Using an RF-S setup for weddings - for discussion!

[PhotosByHall]

Hi all,

I am away travelling the world for a long time, returning May 2026 at the current rate

When I come back, I am restarting my wedding business. I sold my 7D2 and 5D4 for extra booze money before I left the UK

When I come back I am planning to upgrade to RF, I was originally planning on going Full Frame, but the recent Sigma offerings for RF-S APS-C has got me wondering if it's worth it.

My thoughts are thus.

Buy a pair of R7's - awesome AF and shooting speed, 32mpx res, IBIS and professional performance. (I will carry two at a time on a dual harness)

My proposed lens setup is -

Medium - Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 for general purpose lens, stays on Body 1 all day.

Wide - Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 handles wide shots and is pretty fast. (specialised, group and wide shots)

Long - Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L - handles zoom and 135mm portraits. (spends most of the day on body 2)

Then, for bridal portraits, portrait bokeh or where absolute low light performance is required, I usually carry 35, 50 and 85 equiv. primes - I was thinking, again, sigmas 1.4 primes might do the job. I personally think that the new 17-40 f1.8 will make all but the 85 not needed.

What do people think?

We are a long way from the days of significantly lower APS-C sensor performance in low light now - I don't think I will need to go FF to deliver phenomenal wedding photos now - and I will save a packet and have gear that is much lighter and easier to handle?

I have friends / rivals in the business who shoot weddings on Fuji X, so it can be done on APSC!

Thoughts?

 

[MAC]

Hi all,

I am away travelling the world for a long time, returning May 2026 at the current rate

When I come back, I am restarting my wedding business. I sold my 7D2 and 5D4 for extra booze money before I left the UK

When I come back I am planning to upgrade to RF, I was originally planning on going Full Frame, but the recent Sigma offerings for RF-S APS-C has got me wondering if it's worth it.

My thoughts are thus.

Buy a pair of R7's - awesome AF and shooting speed, 32mpx res, IBIS and professional performance. (I will carry two at a time on a dual harness)

My proposed lens setup is -

Medium - Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 for general purpose lens, stays on Body 1 all day.

Wide - Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 handles wide shots and is pretty fast. (specialised, group and wide shots)

Long - Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L - handles zoom and 135mm portraits. (spends most of the day on body 2)

Then, for bridal portraits, portrait bokeh or where absolute low light performance is required, I usually carry 35, 50 and 85 equiv. primes - I was thinking, again, sigmas 1.4 primes might do the job. I personally think that the new 17-40 f1.8 will make all but the 85 not needed.

What do people think?

We are a long way from the days of significantly lower APS-C sensor performance in low light now - I don't think I will need to go FF to deliver phenomenal wedding photos now - and I will save a packet and have gear that is much lighter and easier to handle?

I have friends / rivals in the business who shoot weddings on Fuji X, so it can be done on APSC!

Thoughts?

you can read my thread here:

Relatively Low-cost Event Set-up Going Forward: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I wouldn't go with APSC

 

[PhotosByHall]

Ah damn it, didn't see that.

As an aside as something you might be interested in, it's really easy to plug your memory card onto a special reader and copy all the photos from your memory card to your phone.

This is what I use while I am travelling, I also have software that backs everything up to cloud at night, so if I get robbed (in Colombia at the minute) I lose the camera but not the photos.

Copy speed to phone is about a minute per gig, so unless you are blazing a thousand at the event it won't take long to get all that stuff backed up. (As it is for disaster recovery, it only copies the jpegs not the raws for speed)

Obviously it's not entirely theft proof without the cloud copy, which takes longer obviously, it's just another string to the bow for the sake of 10 minutes at the end of the night.

(When I shoot a wedding I do all the backup from the morning to phone during the wedding breakfast, which is when I get my break)

Only thing I don't understand (I haven't fully read your thread yet) is that you say you're using an r7 but wouldn't consider using apsc?

 

[MAC]

Ah damn it, didn't see that.

As an aside as something you might be interested in, it's really easy to plug your memory card onto a special reader and copy all the photos from your memory card to your phone.

This is what I use while I am travelling, I also have software that backs everything up to cloud at night, so if I get robbed (in Colombia at the minute) I lose the camera but not the photos.

Copy speed to phone is about a minute per gig, so unless you are blazing a thousand at the event it won't take long to get all that stuff backed up. (As it is for disaster recovery, it only copies the jpegs not the raws for speed)

Obviously it's not entirely theft proof without the cloud copy, which takes longer obviously, it's just another string to the bow for the sake of 10 minutes at the end of the night.

