Canon 17-85mm IS USM upgrade... worth it?

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

05/22/2006 02:52:44 AM · #1

Got a wedding coming up in August.

THought that I should eventually replace my kit lens (18-55mm) with something more substantial and the 17-85mm looked like the perfect candidate.

But for the wedding... would it be worth it? I can;t really go much wider - as I can't afford it, and if I go faster, I will be looking at the 24-60mm Sigma 2.8 - although, that kinda takes the wide angle away.

SO... I am unsure of whether I should push myself to get the 17-85mm for the wedding when my kit lens covers that range?

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

oOWonderBreadOo

Canon EOS-5D

05/22/2006 03:00:22 AM · #2

I am just asking myself the same questions, but I would almost say you'll have ditch the kit lens for a faster soemthing or other (with the low light situations at the reception)

ShorterThanJesus

Nikon D300

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

05/22/2006 03:07:29 AM · #3

Having just spent the weekend in and around a wedding (and drooling over the pro's Nikon equipment), I'd say that the IS would do you good. The photographer at this wedding was shooting the 18-200 VR and was able to take 1/4 second shots in the church (stable hand) at the wide-end of the lense.

As for the width, I also think the 17 is good. I spent the weekend (apart from the hour flanking the groom on stage) with my 18-70mm and it served me well for a wide variety of shots. It got a lot of use down at 18mm (reception dinners often don't have alot of room) but the 70mm end was handy for doing some off-angle shooting at the park where the official portraits were being shot.

All that to say, if you've got the $, go for the 17-85 IS

05/22/2006 03:12:41 AM · #4

Still, on 17mm in a darklry lit church, the IS isnt gonna help me squat - which is what I am worried about!

*Edit spelling!

Message edited by author 2006-05-22 03:14:04.

05/22/2006 05:33:40 AM · #5

Bump to save overkill... :)

TerryGee

Canon EOS-30D

05/22/2006 07:53:58 AM · #6

with several lenses in my bag and being a wedding photographer I can say that yes the lens is good for weddings.
I was using a 17-40F4L and the tamron 28-75 2.8 for all my wedding work.
Found i to be a pain to keep switching lenses because YES you really need the wide angle for any group shots, table shots and dancing but you also need the longer one for everything else.
I decided to buy the 17-85 and now i just work with one body and one lens and life is easier.
The IS lets you hand hold down to about 1/15 pretty easily... i had no problem with church shots in available light. Just pump the camera's ISO up in the church situations.

05/22/2006 08:36:06 AM · #7

Excellent Terry, thank you very much for that, it was exactly what I was looking for!

05/22/2006 08:43:38 AM · #8

Ok, so hand-holding down to 1/4 second without camera blur is one thing, but how did you feel about the motion on the other end of the camera at that speed?

My feeling is that at 1/4 of a second, any moderate movement is going to show up...

I find that a lot of my indoor shots get blurred people because of their movement beyond 1/20...

You could give it a whirl, but it might also be worth considering the 17-50 f/2.8 by Tamron being released soon... You don't get the anti-shake, but you will get a bit more freedom with 2 stops difference at the telephoto end (where you will probably need that IS more)...

It's a bit of a toss-up I guess.

The other thing to think about is that if you are quite steady, the IS will do more than just the '2-3 stops of movement correction'.

I use an S2 IS and I have taken some VERY slow shots (1/8th and 1/10) that turned out pretty durned good because I was extra careful with camera shake. Remember, IS is a tool. If you work with it, you can accomplish a lot, even more than the original toolmakers intended. If you can eliminate all but the tiniest movement, you will be able to keep your image clean even with quite long exposures. Monopods are worth their weight in gold here IMHO.

05/22/2006 08:56:17 AM · #9

Okay wait, my question is this...

If the church is a little too dark to attempt hand-held shots, would it just be better to bounce the flash off the roof or the sides?

05/22/2006 09:11:00 AM · #10

I read a really good tutorial by a top pro wedding photographer and he always recommends to bounce flash. He uses all kinds of stuff for it.

