Wedding Photography - EF 17-40mm L

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

07/19/2005 08:55:58 PM · #1

I'd like some feedback from people doing wedding photography if you'd consider the Canon EF 17 - 40mm L series lens a good choice for this sort of work? I'm in the market for a new lens for this purpose and just not sure which is the best way to go. I'd love your feedback!

yido

Canon EOS-5D

07/19/2005 10:10:49 PM · #2

Nice lens but I'm not sure if it's fast enough for indoor stuff. Ideally, a 16-35 f2.8L would probably be a better choice, but it's $1400. According to Popular Photography, the 17-40 f4L and the Tamron 17-35 perform very similarly, and Tamron is also faster at the wider end too but it is 5mm shorter and built cheaper than the 17-40L. However, it it about $250 cheaper as well. I think if you can go for the 16-35L, if not and you don't intend to treat your equipment harshly, perhaps Tamron maybe a good economical way.
Here are the links to Popular Photography's review of those lenses.
//www.popphoto.com/assets/download/57200310416.pdf
//www.popphoto.com/assets/download/3162004155811.pdf
//www.popphoto.com/assets/download/3162004155811.pdf
Good luck, oops, just realized you are an Auzzie. I don't know about prices there...

Message edited by author 2005-07-19 22:13:34.

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

07/20/2005 03:59:09 AM · #3

Yes....good old Australia. That lens retails here at $3199! *sigh* So, i'm having a look at this Tamron lens you suggested. Luckily, I know our local Tamron rep so I'm seeing what I can find out for me and what sort of price he could do!

Have you actually got either of these lenses or are they just ones you've heard are good?

holdingtime

Canon EOS-5D

07/20/2005 06:06:17 AM · #4

I have a EF 17-40 L... it may be considered slow but the results are worth it, used right.....works very good with flash, focus is fast even in low light gives a nice feel to the pics.

07/20/2005 06:08:52 AM · #5

Originally posted by holdingtime:

I have a EF 17-40 L... it may be considered slow but the results are worth it, used right.....works very good with flash, focus is fast even in low light gives a nice feel to the pics.

Thanks for that feedback there holdingtime. This has always been the lens I have been thinking of! I can get the Tamron for a little less than the Canon so I might try and have a play with both if possible and compare them! I know the L series lenses are superb so I think either way I can't go wrong! It's not everyday I can afford to make a decent lens purchase so I want to do it right!

Message edited by author 2005-07-20 06:09:30.

KiwiChris

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/20/2005 08:09:41 AM · #6

Hi-ho,

I've got the 17-40 as well...

I've used it a bit indoors, and one more stop would be nice, but bounced flash, or high-iso fixes any of those issues for me, as I don't mind a bit of noise in my shots.

For weddings if you're doing wide angle stuff it's quite often 'reportage' style work, and you can bump up the ISO and print in B&W..

Remember that not all wedding photos have to be technically perfect, as some people seem to think. The formal probably portraits do, but if you're doing the formal in low light you probably need someting other than another lens! Possibly some type of group therapy.

For the formal portraits get the 50/1.8 and stop down to 2.8 for single head shots, f/4-5.6 for couples or groups...

Use the 17-40 for 'envornmental' shots & candids. You know the ones, the bride putting on her makeup, with the reflection of the bridesmaids in the mirror... The groom trying to tie a bow-tie, the kids playing around outside the church..

Just my 2c worth. :-).

Cheers, Chris H.

07/20/2005 09:00:13 AM · #7

Hey! It's all information I am soaking in! Your 2c worth is really appreciated! Cheers mate!

TerryGee

Canon EOS-30D

07/20/2005 09:08:42 AM · #8

Right now I use the tamron 28-75 2.8
I find that it definitely isn't wide enough to do table shots or large groups.
The 17-40L would be good for that but you'd also need a second lens for getting close ups.
You might want to look into the Canon 17-85 It's not as fast but does have image stabilization i think.
I am thinking of getting it as I hate having to change lenses during a wedding.

Prof_Fate

07/20/2005 09:57:35 AM · #9

Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC -
more range, faster, cheaper and just as sharp as the 17-40.

Skip the 16-35 - you'll never see the difference, but the extra money could be better spent elsewhere.

Then again, I assisted at a wedding, the photog charged $8,000 for 4 hours. She used a canon 38-200 3.5-5.6 with a diffsuion filter on it. Nothing sharp there...and she wants it that way. Fast lens? With 6 grand in strobes it never mattered.

Artsy? If i cna make $2,000 an hour, I couldn't care less.

My plan: more strobes, then maybe an 18-200....

07/20/2005 01:15:02 PM · #10

Originally posted by TerryGee:

Right now I use the tamron 28-75 2.8
I find that it definitely isn't wide enough to do table shots or large groups.

Yes, I was maybe thinking of this lens too to compliment the 17-35mm! What do you think of the results from this lens though? Do you find it holds up very well?

TerryGee

Canon EOS-30D

07/20/2005 03:47:42 PM · #11

Originally posted by Makka:

Originally posted by TerryGee:
Right now I use the tamron 28-75 2.8
I find that it definitely isn't wide enough to do table shots or large groups.

Yes, I was maybe thinking of this lens too to compliment the 17-35mm! What do you think of the results from this lens though? Do you find it holds up very well?

It's not bad but tends to be soft if wide open.
Thats why I am thinking about the 17-85 -it has a better range and i have heard its sharp.
If I dont get that one I might get the 17-40 F4

I don't suggest the 50mm as some said, there are just too many different shots you need to take and that doesnt give you any room to get them. I have one but I havent used it at a wedding yet.

GoldBerry