(When I shoot a wedding I do all the backup from the morning to phone during the wedding breakfast, which is when I get my break)

Only thing I don't understand (I haven't fully read your thread yet) is that you say you're using an r7 but wouldn't consider using apsc?

you'll need to read the thread, I started with one R7 and one R6II and ended up with a refurb R5 instead of the R7

on weddings, I shoot thousands of raws. On the second card, the jpgs would be stored. I use an ipad mini for the jpgs backup. I don't want my phone handling thousands of pics. On my laptop, I use faststone to cull. The cloud backup is a good idea for the keepers, but we're talking a partial % of the overall for the keepers

 

[R2D2]

Hi all,

I am away travelling the world for a long time, returning May 2026 at the current rate

When I come back, I am restarting my wedding business. I sold my 7D2 and 5D4 for extra booze money before I left the UK

When I come back I am planning to upgrade to RF, I was originally planning on going Full Frame, but the recent Sigma offerings for RF-S APS-C has got me wondering if it's worth it.

My thoughts are thus.

Buy a pair of R7's - awesome AF and shooting speed, 32mpx res, IBIS and professional performance. (I will carry two at a time on a dual harness)

My proposed lens setup is -

Medium - Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 for general purpose lens, stays on Body 1 all day.

Wide - Sigma 10-18mm f2.8 handles wide shots and is pretty fast. (specialised, group and wide shots)

Long - Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L - handles zoom and 135mm portraits. (spends most of the day on body 2)

Then, for bridal portraits, portrait bokeh or where absolute low light performance is required, I usually carry 35, 50 and 85 equiv. primes - I was thinking, again, sigmas 1.4 primes might do the job. I personally think that the new 17-40 f1.8 will make all but the 85 not needed.

What do people think?

We are a long way from the days of significantly lower APS-C sensor performance in low light now - I don't think I will need to go FF to deliver phenomenal wedding photos now - and I will save a packet and have gear that is much lighter and easier to handle?

I have friends / rivals in the business who shoot weddings on Fuji X, so it can be done on APSC!

Thoughts?

As MAC suggests, conventional wisdom would normally dictate full frame for that kind of shooting. There will always be that stop of performance difference between the two formats, and you'll have more lens choices with FF too (in case you want to expand your repertoire).

But FF will certainly be more expensive, and heavier!

R2

 

[PhotosByHall]

I've read that thread now, I'm not entirely convinced by the conclusion.

The one stop advantage is wiped out by the f1.8 of the new sigma 17-40. While it comes in at f2.88 eqv, you still gain the extra speed.

I generally tend to find that a gain of depth of field is often advantageous at events and weddings anyway. Better to be slightly over on bokeh than slightly under on focus.

As for noise, clients don't generally notice it and anything I know that's going to be printed super big or a showstopper, we use strobes for off camera lighting or there is time to switch to faster lenses.

The R7 also has dual slots which I didn't realise. I'm basically sold now on the R7.

I'm gonna buy one when I get back next year and evaluate it (a 7d2 used to be my wedding 2nd camera anyway), if is lacking in anyway I will buy an R5-2 for the main camera, if it's as hot as I am expecting I will buy a 2nd r7 and that will be my wedding setup.

I'll hold onto my EF 24-70 f2.8 MK2 for a while longer in case I do decide to go FF. I shot a wedding with it once on the 7d, and while the clients were happy, it wasn't wide enough in a pinch at 38mm.

 

[AbuMahendra]

If I shot "events", the cornerstone on which I would build would be an R6 II or R5 II with the RF24-105/2.8L. Man up and do it right.

 

[MAC]

I've read that thread now, I'm not entirely convinced by the conclusion.

The one stop advantage is wiped out by the f1.8 of the new sigma 17-40. While it comes in at f2.88 eqv, you still gain the extra speed.

I generally tend to find that a gain of depth of field is often advantageous at events and weddings anyway. Better to be slightly over on bokeh than slightly under on focus.

As for noise, clients don't generally notice it and anything I know that's going to be printed super big or a showstopper, we use strobes for off camera lighting or there is time to switch to faster lenses.

The R7 also has dual slots which I didn't realise. I'm basically sold now on the R7.

I'm gonna buy one when I get back next year and evaluate it (a 7d2 used to be my wedding 2nd camera anyway), if is lacking in anyway I will buy an R5-2 for the main camera, if it's as hot as I am expecting I will buy a 2nd r7 and that will be my wedding setup.

