Crop Sensor Lens Choices for Weddings

<p>Hey everybody. I have a Canon 40D and a Canon Rebel XS (both 1.6 crop sensor) that I will be shooting a wedding with. Here are the lenses that I either own or plan to rent for the wedding:</p>

<p>17-55 2.8 USM (Will own)<br>

18-55 3.5-5.6 IS (as a backup) (Own)<br>

50 1.8 (Own)<br>

70-200 2.8 (Plan to rent, in case I can't get close enough to use the 17-55 for close-ups during the ceremony)<br>

10-22 3.5-4.5 (Plan to rent)</p>

<p>What does everyone think about these lens choices? Will the gap between 55-70 be an issue? Any other MUST HAVE lenses for a crop sensor camera at a wedding? Thanks for any advice. </p>

<p>The gap between 55 and 70 (88 and 112) wouldn't bother me. As for must have lenses--this will vary. I don't consider the 70-200mm f2.8 a must have lens, particularly for cropped sensor cameras. So I'd opt for an 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2 (less than the 85mm) any time. However, if the ceremony is outdoors in brighter light, the 70-200mm would be great. I don't consider the 10-22 a must have lens either. Nice to have, certainly, but not must have.</p>

<p>I personally have used the 70-200 quite a bit at weddings (on a 1.6 crop) but I believe I am in the minority on this. And for me personally I feel the 17-55 2.8 is plenty wide for all of my needs and wouldn't need the 10-22.</p>

<p >The gap between 55 and 70 on an APS-C does not bother me. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The 10 to 22 is too wide for my Wedding needs. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >My 70 to 200 was not used on my APS-C cameras for Weddings - the 85 had eighty times more use. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The 70 to 200 was used OUTSIDE on a 5D occasionally - a bit long for my working preferred working distance on an APS-C. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I don’t like the 70 to 200 for Weddings because it is White, prefer the 135 and 85.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Depending upon the Venue for Ceremony and the Rules of that venue:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >1. The 70 to 200 <em >"in case I can't get close enough to use the 17-55 for close-ups during the ceremony"</em> might be too slow at F/2.8 if there is a no Flash Rule, for example, even with a 40D's ISO capacity. An 85 and cropping the frame might be better, and 135 wide open is also 1 more stop than the 70 to 200.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >2. The 50 might be too long to use as the Fast Prime / No Flash, if the venue is small or the Bridal Party is large or both. 35, 28, or 24 might be better. I like the 24 and to crop later.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>i shot with two 40d's and the 17-55/2.8 and 85/1.8 only for a few years. i had the 17-85 as a back-up but luckily i never had to use it because the quality is not the same. now i have the 70-200 2.8 IS and 10-22 and sold the 17-85. the 10-22 really rocks in the dressing room, for the bouquet and garter toss, and for dance floor shots. i also use of for large group shots so i won't have to stand back so far. when using my 70-200 i find that most shots are around the 85 and 135 focal lengths anyway, so i could probably sell it and get the much cheaper 135/2.0 lens, but i don't like changing lenses that much plus the 70-200 has many other uses such as the zoo and my son's baseball games.</p>

<p>one advantage of the 70-200 2.8 IS is the ability to handhold at slower shutter speeds than the 85/1.8. because of that i find that i use the 70-200 now far more than the 85.</p>

<p>I found too often not an advantage, if the subjects are moving and the EV is that low you need to go to a very slow Tv . . . at a Wedding the Subjedts usually are moving and the extra stop and a bit is useful for the higher Tv yo freeze that motion. Also for me, the balance of the 85 is better.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>good point william about subject motion. typically when i do indoor candids of the guest and b&g at the reception i go around with the camera settings at 1/60 f2.8 and bounce flash. i get nice sharp images with the 70-200 2.8 IS that i wasn't able to consistently get handholding the 85/1.8</p>

<p>I could shoot a whole wedding with a 35 if the need arose. However, I don't.</p>

<p>The combo of the 17-55 and 70-200 is plenty of coverage on crop IMO. with your backup lenses, you should be good to go.</p>

<p>I use a Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC on a crop currently, and its great. If you want a good solid alternative to the Canon version, this is it.</p>

<p>Danzel: I would not have thought it would make much difference at 1/60s @ F/2.8 when using FLASH with either lens . . . I expect and get sharp images from both those lenses at F/2.8 using Flash indoors at the Reception . . . if that were happening to me with my 85 @ F/2.8, I would be closely examining the "why" . . . examining very closely. <br>

<br>

Returning to the lens question asked by Tom . . . <br>

<br>

I was referencing stopping subject motion without Flash - the extra stop and 1/3 of the 85mm lens is useful, and in some extreme cases, for example in Dark Churches when near the max of ISO the 70 to 200 is impossible to use to get a suitable Tv - hence my leaning toward the 85 (and 135F/2). We have many older sandstone type Churches and many with a No Flash Rule during the Ceremony.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

<p>Well it sounds like the 85 1.8 is a MUST have lens for a crop sensor. Like Danzel C said, I imagined using the 10-22 in tight spots like dressing room, overhead shots of the guests at reception, sweeping shot of the church, down the aisle, etc. I want to minimize lens changes and mainly work with two bodies each with their own lens attached. Sounds like most people agree that the 17-55 on one body and the 85 on the other would cover MOST of my needs. </p>

