Scrapdiggs
Member
If you only had 2, what would you take? Heres the kicker.... no lense over $500
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Best 2 lenses for Wedding photography??
- Thread starter Scrapdiggs
- Start date
Tinker Photo
Forum Enthusiast
28-135 IS and the 50mm 1.8
just my opinion
--
Clint Smith
Tinker Photography
If God is love, and love is blind . . . Ray Charles must be God!
Teski
Forum Pro
Why two lenses in the same range?
Teski
Teski
'Remember that DSLR bodies come and go, but the lenses stay forever.'
Teski
--
Teski
'Remember that DSLR bodies come and go, but the lenses stay forever.'
Tinker Photo
Forum Enthusiast
well that little 50 works wonders in low light. I know you cant reach out a touch somebody with it, but I have used it in wedding for the past two years and have been VERY happy with it.
also the 28-135 IS will give you a little wiggle room when doing the group shots. It is alot easier to stand in one spot and adjust the zoom in a church full of pews than it is to move yourself and your gear. Plus with the IS lens on the second body (important note)you can run and gun, with one body dangeling while shooting with the other and vice versa.
and both lenses work good under low light, and he said under $500.
--
Clint Smith
Tinker Photography
If God is love, and love is blind . . . Ray Charles must be God!
M
Michael Thomas Mitchell
Guest
I'm curious what you're going to be shooting at f5.6 with IS that you won't be capturing with the f1.8.... seems like a redundancy at best. If you've got the 1.8, you're going to be using it for the low light stuff. Why do you need the IS? For the formals? For the reception? All of those are with flash, right? So what's the IS for? At f5.6, if you try shooting ceremony shots, even a moderately bright church will have you at 1/30 and ISO 1600. And EVEN IF you used the IS for low light shots... that leaves us swapping lenses back and forth without much reason.
And is 28 really going to get you a large group shot? With a 1.6x multiplier? The long end is nice, but not necessary for formals.
With the 28-135 and a 50 1.8, you're left with two lenses that are geared for low light work... but one is simply too dark, and the other is a fixed focal length. And the two together still don't accomodate a wide angle for large groups.
To the original post...
I don't believe in just throwing money at a problem, but $500 is a pathetic budget for a set of lenses that need to be everything. I've certainly shot entire weddings using just a single 24-85, which can be had for about 75% of your total, but I definately carry more than that for when it's needed.
Is this a hypothetical challenge, or do you really need to purchase all your wedding lenses for under $500? If you do, then I suppose backup equipment (a complete set) is probably non-existent, right?
This post has me worried...
M
And is 28 really going to get you a large group shot? With a 1.6x multiplier? The long end is nice, but not necessary for formals.
With the 28-135 and a 50 1.8, you're left with two lenses that are geared for low light work... but one is simply too dark, and the other is a fixed focal length. And the two together still don't accomodate a wide angle for large groups.
To the original post...
I don't believe in just throwing money at a problem, but $500 is a pathetic budget for a set of lenses that need to be everything. I've certainly shot entire weddings using just a single 24-85, which can be had for about 75% of your total, but I definately carry more than that for when it's needed.
Is this a hypothetical challenge, or do you really need to purchase all your wedding lenses for under $500? If you do, then I suppose backup equipment (a complete set) is probably non-existent, right?
This post has me worried...
M
Eric Lamont
Veteran Member
--
Eric Lamont
http://www.pbase.com/elamont
Remember yesterday... Live today... Dream about tomorrow...
Tinker Photo
Forum Enthusiast
well the 17-35 is nowhere near his price range . . .yes most will be used with flash, but he asked for two lenes.
I agree backup is non probably non existant, which bothers me, but if this is a family member and he needs something quick, these two lenses are quite nice and he can get both for under 500.
just trying to be helpful.
--
Clint Smith
Tinker Photography
If God is love, and love is blind . . . Ray Charles must be God!
Tinker Photo
Forum Enthusiast
!
16-35
--
Clint Smith
Tinker Photography
If God is love, and love is blind . . . Ray Charles must be God!