I'll hold onto my EF 24-70 f2.8 MK2 for a while longer in case I do decide to go FF. I shot a wedding with it once on the 7d, and while the clients were happy, it wasn't wide enough in a pinch at 38mm.

In my day, one of my event cameras was the 7d2 with dual slots, as I combined FF and APSC

I shot 25 weddings as primary and took pro second shooters

you already have the EF 24-70 f2.8 II. It would be stabilized with the R6II. You'd have dual slots. You'd have 24-70 mm versus 27-64 mm

then adding an R7 with dual slots and a siggy 10-18 f2.8 for ultra wide and a siggy 56 f1.4 for 90 fov F2.2 would give you a nice portrait lens stabilized by IBIS

Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN

this would allow you to not change lenses on the R6II and only change lenses on the R7 when you needed ultra wide

otherwise shoot the 24-70 f2.8 and 90 fov f2.2 all day long

 

[Laqup]

If I shot "events", the cornerstone on which I would build would be an R6 II or R5 II with the RF24-105/2.8L. Man up and do it right.

This! At least partially.

Not sure why you want to limit yourself with those pretty old APS-C bodies.

Just go R5 / R6 II / R5 II, you can't go wrong there.

Lens wise it doesn't have to be the 24-105 2.8. If you are keen on keeping it light the new STM 2.8 lenses are pretty decent. Potentially even better than some of that third party stuff you are mentioning. Especially the 16-28 2.8 STM is said to be a better performer than e.g. the new Tamron wide angle zoom, the 28-70 is a bit weaker but still a very useable lens in it's own right.

That being said: RF 24-70 2.8 or RF 28-70 2.0 + RF 70-200 2.8 would be my choice. Add the 16mm 2.8 or the 16-28 STM for really wide shots and one of the semi macros (e.g. 85mm 2.0) for closeups like ring stuff and you are basically done.

A 85mm 1.2 or 135mm 1.8 can be nice as well for outdoor full body portraits, but that's a "luxus".

The R7 will be worse in terms of SnR, AF performance, silent shooting, reliability and overall snappiness.

 

[PhotosByHall]

If I shot "events", the cornerstone on which I would build would be an R6 II or R5 II with the RF24-105/2.8L. Man up and do it right.

That f2.8 aperture was not available for that zoom range in EF AFAIK and f4 is not always fast enough. It's not a bad shout as a future wedding lens though.

Fair more common for weddings is (at least) two bodies and the 3 'trinity' range lenses. It's as much about redundancy as not having to change lenses, I've had a camera body fail before at a wedding.

 

[PhotosByHall]

In my day, one of my event cameras was the 7d2 with dual slots, as I combined FF and APSC

I shot 25 weddings as primary and took pro second shooters

you already have the EF 24-70 f2.8 II. It would be stabilized with the R6II. You'd have dual slots. You'd have 24-70 mm versus 27-64 mm

then adding an R7 with dual slots and a siggy 10-18 f2.8 for ultra wide and a siggy 56 f1.4 for 90 fov F2.2 would give you a nice portrait lens stabilized by IBIS

Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN

this would allow you to not change lenses on the R6II and only change lenses on the R7 when you needed ultra wide

otherwise shoot the 24-70 f2.8 and 90 fov f2.2 all day long

This is similar to what i used in EF previously (I've shot 40+ weddings with a 2nd shooter), but it will be the R5-2 & an R7 rather than the R6 if I do decide to go FF/APSC mix.

If I'm in, I'm in all the way - I am just not sure that the significantly higher expense will yield much more benefit.

 

[MAC]

In my day, one of my event cameras was the 7d2 with dual slots, as I combined FF and APSC

I shot 25 weddings as primary and took pro second shooters

you already have the EF 24-70 f2.8 II. It would be stabilized with the R6II. You'd have dual slots. You'd have 24-70 mm versus 27-64 mm

then adding an R7 with dual slots and a siggy 10-18 f2.8 for ultra wide and a siggy 56 f1.4 for 90 fov F2.2 would give you a nice portrait lens stabilized by IBIS

Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN

this would allow you to not change lenses on the R6II and only change lenses on the R7 when you needed ultra wide

otherwise shoot the 24-70 f2.8 and 90 fov f2.2 all day long

This is similar to what i used in EF previously (I've shot 40+ weddings with a 2nd shooter), but it will be the R5-2 & an R7 rather than the R6 if I do decide to go FF/APSC mix.

