Which lens for weddings... - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Canon

05/16/2008 12:02:20 PM · #1

I've got three lenses on my get list as my friend and I are going to start shooting weddings. Which of these three would you recommend I get first:

Canon 10-22mm
Canon 24-70mm 2.8 L

And I can't decide between these two as my third option:

Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L non IS
Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro

Message edited by author 2008-05-16 12:02:35.

inshaala

Canon EOS-7D

05/16/2008 12:13:25 PM · #2

I have the sigma 70-200 and cant complain, but if money isnt an option go for the canon L-glass, it isnt by much (pinickety details which the casual viewer wont see) but the canon glass should be superior as far as i remember in reading.

If you are on the 30D then 24mm might not be wide enough inside buildings... although the 2.8 is probably a must...

I have never shot a wedding, but that is my view on it.

Edit - you asked for a "first to buy" - well consider your equipment now and think about which area could do with an upgrade. Looking at what you have i would probably go for the 70-200 option and have your tamron as the "walkabout" lens as it will do a decent job on the crop sensor i think. And any "posed" shots you can use your legs for zoom on the wideangle end of things. But again, i havent shot a wedding before - so i'll leave it up to the pros to offer some practical advice.

Message edited by author 2008-05-16 12:17:42.

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

05/16/2008 12:25:52 PM · #3

First thing I see looking at your list is the fact that you are looking to buy a lens that is way too slow for weddings. The 10-22 is gawd awful slow and needs stopped down even further for sharpness for large prints. Get the 16-35 or the 17-55IS if you want an EF-s Lens.

Next is the choice of 70-200 canon or the sigma. Weddings are typically low light. The sigma may well struggle with low light focusing. I know mine did compared to my 70-200 Canon, thats why I now own the canon. If I were buying now to shoot weddings, no way I'd buy the non-IS, the 70-200IS is in most professional wedding photographers bags, who shoot canon.

$0.02

Matt

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

05/16/2008 02:24:18 PM · #4

Matt

I use a lot of flash so I don't see slow shutter speeds being too big of a pain. If they are, I can whip out my 85mm 1.8.

I'm trying to figure out if the 24-70 2.8L is the good first lens to get. I'm going to sell the Tamron (it's not sharp enough) and replace it with the 24-70L.

I want to get the 70-200 2.8 L IS but it's too damn expensive. $500 more for IS? I don't know if I can justify that.

trevytrev

Canon EOS-5D

05/16/2008 02:30:24 PM · #5

Originally posted by KevinG:

If you are getting into wedding photography you can justify the additional cost, trust me it is worth every penny and I don't think I have heard anyone say the contrary. I don't know much about the 24-70 2.8L other than it is another staple in the wedding photogs bag and have always heard really good things about it, but no personal experience.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

05/16/2008 02:51:18 PM · #6

Originally posted by KevinG:

Are you just shooting receptions? Most churches do not allow flash during the ceremony and the 85mm f1.8, while a fine lens, simply isn't flexible enough. Unless you want to shoot with multiple bodies and a selection of primes or you can swap lenses really, really quickly, fast zooms are the only way to go for weddings.

An additional $500 is nothing compared to the agony of explaining to a new bride why you couldn't get the shot(s). Don't shortchange your clients over a measley $500.

An ideal zoom lens setup for weddings, assuming you want L glass is: 16-35 f2.8L, 24-70 f2.8L and the 70-200 f2.8L IS.

Prof_Fate

05/16/2008 04:02:45 PM · #7

i totally understand the 'first to buy' deal, but having done wedding going on 4 years now I've got a piece of advice - what part of the wedding do you plan to shoot well and what part to do you plan to shoot poorly? Oh, you plan to shoot it ALL well? Then you can't have a 'first lens' and a 'later' lens.
MOST of what you'll shoot will be with a 'standard lens' - the 24-70 or the 17-55 IS. I LOVE IS and use the 17-55 a lot. I have a 24-70 coming and it will be here monday (replacing a tamron 28-75). I didn't like the tamron because it lacked IS...but I LOVE the look an L gives my images. I also don't need IS in the studio but am finding I want a fast lens for the studio (faster than the 28-135 IS) so this will kind of do both - studio and wedding backup or give me the L look. I'll also be ready should Canon every release a 5Dmk2.