J
JamesM
Guest
28-135 IS OR Tokina 28-70 F2.6 to 2.8 or the 28-80 F2.8 - all three lenses are very well reputed. I keep the 28-135 IS as a back up for my 28-70 F2.8 - it is a very good lens - but I found it very slow - particularly when coupled with my old D60. I think the Tokina will give you the aperture and low light focus ability you want - and it is very sharp after F5.6. At F2.8, most people consider it to be the lens to buy if you cannot afford the 24-70 F2.8 L
Either 20-35 F3.5-4.5 or Sigma 15-30 F3.5-4.5.
I have had both lenses and greatly perferred the 20-35 but it was not wide enough. THe Sigma 15-30 is sharp but the focus motors are slow and it is noisy. It is a great lens for the money though and is very sharp.
BTW, with the money saved from both lenses, I would purchase the 50 F1.8. IT is great for wonderful DOF tricks.
-JM
http://www.MasterworkPhotography.com
Either 20-35 F3.5-4.5 or Sigma 15-30 F3.5-4.5.
I have had both lenses and greatly perferred the 20-35 but it was not wide enough. THe Sigma 15-30 is sharp but the focus motors are slow and it is noisy. It is a great lens for the money though and is very sharp.
BTW, with the money saved from both lenses, I would purchase the 50 F1.8. IT is great for wonderful DOF tricks.
-JM
--
http://www.MasterworkPhotography.com
Scrapdiggs
Member
read subject line...
Peter Wagner
Leading Member
You write that neither lens should be more than $500.
I'd counter that a better restriction should be that your TOTAL lens cost should be below $1000. That means you might get just 1 lens (24-70L), or a zoom + prime (28-135 IS USM + ???), or you might even get 3 or 4 primes.
A very important question is: what camera body? Imporant for 2 reasons: some digital SLR's have a big "crop factor" that plays with the "effective" focal length AND if you're spending mega dollars on a body you should ALSO be spending mega dollars on the lenses. Example: you might be better off spending $3000 on lenses for a 10D than $1000 on lenses for a 1D even if the total expense is the same.
If you have a 10D, then the 1.6x crop plays a VERY important factor in lens selection. Also, if you are paying $1500 for the body, you might consider $1500 or even $2500 for your lenses. If you had a $1500 lens budget, you could try something like: 20mm prime, 24-70L, 70-200L f/4.
If you have a 1D, then you should be looking at at least $2500 for lenses. See previous paragraph for lenses. With a 1.3x crop, you might not find the 20mm very useful. Those dollars could go into upgrading the 70-200L to the 2.8 IS model.
If you have a "chemical camera" then what are you doing using a computer!!!!??!
I'd counter that a better restriction should be that your TOTAL lens cost should be below $1000. That means you might get just 1 lens (24-70L), or a zoom + prime (28-135 IS USM + ???), or you might even get 3 or 4 primes.
A very important question is: what camera body? Imporant for 2 reasons: some digital SLR's have a big "crop factor" that plays with the "effective" focal length AND if you're spending mega dollars on a body you should ALSO be spending mega dollars on the lenses. Example: you might be better off spending $3000 on lenses for a 10D than $1000 on lenses for a 1D even if the total expense is the same.
If you have a 10D, then the 1.6x crop plays a VERY important factor in lens selection. Also, if you are paying $1500 for the body, you might consider $1500 or even $2500 for your lenses. If you had a $1500 lens budget, you could try something like: 20mm prime, 24-70L, 70-200L f/4.
If you have a 1D, then you should be looking at at least $2500 for lenses. See previous paragraph for lenses. With a 1.3x crop, you might not find the 20mm very useful. Those dollars could go into upgrading the 70-200L to the 2.8 IS model.
If you have a "chemical camera" then what are you doing using a computer!!!!??!
riokid
Senior Member
The 24-85 on one body with flash. The 24 would come in handy for group shots.
I like the 85/1.8 (on another body with or without flash) for long reach candids and also for portraits (3/4 body, b&g). If money is no object, I would go 85/1.2. A little slow in focusing but delivers even under adverse lighting.
Maybe about 2 cents worth . . .
Blessed are those who expect nothing . . .
for they shall not be disappointed.
I like the 85/1.8 (on another body with or without flash) for long reach candids and also for portraits (3/4 body, b&g). If money is no object, I would go 85/1.2. A little slow in focusing but delivers even under adverse lighting.
Maybe about 2 cents worth . . .
--
Blessed are those who expect nothing . . .
for they shall not be disappointed.
