job slows down during January.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=11924#ModelDetailAct

http://www.adorama.com/CA24105AFU.html?searchinfo=24-105&item_no=3

Now, if anyone thinks I should get something else then, go ahead and let me know. I'm not a big fan of Tripods because they're annoying, and I have a cheap one that my camera kinda broke off and fell off of (luckily I caught it before it hit the ground). And so, I need to get me a nice one before I'll use another. Which means, I want Image Stabilization even though it makes the glass like 2x more expensive.

Especially for the wedding stuff... I'll be walking around taking pictures and I need that extra comfort assurance that will remind me that I dont have to be fully worried about it being blurry.

Also, if anyone has used lenses they dont want, I'll be more than gladly to accept them

or for a good deal if you just ABSOLUTELY HAVE to make some money back from it.

Scott_Quier · January 2, 2009

Jeremy,

The short answer is that you are asking for a lot from just one lens. I don't think there is just one lens that will cover all that ground. If you were to remove shooting sports from the list it might be doable in that you can shoot weddings/portraits/landscapes with either of the "first pick" lenses listed below.

If you will be going FF in the very near future, the lens list would be (and in this order)

EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

The 24-70 does not have IS (it would be God's gift if they ever re-work this lens to include IS) but at those focal lengths, IS is not as critical, especiall on a FF camera.

If however, you don't think you will be going FF in the very near future, the list would be:

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

mostly because many people (myself included) find the 24mm to be too restrictive - not wide enough.

When looking at candidate wedding photography lenses, you really need to pay attention to the maximum aperture. You need as much aperture as you can get. An aperture of f/2.8 is about the as slow as you want to go in many situations. I have found that f/4 (on my 24-105 f/4L IS) doesn't allow the lens to focus quickly enough nor is the viewfinder bright enough at many wedding/reception venues. Oh, and variable aperture lenses are not a goodness when shooting in darker environs. One moment you're at f/3.5 and the next, after you zoom in on your subject, you're looking af f/4.5 or f/5.6 - very difficult to shoot under those conditions.

Final comment about IS - it's not the cure-all that many would like it to be. It doesn't solve motion blur caused by subject movement. And, it surely doesn't cure blur caused by poor technique (DAHIK:D). Additionally, when taking an image with an IS enabled lens, you MUST allow the IS system to settle before making the exposure - doing otherwise is guaranteed to result in a blurry image (again, DAKIK

).

Jeremy Winterberg · January 2, 2009

Scott_Quier wrote:

Jeremy,
If however, you don't think you will be going FF in the very near future, the list would be:
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

mostly because many people (myself included) find the 24mm to be too restrictive - not wide enough.

When looking at candidate wedding photography lenses, you really need to pay attention to the maximum aperture. You need as much aperture as you can get. An aperture of f/2.8 is about the as slow as you want to go in many situations. I have found that f/4 (on my 24-105 f/4L IS) doesn't allow the lens to focus quickly enough nor is the viewfinder bright enough at many wedding/reception venues. Oh, and variable aperture lenses are not a goodness when shooting in darker environs. One moment you're at f/3.5 and the next, after you zoom in on your subject, you're looking af f/4.5 or f/5.6 - very difficult to shoot under those conditions.

Thanks Scott,
yeah, well considering I just got my XSi in October, I wont be getting the 5D for a LONG time. aka long enough that there will be an even better camera. Unless I get a bunch of business to the point that I can afford it, it wont be for a very long time.

and, no I dont really need it for sports, I just would've liked to have a lens that could. but I have my telephoto... it may be crappy, but it works. It took decent pictures at the packer game I went to. And most of the blurriness is self error, being as I only had the camera a day prior to the game. (one of the reasons why I got it)

So I guess my next lens is gonna be the 17-55mm f/2.8 unless someone else has a better lens they could think of?

DoctorIt · January 2, 2009

I'm moving this over to the gear discussion forum.

When you know exactly what you're looking for, come on back with a "WTB"

Jeremy Winterberg · January 2, 2009

DoctorIt wrote:

I'm moving this over to the gear discussion forum.

When you know exactly what you're looking for, come on back with a "WTB"

Sorry, I was kinda hoping someone would offer a used one for sale, but this is good too.

DoctorIt · January 2, 2009

Jeremy Winterberg wrote:

Sorry, I was kinda hoping someone would offer a used one for sale, but this is good too.

No worries, it's just that reading is hard in the flea market. Go right ahead and post a WTB now! While we don't discourage discussion in the flea market, highly detailed (read: wordy) discussions get moved over here.