One thing he seems to do is shoot with the flash pointing over his shoulder a lot.

He uses it to fill the room. It will help soften the coloring of the flash light as well as the angles. His results were fantastic.

He says that because of current through the lens metering, the camera will generally work things out in a way that will give you a stable base so you can figure out how to adjust your flash exposure compensation...

I haven't done anything like this myself, so I would probably experiment with this a bit in the venue before the event got started just to get an idea, but it certainly seems like a feasable idea. He seemed to indicate that there will be enough output from your flash to even the exposure in most cases.

I do believe that he uses some pretty significant battery packs though for his flash.

Bouncing is usually done off the closer surface is it not?

TerryGee

Canon EOS-30D

05/22/2006 09:15:16 AM · #11

as far as church shots...
if allowed(each church has different rules tho most these days allow flash) I use my flash for certain shots.
I do not attempt to bounce as the ceilings are usually way way too high. I usually either use a stofen diffuser or a gary fong lightsphere...tho once in a while i use it bare.
If I dont want side shadows I use a bracket if not using the lightsphere.
When i do the existing light shots I rarely worry about movement because thy are generally times when people are standing still. You can lean the camera for certain shots to steady it like when you go up to take overall shots if there is a balcony... or leaning the camera on the pews.

for the question of movement showing up... when using my flash i am almost ALWAYS shooting at 1/30th and the flash will freeze the shot. During receptions I do a lot below that to get some movement or light effects(shutter dragging).

05/22/2006 09:18:43 AM · #12

1/30th?

Mmmhh... I've always used it on 1/60th... must definately try that!

As for bouncing the flash, yeah, i'm just experimenting at this stage, so I try and bounce it off wherever I get the chance!

If the ceiling is too low, however, yeah, it'll be a major problem!

05/22/2006 09:51:52 AM · #13

The 350XT has E-TTL II.

If the ceiling is low, it won't be a problem. It will adjust for that even if the flash is bounced. It can tell the difference between ambient light and flash light.... apparently... I've found that the flash metering on the 30D works fantastically well. And I was already pretty impressed with the results off the 300D (which only has E-TTL I). You probably won't have a problem if you keep your wits together.

If the ceiling is high, that's when you will have a problem.

Bouncing your flash off a reflector should be the key... I am considering building a big bounce flash unit out of a reflector and a tripod flash mount... A lightsphere would do the same, possibly better.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

05/22/2006 10:36:18 AM · #14

This is actually a better lens for weddings, am I right?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

Will it fit my Rebel though?

Rebel XT can take EF and EF-S lenses?

TerryGee

Canon EOS-30D

05/22/2006 02:18:34 PM · #15

if you bounce you must have some fill for any shots of people .. 580 has the white card, 430 doesnt :(
With the stofen i suggest a slight angle instead of a straight bounce.

the 17-40 is great... but it means having another camera with a long lens or switching lenses everytime you need to get a close up shot.

Elvis_L

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

05/22/2006 02:27:17 PM · #16

Originally posted by Guyver:

Will it fit my Rebel though?

Rebel XT can take EF and EF-S lenses?

Yes it will fit

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

05/22/2006 02:44:15 PM · #17

I've never shot a wedding as a hired photographer, but I've been to a bunch with my camera - and I'd like to offer my point of view.

A slow zoom may work in that you'll get the shots you wanted to get, but it simply won't get the kind of shots that make professionals professional. A fast prime (or 2.8 zoom) will not only get the low light shots, but it will isolate the subject from the extremely busy background. It'll allow you to shoot iso 400-800 rather than 1600-3200, big difference.

I say go with the 35mm 2.0 and the 85mm 1.8. Yes, you'll have to switch back and forth, but the quality difference will be immediately obvious. Perhaps many will say you need to go wider than 35 ... I don't agree (and there's always the 20mm 2.8).

my 2 cents

05/23/2006 12:38:22 AM · #18

Originally posted by TerryGee:

Wouldn't 40 be enough though? To get close I mean? Which "long lens" would you be referring to?