| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/27/2007 10:05:10 PM · #1 |
Well i've been really close with my cousin all my life, tonight i found out her boyfriend is proposing tonight. Its not 100% official tonight, but i thought id plan ahead. Though she probably wont ask me to do it, i would really like to photograph her wedding (not as the main photographer though, i don't want that kinda pressure lol) Id like to pick up a nice lens to get some sharp shots but i have a limited budget *roughly $500cad*. I already have a 50mm/1.8, 17-50mm/2.8, I'm wondering if maybe a flash would be a better investment for this event? I just don't know if the 50mm would be good enough, and the 17-50 isn't completely sharp enough, at-least not enough that id feel comfortable using it for this. My budget COULD be more, it all depends on when they plan the wedding for, and how much money i can put aside, but keep the price reasonable. Any thoughts? Advise?
Message edited by author 2007-05-27 22:06:28. |
|
|
|
05/27/2007 10:15:12 PM · #2 |
You'll want something longer than 50mm.
Typically, most wedding photogs will use a combination of the 24-70mm (or equivalent), and a 70-200mm... but on your budget, neither of those lenses is affordable (the 2.8 versions anyway).
You could look at both the Tamron 24-135mm and the Sigma 24-135mm as options. The sigma 18-200 could also be an option.
I'm not very familiar with any mid-range zooms in the 50-150mm range, although I believe Sigma has one available, but it's pricey.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2007 10:18:36 PM · #3 |
I bought a good flash for the same reason, a friend's wedding, and was very happy that I had it for the event. I used it in bounce mode for most of the shots before and after the ceremony, and for all the group shots (outside) for fill. I shot the ceremony with existing light and a 1.4 manual focus 50mm, and the pics came out great.
I would go for the flash, especially if it will be indoors, and try it with the wide zoom. The image quality may surprise you.
Message edited by author 2007-05-27 22:20:56.
|
|
|
|
05/27/2007 10:21:17 PM · #4 |
Another thing to find out is if it will be outdoor or indoor. If it's indoor, then the Flash would be a big asset. If it's outdoors, then I'd get a lens. Also if it's outdoor, you don't "need" the 2.8 versions of the telephoto lenses because you'll have plenty of light.
Message edited by author 2007-05-27 22:23:06. |
|
|
|
05/27/2007 10:25:56 PM · #5 |
Why shouldn't cousins get married if they love each other? I say go for it!!
...oh wait, maybe I should read the OP...
|
|
|
|
05/27/2007 10:58:20 PM · #6 |
Hrm. I have the 17-50 f/2.8 as well and I find it to be generally a LOT sharper than my 50mm f/1.8 (which has now been sold...) in 80% of the shots I get with it.
Unless you have specific obstacles to getting close enough to use that length, just get yourself prepared to be in the right place at the right time and get your end of things right.
I personally will likely pick up the 50mm f/1.4 this summer. I have my other lengths pretty well covered though... You might want to consider something a bit longer, but don't expect to get anything really good with 500 bucks...
Another choice might be the 85mm f/1.8. Performs like a champ and is truly sweet. Gives a tiny bit more length if needed and shouldn't set you back too much.
That tamron 24-135 is also something to look at. |
|
|
|
05/27/2007 11:09:32 PM · #7 |
| Perhaps the 100mm 2.8 macro lens? That would give you some extra reach, and is very sharp. However if you don't have a decent flash your best bet is probably to get that instead. |
|
|
|
05/28/2007 01:16:30 AM · #8 |
Ill have to talk to her tomorrow, she lives in the same area that her sister did when she got married, if im correct she will most likely have the ceremony done at the Lake like her sister did. If thats the case should i get the lens? What if its in the evening? might get too dark? My budget might be higher, It all depends on:
a) How far away is it? (more time to put money aside?)
b) Will i get paid? If so i can justify spending more as ill make it back.
I'm just not sure that i want to charge my cousin, were close so i might feel bad about it lol. Another reason for not wanting to charge is, what if they don't turn out? Then what? Say my budget is like.. 700? Options in that case?
edit: I'm thinking maybe a prime might be best? Where not gunna be moving around a whole lot i dont think, its not gunna be a huge wedding. I have my 50mm if i need to get closer, but i don't think that'll be a big problem. which might be better for this application?? 85 or 100mm prime?
Message edited by author 2007-05-28 02:37:56. |
|
|
|
05/29/2007 09:50:17 PM · #9 |
| seriously, for this application you won't regret either. the 100mm is a fair bit more money. will have a lot more application later for macro. the 85mm will make you hate the 50 f/1.8, so will lead to increased cost later.when you upgrade. the 85mm isn't a great length on 1.6x IMHO, so might fall a bit in the middle. you could sell the 50mm and use the cash to get the 100mm, but you still would be lacking the wide aperture... you could live without that. honestly, you could voice your fears with your cousin and explain what expenses you will face. maybe you can work out something that will keep everyone happy. if you fear bad light, make sure you inform your client. don't try and make an impossible situation work. try to find a way to get them to schedule things so you can really do your best. practice at the site with a friend a couple of friends. when it comes time to make it work, be ready. shoot the rehearsal too. have 2-3 reflectors on hand if doing anything outdoors. light changes too quickly. don't be afraid to try an early morning shoot. they might find that having time to relax before the cermony is a good thing |
|
|
|
05/29/2007 10:13:39 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Typically, most wedding photogs will use a combination of the 24-70mm (or equivalent), and a 70-200mm... but on your budget, neither of those lenses is affordable (the 2.8 versions anyway). |
The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 should be in your price range. I don't think it would be the smartest buy if you already have the 17-50mm though because the focal lengths aren't all that different. But I would like to say that I am very happy with mine. |
|
|
|
05/30/2007 03:11:58 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by skylercall:
Originally posted by Artyste:
Typically, most wedding photogs will use a combination of the 24-70mm (or equivalent), and a 70-200mm... but on your budget, neither of those lenses is affordable (the 2.8 versions anyway). |
The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 should be in your price range. I don't think it would be the smartest buy if you already have the 17-50mm though because the focal lengths aren't all that different. But I would like to say that I am very happy with mine. |
It's why I didn't mention it, the focal lengths overlap a bit too much. |
|
|
|
05/31/2007 04:51:44 AM · #12 |
| Kinda pointless too considering that the sharpness is roughly the same, so she could do just as well with the 85mm which is sharper, faster and performs better for around the same price to get the same increase in lens range. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/01/2026 01:19:33 PM EST.