The 10-22 is a great lens to have, but it's not a first lens. The 17-55/24-70 is first as it's used most. The 70-200 MUST be the 2.8 IS if you have any hope of using it indoors for the ceremony or reception. A non IS can be used from a tripod but most churches are too dark for non-IS handheld (even the 24-70 will be challenged at times). A 50 1.4, 28 1.8, 85 1.8 are also good choices to have handy- as backup in case of catastrophe (things break, get dropped, disappear - a $300 50 1.4 is way cheap insurance against getting sued cause your main lens died halfway into the day). The 70-200 is a fantastic portrait lens for hte bride, or B&G. Especially on a crop camera it's too tight/too tele for much else unless you're outside or stuck in the balcony.

Yeah, you need a lot of gear to successfully shoot a wedding - hey, you're starting a business and that takes a comittment from you as well as an investment. If you don't have the money to invest then keep your day job - really - I'm not being facetious. And get a 40D even if you have to sell your TV. I was shooting a senior yesterday and instead of swapping lenses was using two bodies - 40 and 30. The 30 is SOOOOOO SLLLLLOOOOWWWW as to be a joke. Slow as in the time it takes to put the image shot on the LCD. The 40 is nearly instant, the 30 takes 2 or 3 seconds. And the buffer size on the 40 is huge - the 30 would fill and stop shooting, and this is in a STUDIO situation. I'm seriously thinking of selling the 30 and getting a 40...and now there's a rumour of a rebate on it next week...

Message edited by author 2008-05-16 16:05:50.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

05/16/2008 05:48:52 PM · #8

Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

I forgot to mention that we're doing this on the side. I am definitely keeping my day job.

Also, I am planning on renting the two lenses I need but don't own. I just wanted to know which of the three I should choose to own first.

I'm going to go with the 24-70 2.8L as the first purchase and rent the 70-200 2.8 L IS until I can save to purchase it.

As for the 10-22, I really want it for portraits as well as weddings, but you're probably right about the 3.5 being way too slow. I'll definitely consider the 17-35.

Thanks all.

MattO

Nikon D4

05/16/2008 05:54:03 PM · #9

Originally posted by KevinG:

[I forgot to mention that we're doing this on the side. I am definitely keeping my day job.

Also, I am planning on renting the two lenses I need but don't own. I just wanted to know which of the three I should choose to own first.

I'm going to go with the 24-70 2.8L as the first purchase and rent the 70-200 2.8 L IS until I can save to purchase it.

As for the 10-22, I really want it for portraits as well as weddings, but you're probably right about the 3.5 being way too slow. I'll definitely consider the 17-35.

Thanks all.

With the amount of distortion that a WA lens gives there is no way I'd shoot a portrait session with anything shorter then 24-28. Most of my portraits are shot with a prime. Either the 28 F1.8, 85 F1.8, or the 135 F2. I will occasionally use the 24-70 or the 70-200 for these but usually shoot with the 28 and the 85 on seperate bodies.

Matt

Sony DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical ED Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha

05/16/2008 06:45:23 PM · #10

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by KevinG:
[I forgot to mention that we're doing this on the side. I am definitely keeping my day job.

Also, I am planning on renting the two lenses I need but don't own. I just wanted to know which of the three I should choose to own first.

I'm going to go with the 24-70 2.8L as the first purchase and rent the 70-200 2.8 L IS until I can save to purchase it.

As for the 10-22, I really want it for portraits as well as weddings, but you're probably right about the 3.5 being way too slow. I'll definitely consider the 17-35.

Thanks all.

With the amount of distortion that a WA lens gives there is no way I'd shoot a portrait session with anything shorter then 24-28. Most of my portraits are shot with a prime. Either the 28 F1.8, 85 F1.8, or the 135 F2. I will occasionally use the 24-70 or the 70-200 for these but usually shoot with the 28 and the 85 on seperate bodies.

Matt

I see where you're coming from. I meant it as for more artistic portraits where the distortion can add rather than take away from the image.

As for weddings, it doesn't sound like it will be useful because of the 3.5.

kiwinick

Sony DSLR-A550

05/16/2008 07:16:44 PM · #11

I have the 28/75 f2.8 do 90% with that however most of my weddings are out door garden weddings so hope that helps

Prof_Fate

05/16/2008 10:14:43 PM · #12

Originally posted by KevinG:

As for the 10-22, I really want it for portraits as well as weddings, but you're probably right about the 3.5 being way too slow. I'll definitely consider the 17-35.

Thanks all.

For this 3.5 is only 1/3 stop under 2.8 so it's not that slow, and being 22mm max you only need 1/20 second shutter anyway. It's a great lens, but NOT a portrait lens - it's very wide angle and that will distort the image - not a big deal in most cases, but with people it's not a good idea at all. It's handy for overall shots, fun shots, a shot of the men doing shots from behind the bar, or when the bride is getting ready in a closet (well, a normal bedroom with 6 or 7 girls in it feels like a closet!)

Simms