<p>How many people use monopods at weddings (as a solution for slower shutter speeds)? I appreciate the input!</p>

<p>Never got the hang of monopods, but many swear by them. I use a tripod when I need to/want to.</p>

<p><strong><em>"How many people use monopods at weddings (as a solution for slower shutter speeds)?"</em></strong><br>

<br>

I used a monopod, mostly inside the Church. Not necessarily as the solution for slower shutter speeds, but yes to assist that also.<br>

<br>

Usually combined with the 50, 85 or 135; I carry two cameras all day and a monopod allows (during the Ceremony) for my camera to be at my eye level and at the ready for the moment of least Subject Movement for extended periods without strain on my arm - that's the main reason I use a monopod during the ceremony - so the camera is "ready" for extended periods and I could time the shutter release.<br>

<br>

If relegated to the rear of the Church then I would usually set up a tripod, so a monopod from the side Aisle, a front Pew or close to Sanctuary or from the (front) Choir Stalls: a monopod is better in a crowded area or a tight space - which these areas can be.<br>

<br>

WW </p>

 

<p><strong><em>"I want to minimize lens changes and mainly work with two bodies each with their own lens attached."</em></strong><br /><br />I suggest you think the day "sets" (I used to with film - both for lighting balance and roll changes) . . . for example let's assume you had three lenses only and two bodies (10 to 22; 17 to 55; 85)<br /><br />At the home (getting ready) the two lenses might be the 10 to 22 and the 17 to 55; at the Church the 17 to 55 and the 85; outside the Church the 17 to 55 and either other lens depending upon how close or how far you want to work and whether you want sweeping shot or not . . . <br /><br />Or Outside the Church maybe the 10 to 22 and the 85 is the answer . . . I can see that pair working for many Photographers during that set.<br /><br />I think you need to understand that generally it is the Photographer which drives the lens choice not the lens choice which drives the Photographer. <br /><br />I recognise you are asking those experienced what lenses do they use so you can get an idea of what you might use – but I think you need to keep in mind the “why” . . .or “why not” of the lens choice. There is no correct answer and hopefully with experience you will come to YOUR answer. <br /><br />To best suit you gaining that experience, if you only have very few Weddings under your belt now, I suggest keeping it very simple apropos lenses to begin – better you concentrate on other things to get those right and just have two lenses all day - and yes on an APS-C the FL range of 17 to 85 with the zoom and the Prime combination should do more than 95% of shots – provided you have enough light when using the 17 to 55.</p>

<p>For this upcoming Wedding - which is the point of your question - you could still rent the 10 to 22 and the 70 to 200, but I suggest your emphasis be on getting the job done successfully with precision and not necessarily attempting to use those lenses just because you rented them. <br>

Paying the money to rent tools for safety and learning when you don't need them is OK: it is OK to pay for learning. <br>

<br>

WW<br>

 

 

</p>

<p>Thanks William. Yes I have only assisted at 3 weddings (haven't done one of my own yet) and I only had the Rebel Kit lens 18-55 3.5-5.6 and my 50 1.8 There were several times that I needed more length and once or twice that I needed more width. </p>

<p>Like you said, I will definitely figure out what works best for me after the first one or two on my own, I just want to make sure I'm as prepared as possible going into it. To keep things simple and focus on capturing the moments (rather than worrying about lens changes) I'll likely take the 17-55, 85, and 50 and call it a day! Thanks for all of your insight!</p>

<p>Gidday, <br>

<br>

I think that is a good plan too. That saves money. I add that you should to debrief yourself before you go to bed that night: ask yourself what could I have done better and what would I have needed to do that - I suggest it not be an in depth analysis but rather three or four key points - maybe from this Wedding the answers might NOT be lens related - who knows? <br>

<br>

I write two or three key points from my day, in my diary at night. Learning or refining three key points from each gig / day, is a good idea, IMO.<br>

<br>

Good Luck.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

<p>Based on the continuous high praise I see here (and elsewhere, actually) for the Tamron 17-50 2.8 I decided to rent one (with the image stabilization) for a wedding I'm shooting this weekend. I rented the Canon 17-55 2.8is for my previous wedding so this will be a good comparison. If it's anywhere near as good as the Canon I'll likely purchase it since the savings over the Canon are substantial. Interestingly the 17-55 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 were on my two cameras almost the entire wedding (I shoot with two bodies) - it was a lens combo that seemed to work very well for me. I also rented the amazing Canon 35L but didn't use it except for a few getting ready shots. That was very telling to me.<br>

And while on the subject of renting lenses - I use two online companies. I noticed that one of them, lensrental dot com, just started offering rentals for as few as 4 days at a reduced cost. I opted to try that this time. I find it to be a pretty economical solution for trying out new equipment before purchasing.</p>

<p>Is it too late to suggest the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? It's a good normal fast prime, a bit wider than your 50.</p>

<p>Tom,<br>

The lenses you listed are the exact lenses that I carry. The 10-22mm was the final purchase to round out the set.</p>