If I'm in, I'm in all the way - I am just not sure that the significantly higher expense will yield much more benefit.

the RF 28-70 F2.8 IS was on sale a few weeks ago for $949, approx the same price as the 17-40

there is an RF 70-150 F2.8 IS on the horizon

The light weight trinity of RF 16-28 F2.8 IS, RF 28-70 F2.8 IS, and future RF 70-150 F2.8 IS with two FF's is the future imo

 

[AbuMahendra]

If I shot "events", the cornerstone on which I would build would be an R6 II or R5 II with the RF24-105/2.8L. Man up and do it right.

That f2.8 aperture was not available for that zoom range in EF AFAIK and f4 is not always fast enough. It's not a bad shout as a future wedding lens though.

Fair more common for weddings is (at least) two bodies and the 3 'trinity' range lenses. It's as much about redundancy as not having to change lenses, I've had a camera body fail before at a wedding.

Indeed. The RF 24-105mm f/2.8 IS L USM is a recent release. The first and only lens of its kind. Capitalize on it.

Nothing of what I said precludes you from adding one or more bodies. But the meat & potatoes of it would be that lens.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

You could certainly do weddings with a pair of R7's and Sigma lenses. If you do, I'd recommend the 56 F1.4 as a wonderful portrait lens. It was my favorite lens on my M6II, before I moved to almost exclusively R mount (I still have the 22 pancake on my M6II, but that's it for M lenses). The RF 85 F2 also works very well on the R7. I'm sure that the forum dwellers here, most at least, could probably tell the difference between the output of a crop RF setup and a full frame one, but I doubt whether any clients could. I'm not a pro, and when I shoot events, it's as favors for friends (aerial silks performances, track meets and road races, choral performances), or of events I organize professionally (conferences and colloquial) or theatrical shows I direct as a hobby. I've never done a wedding, and never had any desire to do one. If someone put a gun to my head, and forced me to do one, I'd use my R5II and R6II, with a bunch of L primes and at least one zoom (probably the 70-200 F2.8). But if I had to do a lot of them, I could see myself appreciating the weight saving of a crop setup. All modern equipment is easily good enough to get outstanding results, if you know how to use it. I remember when I thought that my 20D was the ultimate camera. That was only 20 years ago, and lots of wedding pros used 2 20D's back then. And got great results.

 

[AbuMahendra]

... If you do, I'd recommend the 56 F1.4 as a wonderful portrait lens. ... The RF 85 F2 also works very well on the R7. I'm sure that the forum dwellers here, most at least, could probably tell the difference between the output of a crop RF setup and a full frame one, but I doubt whether any clients could. ...

I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between this image taken with the M6 II and the Sigma 56/1.4 at f/2.2 (FF eq) and base ISO, and the R with the RF85/2 at f/2.

 

[kleinM95]

I was in a similar situation a year back. At this point i owned a Canon 90D + Sigma 18-35 1.8 + Sigma 70-200 2.8 Sports and i searched for a more serious but still inexpensive setup for weddings. I considered the R7, R6I/II or R5.

Few things to consider:

• R7 doesnt support a battery grip
• R7/R6II needs SD cards, R5 CFExpress + SD cards
• shutter life on the R6 I/II and R5 is much better
• mechanical shutter is much quieter on R6 I/II and R5
• lowlight performance on R7 is worse, 32 megapixels are great but a pain if it gets darker
• APSC sensor has a worse dynamic range
• R5 drains the battery faster than R7 and R6I/II

I went a bought a R6II + Sigma 24-70 2.8 Art (EF). All my lenses are adapted EF lenses but i dont mind, they're working fine. And if a camera or lens breaks on the job I'm able to switch. Since then I shot five weddings and I'm pretty happy with my decision.

Tbh most of the time I can't tell the difference in image quality between 90D+18-35 1.8 or R6II+24-70 2.8 (only after pixel peeping). And both get the job done.
But R6II/R5II have better dynamic range, low light performance, AF and in general are newer, more professional and reliable.

You already have a great selection of Canon EF FF glass, adapted on RF FF they will get a second life and perfom even better.

 

[MAC]

... If you do, I'd recommend the 56 F1.4 as a wonderful portrait lens. ... The RF 85 F2 also works very well on the R7. I'm sure that the forum dwellers here, most at least, could probably tell the difference between the output of a crop RF setup and a full frame one, but I doubt whether any clients could. ...

I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between this image taken with the M6 II and the Sigma 56/1.4 at f/2.2 (FF eq) and base ISO, and the R with the RF85/2 at f/2.

