First fast prime for weddings & portraits

Hi all!

To set the scene: I've been working with zoom lenses for the past 3 years (24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f4 IS). Although, I admire the look of photo's taken with a fast prime lens, being f1.2 or f1.4, the nice bokeh, the thin DOF which gets the attention to the subject...

So, I am looking for my first prime lens, which I'll use for weddings and portraits, but I don't know which one. I already have the 50mm f1.8, but the quality isn't perfect, not sharp wide open and no nice bokeh.

Therefore, I'm doubting on following combinations:

- Get the sigma 35mm f1.4, and maybe canon 85mm f1.8 as well, afterwards I can still get the 135mm, or;

- Get the canon 50mm f1.4, buy canon 100mm macro afterwards, possibly get the 24mm later as well.

I don't have a huge budget, so the expensive lenses above 1200 EUR/USD are out for the moment... When I look at which focal lengths I use most, there is no clear winner between 35mm range or 50mm range. 35mm gets used more during preparation, party, the 50mm more during portraits, ceremony, etc.

Thank you so much for your advice, experiences, comments!

Best regards!

--
5DIII - 24-70 f2.8 - 70-200 f4 L IS - 50mm f1.8 - 580EXII

For weddings with canon FF the 85 1.8 is nice though a little long for groups, I also have the 50 2.5 macro in my bag for rings, menus etc. The 24-105 f4 gets most use, with the 70-200 2.8 a close second.

I am not a wedding photographer, but, have shot at weddings and other events.

Personally 35mm and 85mm are my favorite two focal lengths for primes. Especially if I have two bodies to have both of them at the ready.

So I really like your idea of going Sigma 35mm and 85/1.8.

I personally don't shoot 50mm enough to want to go there, especially if I have a 35mm and 85mm.

Just to clarify...

Your goal is to get a lens with terrible depth of field, so you can have fuzzy backgrounds, when you take pictures of people at social events, at weddings, and for portraits worth framing and hanging on the wall or putting on a desk. And you're willing to spend lots of money, but still significantly under a thousand dollars or Euros.

Right?

Assuming you have clients who like pictures with only part of their wife, son, daughter, husband, grandchild, grandparent, themselves sharp, you have the choice of trying to create this intentional fuzziness just using your camera, or afterwards, using a computer.

Or you can put a skylight or UV filter on a lens, run your finger over your nose, and smear some nose oil on the edges of the filter, so the edges are fuzzy but the face is sharp.

But assuming your heart is set on a new lens... the focal length to choose would depend in part on the format of the camera, which you don't describe.

BUT THEORY SAYS if you want fuzzy photos due to terrible depth of field created by shooting wide open, you are better off taking pictures of individuals because you can at least partially control where the tiny area of sharpness lands.

If you photograph one head, at f1.4, that's turned slightly, you'll need to pick which eye you want sharp. That's fairly hard (accomplishing the sharpness, not picking the eye. The eye is usually the nearest one.)

If you put two heads side by side at f1.4, it is much, much harder to get one eye on each head sharp.

Now, if the goal is sharp baby eye and fuzzy baby head and fuzzy mommy head, you'll be OK.

But more often than not, if the goal is mostly fuzzy heads, it should be mostly fuzzy heads one at a time, and that calls for a short telephoto.

For a so-called full frame Canon, the best bet is the Canon 100mm f2 lens.

For a so-called crop Canon, the best bet is a Tamron 60mm f2, or the 50mm f1.8 you already have (apply skill is selecting your background). Do not buy anything shorter than 50mm.

The 60mm f2.8 Canon macro is a wonderful head and shoulders lens, but it may not be extreme enough.

BAK

BAK said:

BAK wrote:

Just to clarify...

Your goal is to get a lens with terrible depth of field, so you can have fuzzy backgrounds, when you take pictures of people at social events, at weddings, and for portraits worth framing and hanging on the wall or putting on a desk. And you're willing to spend lots of money, but still significantly under a thousand dollars or Euros.

Right?