<p>Hello all, new here and this is my first post here on Photo.Net!<br>

Man, wish I read this thread before purchasing the Tamron 70-200 2.8 I'll be shooting a wedding soon as well and sold my 50mm 1.4., thinking that the 70-200 it was a recommended "must have" to compliment my excellent tamron 17-50 vc 2.8 for my crop 50D. Since having the Tam 70-200 for a few days, taking test shots..i'm noticing that it is difficult to minimize camera shake and get sharp images at FL between 135-200mm. I'm not used to the weight and my slightest body movement really is pronounced as I look through the lens. I'd rather have the Canon 70-200 IS 2.8 but can't afford it right now, so I opted for the Tamron. Starting to think I should have got the Canon EF 85mm 1.8 instead or at least kept my wonderful 50mm. 1.4. I've still got time, so maybe I'll take it back and do a trade at my camera shop. What do you all think, anyone with experience with the Tam. 70-200 2.8 for weddings? Any tips on its use would be helpful and greatly appreciate it. Thanks!</p>

<p>Greg, anything that is F2.8 or smaller max aperture, that is 135 + mm FL, will be hard to hand hold at shutter speeds of less than around 1/160th IMO. I have the 70-200/2.8 VR (nikon) and it is pretty much a given that the VR is on whenever I use it. A 70-200 without VR/IS is a no go in anything but decent light, again IMO.</p>

<p>I opt for my 85/1.4 on a FF or crop (depending on what I want for FOV) and often a 50/1.4 on a crop body. I would suggest (especially Canon) 85/1.8 as a must for your tele shots, and if you can swing it, the 50/1.8 too.</p>

<p>Greg, I found the Tamron 70-200 to be a pretty decent lens for portraits and other situations where the subject isn't moving a lot. However, it was pretty pathetic when it came to focusing on a moving object. The loud focusing motor would search forever trying to lock onto the subject. It was one of the most frustrating experiences I've had with a piece of camera equipment. Going from that lens to the Canon 70-200 was like night and day (cue chorus of angels singing and sunshine breaking through the clouds). This was a couple years ago so hopefully the Tamron has improved.</p>

<p>Thanks for your insight guys. David, thats what I'm finding to be true so far with the Tam. 70-200; in decent, bright light this lens is fast and sharp, but in low light, hand-held...forget it. Excitedly, I'm getting great shots with my Tam. 17-50 Di II (VR) 2.8 as my main walk around, and I agree; I think the 85mm might just be the one to round out my must haves. I can also snag a 50mm 1.8 for cheap on ebay! <br>

Mitch, you're right, I'm finding this lens to be "decent" when the subject is not moving at all, but still at the longer focal ranges, this non-IS lens is difficult to lessen camera shake quite a bit, hunting of the AF..etc. Sadly, I don't think the Tam has improved much since your dealings with it. Yeah, I'd very much like the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM. But for now, I think I'll rent the Canon 2.8 IS USM version on occasion when needed. Also, I played around at f/4.0 with this lens and the DOF blur is pretty good as well. Purchasing a Canon 70-200 4.0 IS could be on the radar too as an alternative to this Tam. tele. I've found several on ebay going for as little as $800.00. I can just hear those angels singing! lol! Thanks for your suggestions and input gents. </p>

<p><em><strong>"Purchasing a Canon 70-200 4.0 IS could be on the radar too as an alternative to this Tam. tele."</strong></em><br>

<br>

It depends what the purpose of the lens will be and what Ev you intend to work at and what the "reasonable" ISO capacity of your camera(s). <br>

<br>

There is no point having the "capacity" to hand hold at 1/Xs - if that Shutter Speed <strong ><em >is NOT going to stop the Subject's Movement.</em> </strong><br>

<br>

For example, if the lens is to be used mainly outside or in bright interiors where F/4 will give adequate Tv at reasonable ISO to freeze motion then F/4 is OK. <br>

<br>

But if you are thinking this lens is for use inside the Church and for use sans flash - then F/2.8 is the answer because you will get a Church which is dark or get an overcast day or an Evening Wedding . . .<br>

But then again, F/1.8 is faster still, as too is F/2 . . . which I think was the reason why you commented in the first place. <br>

Hence for my money, the purchase of the 85/1.8 (and the 135/2) <strong ><em >for a Wedding Kit with APS-C bodies</em></strong> would be a priority over the 70 to 200F/2.8IS. <br>

And the F/4 version, would never be in contention, as that, IMO, would be money wasted.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Hey William W, Thanks I appreciate it..I went back to the camera shop and that was exactly the conversation! You're right, it came down to the 85mm 1.8 and I got my 50mm 1.4 back. The fellow pros in there didn't even look at the 70-200 f.4 for the same points you just raised LOL! Said it was good in decent to good light outside but their "bread and butter was complimented by the 85mm as their short tele to complete their wedding lens line up. You guys are good. I even walked out of there with $500.00 back in my pocket! Sweet! I'll rent the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS USM "if" I feel later with more experience I need one. Until then, I'm now all set to go and feel very confident! Thanks guys for your advice, u guys helped a lot! Now on to making great images...</p>