Best zoom for General use at Weddings...

I have recently ordered a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 Macro to try out before i

purchase (279 GBP)

However while at a friends yesterday I brought a 28-135 IS with hood,

from him for 200 GBP.

I'm wondering if I did the right thing. Should I have tried the Sigma

first.Is the Canon going to be Ok. Images seem good from the Canon and

it does have a Higher reach on my 350d (45-216mm) I know the Aperture

is not as big but High ISO on the 350d is very useable.

 

I have also borrowed a 75-300 IS from him which I can buy for 180 GBP

but the focus response seems very slow for a USM.

Any feedback greatly welcomed

 

Regards Wayne.

 

(I also have a 50mm 1.8 & 17-55 Kit lens)

Shooting digital, you probably have the best general purpose zoom short of the 17-40 which is permanent f4 but shorter on the long end. the 28-x zooms are a little too long on the short end to be called 'general purpose' on digital.

 

Reading recent threads has put me off the Sigma (image quality), in that focal range the consensus seems to be either the Canon 2.8L or the Tamron 28-75 2.8 xrDI.

 

For weddings in the UK, I'd recommend some fast primes (at least as an alternative), but this depends on shooting style. The Canon 28-135 produces sharp images stopped down but isn't comparable with any of the prime lenses in it's range for speed or image quality. For instance the zoom is only really suitable for professional results stopped down 2 stops (f11 at the long end), that doesn't really compare with either of the Canon 135mm primes which are great wide open (f2 or f2.8).

 

Personally I've tried several of the 75-300 zooms and for me the focus speed is so bad as to make them unusable (it's not true USM). In this focal range you really need one of the Canon 70-200L lenses or the Sigma 70-200 2.8EX.

At 216mm, you will 'require' a tripod or hands-of-stone to hold everything steady at a wedding, at least indoors. IS is good at the camera end, but if someone moves a little __ IS won't freeze the action.

Add a good flash and you'll handle just about anything!

Wayne,

 

The 75-300 IS is very slow to focus in low light, and it goes all the way in and back before it settles in, and then sometimes it will do it again. I've missed a few shots because of it. Sometimes I'll just switch to manual if I really want to get the shot. I own the 75-300 and only use it when I can't rent the 70-200L or in good light (I like having the 300mm when the light is right).

 

If I had it to do over again I would probably buy the 70-200 f4- or I might have gone in to debt and bought the 2.8 IS, I love that lens.

 

Rob<div></div>

In my opinion, I find that a zoom lens which give you a good wide angle (at least 28mm equivalent in 35mm film size equivalent) will be your best, and possibly, only lens to use at a wedding.

 

I am also avoiding very long telephoto lenses at weddings due to small apertures and camera movement issues.

 

With digital, I have also discovered that the images are also very friendly to cropping.

 

I am going to attach two photos I took last week (which have nothing to do with weddings) but will show you the potential of digital cropping, and do use tele lenses, but just to show you what can be done..

 

The photos attached here is a photo of "Thomas The Train" I took get for my little friend at Roaring Camp near Santa Cruz CA.

 

In my response, you will see an extreme cropping of the same image capture.

 

These were taken with an Olympus E-300 with the 40-150mm lens at 150mm (300mm at 35mm equivalent).

 

I think, after many uses of these digital cameras, you can use lenses that move from wide angle to moderate tele and do some cropping and get excellent photos.<div></div>

This is a very small cropped segment of the train from the above posted photo.

 

We were not allowed to get close to the train since there were paid photographers taking photos for on-site resale, (there was an "armed" guard...yes, a real gun...with a bull horn to keep us back...really!), so I stood back, took my photo, and then cropped in PS.

 

My point is this:

 

With weddings, I think it is wise to go a bit wide and then crop when using digital. I am finding that digital is much more forgiving with regard to cropping than film.<div></div>

I am sorry, I made an error:

 

When I said, "...and do use tele lenses..." I ment to say that if you use tele lenses under good lighting you can crop down easily, but I think it is better to go wide and do the same cropping when needed.

 

In wedding photography, you often must work fast and I think working somewhat wide give you more flexibility. Avoid using a tele as you main lens.

 

Part of my work flow with digital post processing is cropping.

I only use one lens 28-70 Canon ..99% We do have a $100 75-300mm Canon we use , down the aisle , during indoor Church ceremonies. But, I simply move > instead of changing a lens.

thanks very much for your comments todd, I have been thinking along those lines myself. Go a bit wide and crop, this seems logical as alot of reports i've read lately say that the difference between 6 & 8 million pixels is not that great. So I was therefore thinking 'great I've got a spare 2 million to lose if I need to Crop more'. I think this makes sense also if I want square format shots of the bride.

 

So, as I said in my first post, does anyone have an opinion on my 28-135 IS vs Sigma 24-70 2.8. With a good Flash (550EX & 420EX slave) and decent ISO will this make up for not having f2.8 on the canon ?Or should i have gone sigma?(not as much tele though)

 

regards wayne

In reply to your further post to clarify between the Sigma 2.8 or the Canon 28-135;

 

You can never get a 'fast enough' lens. 2.8 will always be better than 5.6, even when you have usable 6400iso (and 1.4 will be better still).

 

In this focal length (I still believe on digital is not wide enough), 1 Canon 24-70 2.8L, 2 Tamron 28-75 2.8 xrdi, all the rest are some way behind optically. In summary, if you can't afford the Canon L, buy the Tamron.

Say what you like but I dont think the auto focus mechanisns nail it every time. They either focus on a wrong visual element or just dont hit full sharpness.

In fact here is a shot off my Sigma 24-60 2.8 EX/DG and Digi Rebel.<div></div>

LARRY -- Every photo should be this quality >> from the start of the day..on to the end ! Great work ..perfectly exposed/composed ..Hopefully you are commanding above $4k for your weddings >

Aw Shucks ! ! !

 

Thanks C JO I am flattered. That shot is from my 3rd practice wedding since June 25th. Haven't seen a nickel yet but I want the heavy end of my percentages to have similar attributes and still have a ways to go. Thanks again C JO

 

WAYNE - That Sigma was USD $419.00 I was pleased and surprised. A tad noisier than my USM's but good at the lower price.

I've had the Sigma now for a couple of day's. I've just been playing around with it and WOW !. It is fantastic. Colours just jump out with a punch and it is sharp at wide open. If I could justify 'L' money perhaps I might buy one.... but then again why spend silly money on something that is no better IMO (I have used an 'L' before but not mine)

I couldn't care less if my camera was made by ACME, so long as the end results were pleasing to the eye. So I couldnt give a stuff who makes the equipment,but if I can save money as well then I'd be a fool not to.

LArry is that pic straight out of the camera or after post processing. If processed, what did you do?