Frank Nichols
Senior Member
I must not be up in my sleep! The 24-70L is $1300 by itself, the 70-200/f4L is another what $700? I would recommend the Sigma 70-200/2.8 (a bot over buget at $600-$700) and a Tokina 28-70/2.8 at abotut $450.
Of course the 50/1.8 is a must have in every bag.
A wide is nice for special shots and large groups, but you can live for a while covering the 28-200 range with teh two above.
Frank
Someday I will take a good photograph - until then I will blame my equipment.
Of course the 50/1.8 is a must have in every bag.
A wide is nice for special shots and large groups, but you can live for a while covering the 28-200 range with teh two above.
Frank
--You write that neither lens should be more than $500.
I'd counter that a better restriction should be that your TOTAL
lens cost should be below $1000. That means you might get just 1
lens (24-70L), or a zoom + prime (28-135 IS USM + ???), or you
might even get 3 or 4 primes.
A very important question is: what camera body? Imporant for 2
reasons: some digital SLR's have a big "crop factor" that plays
with the "effective" focal length AND if you're spending mega
dollars on a body you should ALSO be spending mega dollars on the
lenses. Example: you might be better off spending $3000 on lenses
for a 10D than $1000 on lenses for a 1D even if the total expense
is the same.
If you have a 10D, then the 1.6x crop plays a VERY important factor
in lens selection. Also, if you are paying $1500 for the body, you
might consider $1500 or even $2500 for your lenses. If you had a
$1500 lens budget, you could try something like: 20mm prime,
24-70L, 70-200L f/4.
If you have a 1D, then you should be looking at at least $2500 for
lenses. See previous paragraph for lenses. With a 1.3x crop, you
might not find the 20mm very useful. Those dollars could go into
upgrading the 70-200L to the 2.8 IS model.
If you have a "chemical camera" then what are you doing using a
computer!!!!??!
Someday I will take a good photograph - until then I will blame my equipment.
j-a-s-o-n
Senior Member
Scrapdiggs:
Adam-T hangs out there; he should be able to make the best suggestions.
--
Jason
Adam-T hangs out there; he should be able to make the best suggestions.
--
Jason
Adam-T
Forum Pro
If you were doing Weddings as a business I'd not want to be restricted to NEW lenses below 500 US dollars , though knowing the USA's "Lenses on the cheap with no Tax" policy and B&H's open box sales that could mean a 24-70L , 17-40L or 70-200L IS !!! LOL ..
If I was restricted by £500 UK for each , I'd go for an old 28-80L F2,8-4 and a Sigma 15-30EX unless I could get a 17-40L shipped in from HK on the cheap and find a tatty 28-70L for that money..
Personally I'd rather not be the main photographer at a wedding with such restrictions, I don't do weddings myself --- but all being well (with the marriage that is) , the photos you take should provide warming memories for the couple way into their retirement, you want to give them the best..
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
..Zero..to..Shot..Taken..in..16,000th..of..a..second----> EOS 1D
The No1 Dedicated 1D forum in the UK -------->
http://www.1dforum.co.uk/php/phpBB2/
If I was restricted by £500 UK for each , I'd go for an old 28-80L F2,8-4 and a Sigma 15-30EX unless I could get a 17-40L shipped in from HK on the cheap and find a tatty 28-70L for that money..
Personally I'd rather not be the main photographer at a wedding with such restrictions, I don't do weddings myself --- but all being well (with the marriage that is) , the photos you take should provide warming memories for the couple way into their retirement, you want to give them the best..
--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist
..Zero..to..Shot..Taken..in..16,000th..of..a..second----> EOS 1D
The No1 Dedicated 1D forum in the UK -------->
http://www.1dforum.co.uk/php/phpBB2/
Newk
Senior Member
The Tamron 28-105 f2.8 is a nice lens that I've used for 100+ weddings and can be picked up for close to $500. (Note: if it's used it may need a firmware upgrade for digitals.)
If you're shooting full frame I'd pick a 70-200 f4 for my second lens; 1.3x or 1.6x crop and I'd pick the 20-35mm USM for my second lens.
If you're shooting full frame I'd pick a 70-200 f4 for my second lens; 1.3x or 1.6x crop and I'd pick the 20-35mm USM for my second lens.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum