Reading mode: Light Dark

Your fav wedding lens

Go to last post
Kate Groundwater said:
So with the cropping in mind what would then be ideal?. Also what are your thoughts on the 85 1.8?
Click to expand...
I guess the canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS EFS is the 1.6x crop body equivalent. It has the equivalent field of view and it is an f/2.8 lens.

As with most primes, the 85mm f/1.8 is a fantastic one trick pony. In its range it can't be beat, but if the subject is too close, you are going to be stuck with a head shot, or worse a nose and eye! I would not take just the 85mm f/1.8 to a wedding. If you want to go that route you are going to need a wider angle lens, say in the 28mm range and another camera body. Shooting with two primes is fun and inspirational and the image quality is fantastic, but it is challenging and difficult!

Just to be clear, all of this discussion is "what if" What if you could pick the best weddings lens.

I have shot a couple of weddings and I use the lenses I have on hand for regular photography. I shoot them with canon 17-40 f/4 L. Yes, it is a slow f/4 but this is real life and budget is not unlimited. I only shoot about three weddings a year. The rest of the time I shoot landscapes and family. I also use my 50mm f/1.8 for weddings. I have added a 100mm f/2.8 and will use that next time too.

Cheers!

Here is a couple wedding pictures I have taken, both with the 17-40 f/4 L. If you know you are not going to get subject isolation, take care with your background!





--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.
 
Kate

I think that a LOT about your choice of lens has to do with your STYLE of photography and what BODY you're using. For example, the 24-70 L is a popular choice, and the most cited reason is typically the fast 2.8 aperture and shallow depth of field. But that doesn't mean the lens is for everyone. Someone who uses a lot of flash (not uncommon for weddings) can afford to stop down a little and catch the action. Also, not everyone is terribly good at shooting at f2.8 ... that extremely shallow DOF means that focus MUST be spot on. Not an easy task. In addition, even this lens on a cropped body will have less wide angle range and greater DOF than with a full-frame. Finally, the lack of IS may require higher ISOs, all other things being equal.

So, what about the 24-105 L? Well, the first thing that 24-70 users will say is that it is "only" an f4 lens. Only? Hmmm... that's about 2/3 of one stop. I don't have a DOF calculator, but I do wonder how that translates into the effect of DOF when using a 24-70 on a cropped body vs a 24-105 on a 1.3x or full-frame body. And how many shots will the IS save compared to no IS? Want the same shutter speed? Is 2/3 stop increase in ISO really too much? And finally, what about that longer focal range. Even on similar bodies, how would a portrait made at 70mm and f2.8 compared to one made at 105mm and f4?

I pose a lot questions here rather than answers because there is no single answer. Frankly, if I were shooting a cropped camera, I wouldn't choose either of these lenses. But with a 1D-series camera, I prefer the 24-15. On the other hand, I'm not one of those who depends on ambient light and shallow DOF. (If I want shallow DOF, I just use a standard 50mm, and adding a 1.4x TC if I need a mild telephoto, which results in a 70mm reach at 1/3 stop less than the 24-70 f2.8... for a fraction of the cost!)

Best of luck
Kate Groundwater said:
Hi All,

If you could take only one Canon lens to a wedding, what would it be and why?

xx
Click to expand...
--
Michael Thomas Mitchell
 
CityLights said:
CityLights said:
So with the cropping in mind what would then be ideal?. Also what are your thoughts on the 85 1.8?
Click to expand...
As with most primes, the 85mm f/1.8 is a fantastic one trick pony. In its range it can't be beat,
Click to expand...
Well, it can be beaten, just not at the price. The 85 f1.2 is even better at, what, 4x the price...

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
Kate
Click to expand...
Member said:
So, what about the 24-105 L? Well, the first thing that 24-70 users will say is that it is "only" an f4 lens. Only? Hmmm... that's about 2/3 of one stop. I don't have a DOF calculator, but I do wonder how that translates into the effect of DOF when using a 24-70 on a cropped body vs a 24-105 on a 1.3x or full-frame body. And how many shots will the IS save compared to no IS? Want the same shutter speed? Is 2/3 stop increase in ISO really too much? And finally, what about that longer focal range. Even on similar bodies, how would a portrait made at 70mm and f2.8 compared to one made at 105mm and f4?

I pose a lot questions here rather than answers because there is no single answer. Frankly, if I were shooting a cropped camera, I wouldn't choose either of these lenses. But with a 1D-series camera, I prefer the 24-15. On the other hand, I'm not one of those who depends on ambient light and shallow DOF. (If I want shallow DOF, I just use a standard 50mm, and adding a 1.4x TC if I need a mild telephoto, which results in a 70mm reach at 1/3 stop less than the 24-70 f2.8... for a fraction of the cost!)
Click to expand...
By the way, the difference between f2.8 and f4 is one full stop, not "about 2/3 of one stop." But the biggest difference? On the 5D, 50D and 7D, the center focal point is more sensitive at f2.8 than at f4, which can be critical in low light.

My wife replaced her salt water damaged 24-70 with the 24-105 IS, thinking that IS would give her more of an advantage than the extra stop. Under some circumstances, she's right. But she borrows my 24-70 whenever I'm using my 70-200 or 135 f2 at receptions or at sunset, because the f4 won't allow her to focus as well under those circumstances.

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
I shot an entire wedding from ceremony to reception just using my 24-70 2.8 with a Quantum flash & turbo 2x2 on a FF camera never had to worry about changing anything. But I of course always take extra body & lots of other lenses extra flash etc. This perticular wedding lend it self to the use of just one lens probably due to the location it was perfect for such said lens. My choice would be with out a doubt the 24-70 2.8 lens only if I have a FF body.
 
If she's having so many focus problems, she might consider upgrading to a 1D-series body, which provide cross-type AF spots even with f4 or better lenses. Beyond that, the AF system is better all round.
Skip M said:
My wife replaced her salt water damaged 24-70 with the 24-105 IS, thinking that IS would give her more of an advantage than the extra stop. Under some circumstances, she's right. But she borrows my 24-70 whenever I'm using my 70-200 or 135 f2 at receptions or at sunset, because the f4 won't allow her to focus as well under those circumstances.

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
Click to expand...
--
Michael Thomas Mitchell
 
cheddargav said:
Depressingly I'd have to say the 24-105 - not because it's a bad lens, but just

because it's so "safe" - if it were up to me it would be a 50mm (on FF) but when it

comes to weddings sometimes you have to forsake creativity for "ticking the box!"
Click to expand...
I've shot weddings with the 24-105 and I've also had my 20mm, 50mm and 80-200 lenses along for the ride. I found that the 24-105 was never off my camera.

The 24-70 may be a stop brighter but for the extra pull of the 105 end I can't see a better wedding lens.

--

Given up on the whole "regain my original ID". Seems DPR don't give a flying fucher
 
I shot one wedding so far, but a lot of other events, I think I would choose the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 I currently own on a crop body.
Other lenses that I own:
30mm f/1.4
85m f/1.8
24-70mm f/2.8L

I used the sigma 18-50mm most, then the 85mm and 24-70 and 30mm last.

If I had a choice I'd use the canon 17-55mm f/2.8 on a crop or 24-70mm f/2.8L on a full frame body (the latter being my preference above the cropper).

To me it makes no sense to go to a wedding with only one body though, so if you'd ask which two lenses I would choose if the shooting conditions were unknown I'd use 24-70mm f/2.8L on a 5D and 70-200mm f/2.8L II on a 7D. That should cover 99% of the shots.

But for good controlled outdoor park portraits I think a 135mm f/2L on a 5D is an unbeatable combo. I now use 85mm f/1.8 on a 40D which is the next best thing :)

But if light is difficult and not flash is allowed or possible then a 30mm f/1.4 would be great to get the shots you should have. Those kind of shots would be difficult with a zoom lens.

--
Kind regards
Imqqmi



http://www.pbase.com/imqqmi

The DSLR jargon cheatsheet:
http://www.jmbfoto.nl/dslrcheatsheet.pdf

Sunset blending tutorial:
http://www.jmbfoto.nl/tutorial/blendingTutorial01a.pdf
 
Ok, maybe I should specify :)
I have a 550D so that what, a 1.6 cropped.
The lenses I currently own are:

Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 18-55mm
Canon 55-250mm

I am looking at adding another to my collection specifically for weddings. I am looking at the 24-105 or the 24-70 as they seem to be the obviouse options but now the 17-55 has been put into the mix due to not having a full frame camera. I wouldnt shoot a wedding with only one body, or one lens, but am trying to decide what the next lens should be that I add to my equipment?
 
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
If she's having so many focus problems, she might consider upgrading to a 1D-series body, which provide cross-type AF spots even with f4 or better lenses. Beyond that, the AF system is better all round.
Click to expand...
The difference in cost of a 1Ds, since we demand full frame, and a 5D is more than the cost of a 24-70, and is, frankly, not reasonable for our business. Plus, she finds the 1 series too bulky for her smallish hands to work with comfortably as compared to the smaller 5D body.

It doesn't make business sense to buy an $8000 camera to do the same job as a $2700 camera, given that the cost of the two lenses in question is similar. If there was something we needed that a 1Ds did better than a 5D, in addition to AF, then you might have a point.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
The 35 L is my favorite wedding lens on 5d II.
 