I went with the RF 85 F2 IS for the added image stabilization (which you can get with the R7 and IBIS and the 56)

and the 85 gives partial macro for shots like Ring shots

the Ops idea to buy R7' to do weddings with the new siggy 17-40 and perhaps get the 56 as well - it is pro stuff - but the op already has an ef 24-70 f2.8 II which would be pro stuff on an R6II and add the 85 f2 IS and get the portraits and ring shots

 

[kodakrome]

I always shoot weddings with full frame, and divorces with crop, because divorces are noisy anyway.

 

[R2D2]

I've read that thread now, I'm not entirely convinced by the conclusion.

The one stop advantage is wiped out by the f1.8 of the new sigma 17-40. While it comes in at f2.88 eqv, you still gain the extra speed.

I generally tend to find that a gain of depth of field is often advantageous at events and weddings anyway. Better to be slightly over on bokeh than slightly under on focus.

As for noise, clients don't generally notice it and anything I know that's going to be printed super big or a showstopper, we use strobes for off camera lighting or there is time to switch to faster lenses.

The R7 also has dual slots which I didn't realise. I'm basically sold now on the R7.

I'm gonna buy one when I get back next year and evaluate it (a 7d2 used to be my wedding 2nd camera anyway), if is lacking in anyway I will buy an R5-2 for the main camera, if it's as hot as I am expecting I will buy a 2nd r7 and that will be my wedding setup.

I'll hold onto my EF 24-70 f2.8 MK2 for a while longer in case I do decide to go FF. I shot a wedding with it once on the 7d, and while the clients were happy, it wasn't wide enough in a pinch at 38mm.

Yes, I really like the idea of an R5ii as your first choice (unless you go for a pair of R1's ;-) ).

In fact my own choice for weddings, in order of preference, would be the R5ii, R6ii, R5, R6, and R7. I've owned and shot events with all five.

My experience with the R7 predates the new 17-40/1.8 (as does everyone else's of course ;-) ), but what if you ultimately decide you want to upgrade to the (IMHO) incomparable RF 28-70 f/2L? It anchors my own event trinity (along with the RF 15-35 f/2.8L and RF 70-200 f/2.8L).

Every equipment choice has its advantages and disadvantages. Weigh them very carefully, esp with a more solid roadmap in mind.

R2

 

[MAC]

I've read that thread now, I'm not entirely convinced by the conclusion.

The one stop advantage is wiped out by the f1.8 of the new sigma 17-40. While it comes in at f2.88 eqv, you still gain the extra speed.

I generally tend to find that a gain of depth of field is often advantageous at events and weddings anyway. Better to be slightly over on bokeh than slightly under on focus.

As for noise, clients don't generally notice it and anything I know that's going to be printed super big or a showstopper, we use strobes for off camera lighting or there is time to switch to faster lenses.

The R7 also has dual slots which I didn't realise. I'm basically sold now on the R7.

I'm gonna buy one when I get back next year and evaluate it (a 7d2 used to be my wedding 2nd camera anyway), if is lacking in anyway I will buy an R5-2 for the main camera, if it's as hot as I am expecting I will buy a 2nd r7 and that will be my wedding setup.

I'll hold onto my EF 24-70 f2.8 MK2 for a while longer in case I do decide to go FF. I shot a wedding with it once on the 7d, and while the clients were happy, it wasn't wide enough in a pinch at 38mm.

Yes, I really like the idea of an R5ii as your first choice (unless you go for a pair of R1's ;-) ).

In fact my own choice for weddings, in order of preference, would be the R5ii, R6ii, R5, R6, and R7. I've owned and shot events with all five.

My experience with the R7 predates the new 17-40/1.8 (as does everyone else's of course ;-) ), but what if you ultimately decide you want to upgrade to the (IMHO) incomparable RF 28-70 f/2L? It anchors my own event trinity (along with the RF 15-35 f/2.8L and RF 70-200 f/2.8L).

Every equipment choice has its advantages and disadvantages. Weigh them very carefully, esp with a more solid roadmap in mind.

R2

your trilogy is the best of the best

I've worked 10-12 hour weddings and it was hard to carry that much weight with three heavy zooms. For short 2-3 hour events it would be easier to justify the heavier weight.

For long weddings, I'd probably opt to carry 4 lbs less in zooms - see below - and add 1 ibs for my 85 f2 IS for portraits and ring shots

28-70 f2 vs 28-70 f2.8

Actual Weight 50.5 oz (1430g) 17.4 oz (492.2g)

15-35 f2.8 vs 16-28 f2.8
Actual Weight 29.5 oz (835g) 15.6 oz (441.2g)

70-200 f2.8 vs 70-200 f4 or a new 70-150 f2.8
37.8 oz (1070g) 24.5 oz (695g)