please help with this if u can--Tamron vs. Canon 70-200mm?

<p>Hi all,<br>

you have helped me in the past and you always good give good advice. Well my problem is that ive got my first wedding coming up in approx 2months, over the last 4 months ive upgraded my gear and its all cost me a arm and a leg ! the current gear im using is the canon 50d, 50mm 1.8, tamron 17-50 2.8, canon 550ex, nikon sb-28, sunpak 120j auto pro ( i do alot of off camera photography ) 2x pocket wizards plus 11 trancivers, westcott 50" & 28" softboxes & 60" westcott umbrella. So my kits is coming together but what i wanted to ask you guys is that i was hoping to have funding for the canon 70-200 2.8 IS, to complete my gear BUT its all gone tit's up and it dont look like im going to get it, well not all of it anyway & im not in the postion to buy one myself at the moment, then speaking to a gent here in the UK who works in a camera shop said why dont you go for the TAMRON 70-200 2.8. , i really wanted the canon IS version but its going to be well after the wedding date before i could even think about it ! Ive read up a little on this TAMRON and watched a few youtube reviews but they are all mixed in views and i dont really know what to do !!!!! Time is running out as what ever lens i get i want to have a little play with it before the wedding. The guy rekons he uses it and he loves it, but he would say that as he wants me to buy it from him, his shop is selling it for £499 GBP.<br>

If someone could help on making my mind up on this id be so greatfull as its a constant headache even when im trying to sleep .lol</p>

<p>Many Thx<br>

Geraint</p>

<p>Geraint - two options for you.</p>

<p>You can rent what you need. One day for a single lens won't cost much - probably somewhere round £30.</p>

<p>Otherwise work with what you have. There's no minimum set of gear you need, with the exception of having a suitable backup. For my first wedding my main camera was a Leica and a single 50mm prime lens, and it was all that I needed. Photos from that day are still in my portfolio now. A few years on I'm increasingly going back to working light. Having lots of gear becomes its own distraction.</p>

<p>The 70-200 is far from essential. I have the Nikon 70-200 IS and while it's a nice lens, I don't feel I need it all the time. Often it stays at home as many UK venues don't lend themselves to long focal lengths. If you've never shot a wedding before you'll probably be better waiting to find out what you really need.</p>

<p>If you're not shooting in a church, you won't need 200mm.</p>

<p>In any case, you will need at least two camera bodies. An f/1.4 lens wouldn't hurt either.</p>

<p>As I recall from your previous posts, you are just dying to buy a 70-200mm lens. If you are going to buy a 70-200mm lens, I'd wait until I could afford the Canon IS version. Personally, I use wide aperture primes. The long zoom on a cropped sensor camera is often too long for weddings anyway. As I also recall, people suggested you get the 85mm f1.8. That is still what I'd suggest. Or, as Neil said, rent what you need and save up for what you really want.</p>

<p>85 f/1.8 is a good lens, but I personally find f/1.4 aperture or faster a more versatile option in case you need extra light. The 50 f/1.4 is inexpensive, and Sigma's 30 f/1.4 (though I wouldn't own one, I know a pro photographer who swears by it) is also around the same price.</p>

<p>It's my experience and belief that you will find more uses for wider lenses than longer ones during many weddings. When you need longer reach is for candids, more background blurring, and sometimes for having a specific type of depth in a photo. It's true that longer does certain things better - IMO I would prefer to do formals with an 85L or 135L, or even a 200 f/2L IS if I had the money to buy one - but circumstances often end up making the wider lens get used more out of necessity. Tight, narrow or cramped areas are common, and to get more framing and angle options in a tight space you need wider lenses.</p>

<p>Oh yes, and BTW the Tamron 70-200 is not reported to have a reliable AF system, and focus reliability is extremely important in wedding photography. For that matter, I think IS is also very important for a telephoto lens - so the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is by far the best option, next to a 200 f/2L IS.</p>

<p>I've used the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and was extremely frustrated with it's slow auto-focus, especially on moving subjects. It just would not lock on. This was the case even in broad daylight and it caused me to miss many shots. I finally ended up getting the Canon 70-200 2.8 and it made a world of difference. So, from my experience, I would definitely not recommend the Tamron.</p>

<p>you guys r great for helping, yes i got a back up but at the mo its only the 400d with all the extras, as Nadine said ( hi Nadine....she always helps me thx ) yes i have wanted this canon 70-200 2.8 is for a while as i want to shoot a mixture of the 2 styles in this wedding and want to have the lens so i can get in close at times without being noticed to much. I will def look into the 85mm as yes its had great reviews, and a 1.4 lens. Yes its going to b in a church and ive been told its quite a dark church and dont allow flash !!!!!! nitemare as its my first ha ha. As Mitchel stated thats what i read about the tamron 70-200 was its slow AF, well im not getting that so it looks like back to the piggy bank for me! ill wait till my partner is in a better mood before i tell her .lol. <br>

One more thing as stupid as it sounds and dont get me wrong as im doind well with my photography im so nervus about this wedding its unbelivable, just stupid things like will i be in the right place at the right time and watching i dont take pics of bride and her dress is over exposed, just stupid things like that ha ha its doing my head in. But again thanks guys n ladys of course. your great !!!!!<br>

If anyone can give me any tips and pointers for my first wedding i ll gladly take it all on board</p>

<p>Dark church with no flash allowed? Test the environment at the same time of day as the wedding will be, and check your shutter speed to see if you'll be able to freeze motion. Also make sure they don't allow flash during the processional.'</p>

<p>If you can't reach 1/250 sec. shutter speed with good exposure inside the church, and if they don't allow flash during the processional, you should be concerned.</p>

<p>oh dont say those words.....be concerned !! ha ha. im going to the church in 2 weeks to look...oh bloody hell uve made memore nervus now ha ha...thx for comment</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i have wanted this canon 70-200 2.8 is for a while as i want to shoot a mixture of the 2 styles in this wedding and want to have the lens so i can get in close at times without being noticed to much</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you may find the 70-200 is the wrong lens a lot of the time. It's big enough and intrusive enough that it can definitely get you noticed, if you're not careful. It's probably useful in the ceremony as it will let you stand out of people's main line of sight, but other than that it's not always the best choice, in my opinion.</p>

<p>It can be completely lethal at close quarters - too easy to knock into (or be knocked by) other people. It also depends on sensitivity to your surroundings and the wider aspect of the wedding. Far too many users of long lenses spend all their time viewing the wedding through a tube and can tend to end up with nothing more substantial than hundreds of headshots.</p>

<p>I'd prefer to use a small prime - say a 50mm or 35mm. Getting sufficient context is really important, and a moderate prime is small, fast to focus, easier to use in low light and rarely distracts anyone.</p>

<p>But in the end it's your choice. Good luck regardless.</p>