Kate Groundwater said:
Ok, maybe I should specify :)
I have a 550D so that what, a 1.6 cropped.
The lenses I currently own are:

Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 18-55mm
Canon 55-250mm

I am looking at adding another to my collection specifically for weddings. I am looking at the 24-105 or the 24-70 as they seem to be the obviouse options but now the 17-55 has been put into the mix due to not having a full frame camera. I wouldnt shoot a wedding with only one body, or one lens, but am trying to decide what the next lens should be that I add to my equipment?
Click to expand...
Ok, now I can be more specific. One of our assistants shoots with a 7D and the 18-55, and I'm having her upgrade. You can see the difference between what she shoots and what I shoot, so she needs to get better glass. So do you. At a minimum, if you are going to continue to shoot weddings, you need a 17-55 f2.8 and a 70-200, either an f2.8 or f4. The three lenses you list will not give you the image quality you'll need to move up the food chain as a wedding photographer. You can shoot craigslist weddings just fine with those, but move into the upper levels of the business, better gear will be needed. Your rebel may not be rugged enough for the speed at which you will have to work, and its shutter isn't rated for as many cycles as upper tier bodies. The 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses just aren't capable of getting the sharpness, color and contrast of better glass, like the 17-55 f2.8 IS, 24-70L, 24-105L and the 70-200L cousins... And, then, there are the primes like the 35L, 50L, 85L and 135L, but that's another argument.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
With a "very determined style"? A 35L can shoot in very nearly every venue that can be found. Unless circumstances prohibit shooting near the subject, its hard to imagine what it cannot do at a wedding.

While some shooters strictly use the 2.8 zooms, they miss out on some incredible ambient light shots - shots that can only be obtained with low light lenses.

While no single lens can be perfect in all circumstances, some focal lengths are more versatile than others.

--
Ambient light is the best light.
 
Cheers for this. One problem I am having though is that one day, hopefully soon, I do want to upgrade to the 5D II. So its a choice of if to spend the money and get lenses that suit the camera I have now, or to plan ahead and get the lenses for the 5D so that I dont have to swap over when I change.

Will it really make much of a difference/a problem if I am shooting with a 24-105 or a 24-70 on my 550D?
 
I wasn't knocking it, but I bet there are very few who shoot weddings with just that lens. More common would be as I suggested with at least two primes.

There are circumstances where you can not run across the entire wedding floor to shoot a fleeting candid moment with a 35mm. For that, you need a longer focal length.
Gary HIggins said:
With a "very determined style"? A 35L can shoot in very nearly every venue that can be found. Unless circumstances prohibit shooting near the subject, its hard to imagine what it cannot do at a wedding.

While some shooters strictly use the 2.8 zooms, they miss out on some incredible ambient light shots - shots that can only be obtained with low light lenses.

While no single lens can be perfect in all circumstances, some focal lengths are more versatile than others.
Click to expand...
--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.
 
Kate Groundwater said:
Cheers for this. One problem I am having though is that one day, hopefully soon, I do want to upgrade to the 5D II. So its a choice of if to spend the money and get lenses that suit the camera I have now, or to plan ahead and get the lenses for the 5D so that I dont have to swap over when I change.

Will it really make much of a difference/a problem if I am shooting with a 24-105 or a 24-70 on my 550D?
Click to expand...
Not really, but you need to determine what you'll want to use on FF. And, you'll have to decide it you'll use a crop as a backup, in which case, a 17-55 f2.8 will stand you in good stead, as long as you don't stray into 1D 1.3x crop territory! ;-)

I still stand by my recommendation to get the 24-70 f2.8, it's improved sensitivity over the f4 will stand you in good stead, I think. Extra reach and IS are good things, and if you will always shoot in good light, then the 24-105 is an ok choice. My wife chose it because she had my 24-70 to fall back on when she needs it.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
Skip M said:
Kate Groundwater said:
Cheers for this. One problem I am having though is that one day, hopefully soon, I do want to upgrade to the 5D II. So its a choice of if to spend the money and get lenses that suit the camera I have now, or to plan ahead and get the lenses for the 5D so that I dont have to swap over when I change.

Will it really make much of a difference/a problem if I am shooting with a 24-105 or a 24-70 on my 550D?
Click to expand...
Not really, but you need to determine what you'll want to use on FF. And, you'll have to decide it you'll use a crop as a backup, in which case, a 17-55 f2.8 will stand you in good stead, as long as you don't stray into 1D 1.3x crop territory! ;-)

I still stand by my recommendation to get the 24-70 f2.8, it's improved sensitivity over the f4 will stand you in good stead, I think. Extra reach and IS are good things, and if you will always shoot in good light, then the 24-105 is an ok choice. My wife chose it because she had my 24-70 to fall back on when she needs it.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
Click to expand...
When I upgrade I will be using my 550D as the back up camera. So if I picked up a 24-70 2.8 then the pictures would still turn out pretty good even with the cropping? The main thing is I dont want to go out and get a lens that isnt going to work with my camera.
A 1D is not on my must have list but a 5DII is looking pretty good :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top