Assuming you have clients who like pictures with only part of their wife, son, daughter, husband, grandchild, grandparent, themselves sharp, you have the choice of trying to create this intentional fuzziness just using your camera, or afterwards, using a computer.

Or you can put a skylight or UV filter on a lens, run your finger over your nose, and smear some nose oil on the edges of the filter, so the edges are fuzzy but the face is sharp.

Click to expand...

You mean pics like these?





Let me know if you want more examples of "terrible DOF" -- I got tons of them.

Great wedding photography is more about the treatment & style than depth of field check out this fantastic wedding & portrait photographer from NZ stunning work & very simple but I think very cool http://www.danellebohane.com/category/weddings/

MrMagic4 said:

- Get the sigma 35mm f1.4, and maybe canon 85mm f1.8 as well, afterwards I can still get the 135mm, or;

Click to expand...

That's the way I'd go - I have the 85 and the sigma 50 and they are both great lenses. This is a better combination for me but the 35 allows you do do the wide environmental shots as well which are great for weddings.

If you consider the sigma, take a very good look at the canon 35 f/2 usm either.

Learn to use the 35mm to its full advantage and you will neither need a 85 nor 50 for anything than the portraits. You may have to leave your comfort zone though and be quick on your feed. For the portaits shooting a 70-200/2.8 is fine or a fast 85.

And pray (or dance) for good light!

-Armin

The 35/85 combo has been popular for a long time for this kind of work. Also taking 2 camera bodies is generally considered a requirement. Doing that you could have 35 on one body and 85 on the other until/unless one fails.

The Sigma 35 f1.4 and Canon 35 f2 IS both look great, hard choice but either should be excellent.

For 85mm it's up to budget, really, canon 85 f1.8 is cheapest, the Sigma 85 f1.4 is medium priced and quite well reviewed by wedding photographers, stacking up well against the monster, the Canon 85 f1.2, which is out of your stated price range.

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Great Bustard said:

BAK wrote:

Just to clarify...

Your goal is to get a lens with terrible depth of field, so you can have fuzzy backgrounds, when you take pictures of people at social events, at weddings, and for portraits worth framing and hanging on the wall or putting on a desk. And you're willing to spend lots of money, but still significantly under a thousand dollars or Euros.

Right?

Assuming you have clients who like pictures with only part of their wife, son, daughter, husband, grandchild, grandparent, themselves sharp, you have the choice of trying to create this intentional fuzziness just using your camera, or afterwards, using a computer.

Or you can put a skylight or UV filter on a lens, run your finger over your nose, and smear some nose oil on the edges of the filter, so the edges are fuzzy but the face is sharp.

Click to expand...

You mean pics like these?

Let me know if you want more examples of "terrible DOF" -- I got tons of them.

Click to expand...

Judging from FOD and AOV this was probably f/2.8 or even f/4? Please enlighten us...

To a whole generation of young women growing up with camera phones, photos with shallow DOF pop out and immediately grab their attentions. These future brides are your customers. Now, wedding photographers cater to them. I have met many 20-something female photographers weighted down by their collections of 24L, 35L 50L & 85L.


50L on a 5dMk3

Their portfolios look great, with ~20% of the shots using shallow DoF, none of them group shots. I think they look good in a coffee table album. I agree with you that they are tiresome hanging on walls after a few months.

Personally, I dislike shallow DOF. Masters of the old days struggled to get enough DOF on their sheet film to keep everything sharp. To me, there are other ways to isolate your subjects than selective focus. DOF may be the easiest / fastest way to do so in a fast pace wedding. But I think the need to swap lens negates some of this advantage.

--
Peter Kwok
Click here for my PBase gallery
WYSIWYG - If you don't like what you get, try to see differently.

Armin Hermann said:

Armin Hermann wrote:

Armin Hermann said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Armin Hermann said:

BAK wrote:

Just to clarify...

Your goal is to get a lens with terrible depth of field, so you can have fuzzy backgrounds, when you take pictures of people at social events, at weddings, and for portraits worth framing and hanging on the wall or putting on a desk. And you're willing to spend lots of money, but still significantly under a thousand dollars or Euros.

Right?

Assuming you have clients who like pictures with only part of their wife, son, daughter, husband, grandchild, grandparent, themselves sharp, you have the choice of trying to create this intentional fuzziness just using your camera, or afterwards, using a computer.

Or you can put a skylight or UV filter on a lens, run your finger over your nose, and smear some nose oil on the edges of the filter, so the edges are fuzzy but the face is sharp.

Click to expand...

You mean pics like these?

Let me know if you want more examples of "terrible DOF" -- I got tons of them.

Click to expand...

Judging from FOD and AOV this was probably f/2.8 or even f/4? Please enlighten us...

Click to expand...

Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/50, ISO 800.

Peter Kwok said:

Peter Kwok wrote:

To a whole generation of young women growing up with camera phones, photos with shallow DOF pop out and immediately grab their attentions. These future brides are your customers. Now, wedding photographers cater to them. I have met many 20-something female photographers weighted down by their collections of 24L, 35L 50L & 85L.

50L on a 5dMk3

Their portfolios look great, with ~20% of the shots using shallow DoF, none of them group shots. I think they look good in a coffee table album. I agree with you that they are tiresome hanging on walls after a few months.

Personally, I dislike shallow DOF. Masters of the old days struggled to get enough DOF on their sheet film to keep everything sharp. To me, there are other ways to isolate your subjects than selective focus. DOF may be the easiest / fastest way to do so in a fast pace wedding. But I think the need to swap lens negates some of this advantage.

Click to expand...

...how things people dislike are often fads. Well, let's give a few more examples of faddish shots you don't like:


Canon 6D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/1.4, 1/2000, ISO 100


Canon 6D + Sigma 35 / 1.4 + CPL @ f/1.4, 1/1600, ISO 100


Canon 6D + Canon 200 / 2.8L + CPL @ f/2.8, 1/4000, ISO 100


Canon 6D + Canon 200 / 2.8L + CPL @ f/2.8, 1/1600, ISO 100


Canon 6D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/1.4, 1/160, ISO 200

Did you note the faddish B&W conversion on two of them? It's not 'cause I "struggle with color" like so many of the masters must have due to the plethora of their B&W pics, but 'cause I liked them better that way. Kinda like shallow DOF, now that I think about it.

oops. I thought it was a 85mm. Well done.

Armin Hermann said:

Marcos Villaroman wrote:

Personally 35mm and 85mm are my favorite two focal lengths for primes. Especially if I have two bodies to have both of them at the ready.

So I really like your idea of going Sigma 35mm and 85/1.8.

I personally don't shoot 50mm enough to want to go there, especially if I have a 35mm and 85mm.

Click to expand...

For reasons of spreading focal lengths, I was thinking of having both 35mm and 85mm. However, I'm still doubting on getting which set; eg:

- 28mm, 50mm, 100mm

- 35mm, 85mm, 135mm

Difficult!

Armin Hermann said:

BAK wrote:

Just to clarify...

Your goal is to get a lens with terrible depth of field

Click to expand...

To me, DOF can't be terrible, it is shallow or small, or large...

Armin Hermann said:

But assuming your heart is set on a new lens... the focal length to choose would depend in part on the format of the camera, which you don't describe.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry for not describing my camera, it was in my signature, but still: I'm using a 5DmkIII, and on a wedding day, I'm taking a back-up 650D/Rebel with me as well.

What you say can maybe be true: I might be focused to much on a new lens... Below the next quote, I mention my inspiration, people I look at and admire. If I don't need a fast aperture lens to establish the same look and feel, I might need to be convinced of this

Armin Hermann said:

jackpro wrote:

Great wedding photography is more about the treatment & style than depth of field check out this fantastic wedding & portrait photographer from NZ stunning work & very simple but I think very cool http://www.danellebohane.com/category/weddings/

Click to expand...

Great pictures! Thanks for sharing, although these are not my immediate admired style of photography. My inspiration, and thus the look & feel I want to create in my pictures, comes from following photographers:

- In first place Lindsay London: Link

- Also Trevor Dayley: Link

- A bit different style but also inspiration: Jasmine Star Link

They all primarily use fast prime lenses and use them wide open.

Armin Hermann said:

Armin Hermann wrote:

Learn to use the 35mm to its full advantage and you will neither need a 85 nor 50 for anything than the portraits. You may have to leave your comfort zone though and be quick on your feed. For the portaits shooting a 70-200/2.8 is fine or a fast 85.

And pray (or dance) for good light!

-Armin

Click to expand...

Speaking of leaving my comfort zone, that's exactly what I want. Currently I take good pictures, but I always use my 24-70 on f3.5 or f4, as the sharpness at f2.8 isn't great. Therefore I want to further improve my photography, get out of my comfort zone and learn new things. Based on the tips I learn from my 'inspiration photographers' mentioned above, I'm pointing on a fast prime lens.

Armin Hermann said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Did you note the faddish B&W conversion on two of them? It's not 'cause I "struggle with color" like so many of the masters must have due to the plethora of their B&W pics, but 'cause I liked them better that way. Kinda like shallow DOF, now that I think about it.

Click to expand...

Great pictures!

--
5DIII - 24-70 f2.8 - 70-200 f4 L IS - 50mm f1.8 - 580EXII

If you work your way up from fast longer lenses for shallow DOF portraits you'll gather the courage to get close with a 35/1.4 eventually.

Armin Hermann said:

Learn to use the 35mm to its full advantage and you will neither need a 85 nor 50 for anything than the portraits. You may have to leave your comfort zone though and be quick on your feed.

Click to expand...

I understand being quick on your feet but could you explain your statement "learn to use the 35 to it's full advantage"?

Currently, I'm thinking the decision is made: I'll go for the Sigma 85mm f1.4, as it gets good reviews (just the AF has to be a good copy). I'll probably also go for the sigma 35mm f1.4.

Why: 35 = general purpose, 85mm = definite portrait range, and also, there is no real 'good budget' 50mm, being the sigma with focus issues, the 50mm 1.4 isn't sharp until f2, and the 50mm 1.2 is very expensive.

Afterwards, I can still get the 100 or 135

--

5DIII - 24-70 f2.8 - 70-200 f4 L IS - 50mm f1.8 - 580EXII

I generally shoot events with two full frame bodies - one with 35L, the other with 85L.

I would say that since you already have the wonderful 24-70L, you could generally do without the 35mm prime. It's a tradeoff to lose two stops, but zooms do have versatility and the wider lens is generally for shooting groups (where f/1.4 is sometimes too shallow). That shallow DOF you are looking for is a function of focal length as well as aperture. So f/1.4 (e.g.) at 35mm is quite different than it is at 85mm, and my pretty wow-everything-else-is-blurry shots are pretty much always with my 85mm.

As for 135mm, while I have seen beautiful work with the 135mm f/2, I haven't found much use for a lens that long. I just crop my 85mm shots for a similar effect - there are plenty of pixels left over.

The prime nay-sayers in this thread seem to be skipping the fact that aperture is adjustable... when I need it, I can stop down. But that is not needed nearly as often as some seem to be saying. I can shoot 2-3 people just fine at wide apertures if I pay a bit of attention. Further, while a prime can have the same aperture as a zoom, the opposite is not true. So primes can shoot in ways a zoom simply cannot.

Sure, shallow DOF can be a bit of a crutch to cover up sins of composition. But it also isolates the subject in a way which is beautiful when used properly - and at a wedding, you want the shots to highlight the bride/groom that way sometimes. In a dimly lit room, a prime + 5D3 can nail some amazing ambient light shots. And frankly, if the client likes the effect of shallow DOF (and many do), then give 'em what they want!

The Sigma 50 is quite good, the biggest focus issue is that people are unwilling to send it in for calibration. I get that it's not great, but they fixed mine pretty well without hassle. I still think 85mm is a better portrait focal length though.