(it's not a big deal, just housekeeping)

Scott_Quier · January 2, 2009

Jeremy Winterberg wrote:

Thanks Scott,
yeah, well considering I just got my XSi in October, I wont be getting the 5D for a LONG time. aka long enough that there will be an even better camera. Unless I get a bunch of business to the point that I can afford it, it wont be for a very long time.

and, no I dont really need it for sports, I just would've liked to have a lens that could. but I have my telephoto... it may be crappy, but it works. It took decent pictures at the packer game I went to. And most of the blurriness is self error, being as I only had the camera a day prior to the game. (one of the reasons why I got it)

So I guess my next lens is gonna be the 17-55mm f/2.8 unless someone else has a better lens they could think of?

In that case, if you can afford it, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is the way to go (IMNSHO

). If you can't pony up the $$ and you need it sooner rather than later, both Sigma and Tamron have competing lenses - though they don't have the IS technologies. divamum just bought herself the Tamrom 17-50 f/2.8 and has posted some images here.

Jeremy Winterberg · January 2, 2009

Would the Tamron AF17-50mm F/2.8 Di-II LD Aspherical Lens be comparable to the Canon 17-55mm IS?

Only reason I ask is because its about $500 cheaper

and I have a low budget right now.:cry

Jeremy Winterberg · January 2, 2009

I guess we were thinking the same thing, you just beat me to posting it. well... I guess I'll seriously look for a Tamron one, because I really like what that guy did with an XTi and a tamron lens. although they were taken with a different one than we are discussing...

anyways, i'm off to take pictures in my freezer of a town. -1F right now. I need to take pictures for this week's assignment. Get my paycheck and then see what my true budget is.

Scott_Quier · January 2, 2009

Jeremy Winterberg wrote:

I guess we were thinking the same thing, you just beat me to posting it. well... I guess I'll seriously look for a Tamron one, because I really like what that guy did with an XTi and a tamron lens. although they were taken with a different one than we are discussing...

anyways, i'm off to take pictures in my freezer of a town. -1F right now. I need to take pictures for this week's assignment. Get my paycheck and then see what my true budget is.

You need to remember that lenses from a given manufacturer each have their own personality, strengths, and weaknesses. You can't judge one lens based on what you see from another.

Take a look at these two posts (here) and (here) for examples from the Tamron 17-50.

sherijohnson · January 2, 2009

Just wanted to chime in and say I found this thread helpful too. I was already looking for feedback on some of the 3rd party lenses, but I won't buy anything unless I get some feedback on the abilities and results of these lenses.

I am also interested in any feedback on 70-200 f2.8 lenses that are 3rd party. My full intention would be to work my way up to "L" glass, but wondering if I might do well to buy something else till I have some strong bookings. I thought about renting, but at the same time, I think I would benefit by having lenses I can work with full time.

Jeremy Winterberg · January 2, 2009

Ok, so I went to my work (Photography Studio / Camera Shop / Mini Lab) and I looked at the lenses we have. We carry a different offbrand called ProMaster. And I got the 17-50mm f/2.8 lens for $220 with my employee discount. Not bad eh? Normally $280. but alot better than $500 for the tamron and WAAAY better than $1000 for the Canon. Which only zooms in a little farther and has IS...

I'm happy now. I was talking to a guy I work with, and he's been in the photography biz since the 70's, a wedding photographer for 15 of those years, and he said that he mainly used 28-200 or 300 lenses (telephoto lenses) so I guess I'll be using both my new lens which I'm in love with, and my crappy 70-300mm f/4 telephoto.

Thanks for the advice Scott!

On an even better note, I got my first wedding booked. June 19th, 2010. A lil ways away, but I dont care! I know June 19th, 2010 is Payday for me. I'll post some pics taken with my new lens soon...

Scott_Quier · January 2, 2009

Congratulations on your purchase. I hope you have lots of fun with it. I would love to see some of your shots as you become comfortable with posting them.

Jeremy Winterberg · January 3, 2009

wow, ok I'm pretty much sick of the lighting in my house. Everything looks orange from the incandescents. (not in the pictures in real life) And so I am very picky at what I take pictures of.

The last picture in this post is really bad for a few reasons. A. I was using a white towel as a backdrop (REALLY need to get some canvas so I can start taking portrait sitting appointments, already have people wanting me to do theirs) B. My backlight was one of those huge garage industrial heat lamp things... the ones that fry everything you point them at because they're so bright? and C. I could'n't get the room completely dark because of the light.

Following pictures taken with a Canon XSi using a ProMaster 17-50mm f/2.8 Lens

#1: 50mm, 1/60s at f/4 ISO 400 with Flash Pointing 90 Degrees Up with Catchlight out

#2: 30mm, 1/1000s at f/4 ISO 400, no flash

#3: 17mm, 1/200 at f/2.8, ISO 400, no flash

I need a new lens Wedding / Portrait / Sport / Landscape Photography Any Suggestions?

Comments