which canon lenses are must-haves for the wedding photog?

[halobelle]

If you all had to shoot a wedding, and carry 5 lenses, which would

you carry, that would cover the widest variety of situations. Just

want some great opinions out there! What lenses do you carry??

 

Thanks,

Sarah

[jfr]

What budget are you thinking of?

 

My ideal 5 lenses would be 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.5, 85 1.2, 70-200 2.8 IS

 

What I carry is 16-35/2.8, 50/1.4 85/1.8 70-200/2.8 IS

[fotografz]

Why the question? Your style, objectives and approach should determine the lenses you

select ... and it's rare that two people are completely alike in their criteria.

 

But, okay, I'll play along ... I do carry 5 lenses (or more, depending on the individual

wedding needs): 16-35/2.8L, 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 85/1.2MKII, 135/2L ... lenses I also

frequently bring along are the 24-105/3.5L, 100/2.8 Macro and 14/2.8L.

 

My shooting partner has a 70-200/2.8L IS and 300/2.8L IS which we sometimes bring to

the church if we're relegated to a distant balcony or back of a large church.

 

Most used lenses are the 35/1.4 and 85/1.2.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Ditto what Marc said strongly. You want primes or zooms? for a crop camera or FF? What budget?

 

On a crop camera I personally would use: 10-22 (very sparingly, horrible distortion with people), 17-55 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8L, 50mm 1.4 (portrait lens) possibly 35mm L 1.4 if budget allowed (full length portraits, group shots).

 

On FF, 16-35L, 24-70L, 50 1.4, 85mm 1.8 (1.2L if you're feeling rich, though for the money you could ADD a 135mm f2L), 70-200 f2.8L, maybe a 1.4X extender.

 

Personally I happily shoot weddings on FF with one lens, a 24-70L. I have a 70-200L in the bag that I rarely use and I'm not a big fan of ultra wide angle. The 24-70L provides me with a wide angle lens, a walk about 35mm, a 50mm for portraits, groups, and as a normal lens and a mild telephoto 70mm for portraiture, flattening perspective and shallower DOF, all in one very sharp f2.8 lens with excellent AF speed and even better flare control. It's heavy but lighter than multiple lenses.

[steve_newberry___northern_]

16-35mm 2.8, 24-70mm 2.8, 70 -200mm 2.8,

50 1.4, 85 1.8 & 135mm 2.0L

[savagesax]

I agree with everyone! Why 5 lenses? Pick your style. I only use 2 lenses at weddings. I like to travel light because of back surgery a few years back. Yes I have back up stuff too!

 

Anyway to play along get a short zoom and a long zoom. Thats about all you need. Once you zero in on your style perhaps pick up another lens.

[cjogo]

Still using one --28-70mm 2.8 L Eos...the only lense that accompanies me..

[fotografz]

C Jo, as you have pointed out in the past, your approach is pretty well defined. Others may

shoot differently and require different lenses to accomplish their specific goals.

 

Depending on the actual wedding scenario, I'm considered shooting an entire wedding with a

Leica M and 3 fast lenses (28, 50, & 90mm). I'll probably do that after the Digital M is

introduced later this year. That entire kit would take up the space of a 24-70 with hood

attached, LOL : -)

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Won't the digital M have a crop factor? Any news on the chip size or megapixels? 16 bit sensor like the DMR or would that be too much to hope for?

[fotografz]

Ben, at last report, 10 meg. 1.3X crop factor with viewfinder frame lines adjusted. A few

new lenses are in the works, presumably at the wide end just like the Nikon and Canon

cropped frame lens solutions.

 

If the Leica DMR is any indication, those specs will be just fine for wedding work ...

although Imacon isn't doing the electronics on this one, so we'll see.

 

1/8000 top shutter speed with flash sync @ 1/250th. Other basic design and functionality

of M photography retained as much as possible.

 

If it is as good as I hope it will be, a lot of my Canon stuff will be going by-by. Carrying a

shoe box of gear is much preferred to a rolling bag full of bricks.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

It's a good thing they've modernised the shutter speeds, the 1/1000 was one of the reasons I didn't even consider Leica M when thinking about a rangefinder, for use in the middle east at wide apertures as I intend it just wouldn't be enough.

 

At the moment I'm seriously thinking about the Contax G2, being able to dial in the hyperfocal distance manually and switch from that to AF with a simple dial, together with the well thought out AE lock switch is really attracting me (I know you don't like it!). The other affordable option for me would have been the Voigtlander R2a and to be honest the contax is quieter even with the focus and motor and fits better to hand as well as being cheaper as a package where lenses are considered. No one having used a 20D could ever complain about the viewfinder! ;-)

 

What are you using to scan your B&W negs? This is the major hurdle in the way of going back to film, if only for street work, it seems to be a major pain in the neck. Banking my future on films and papers that may or may not exist in five years time due to economic pressures (Ilford, Kodak, etc) is worrying me while the highlight latitude of neg film is still sorely lacking in the digital world and very certainly is an issue for street work, working with available light and often in high contrast situations. I could shoot with a 5D and 35mm but the package would be far larger, the latitude less and the whole thing worryingly professional looking, i.e. not unobtrusive at all.

[Philip Freedman]

I am not sure that digital suffers from a latitude problem quite as much as some people think. I have used the brilliant shadow/highlight control in Photoshop CS2 to bring up detail in deep shade areas which, before that adjustment, appeared blacked out and devoid of any detail. I was surprised that the detail was there. You must not overdo it, otherwise it looks false, but carefully done it produces photographs with excellent detail in both highlights and shadow.

 

Philip

[fotografz]

Thanks Philip, Ben and I know PS ACR pretty well and can squeeze quite a bit out of a file.

 

What Ben is speaking of is the Dynamic range of B&W neg. being 2 stops greater than

digital in the first place (according to Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape as

well as other sources). That means 2 stops more for you to place your range with-in for

each photo ... where there will be detail in the darks and the highlighted areas. The

latitude of neg film also tends to be more forgiving of overexposure than digital, which is

where most of the issues often tend to be when shooting available light.

 

Ben, I'm currently using a Minolta 5400 for 35mm scans. It scans 6 frames at a time.

 

I tend to just have the lab make proofs for weddings, but for personal work I use a Epson

4870 to make contact sheets, then select just the few for final scanning. Just set the scan

going in the background and move onto other work.

 

Next week I see a demo of the Imacon 626 scanner which has a higher "true" resolution

and greater D-Max than the Minolta.

 

I'm not worried about all the chatter concerning the demise of film, and will continue to

use it even more than in the past because despite all the advancements, programs and my

own increased knowledge of digital processing, film has that certain look that can't be

mimicked or duplicated ... especially for available light and more "raw" work.

 

To each his or her own. For me it continues to be film first, digital second (wish the cost

went that way also).

[uk]

Ben,

 

"What are you using to scan your B&W negs? This is the major hurdle in the way of going back to film, if only for street work, it seems to be a major pain in the neck."

 

--- Scanning is a pain in the neck! It's fine for the selected frames, but I use low cost 18mb scan to see what is on the neg and usually it is adequate for the album. Crops or enlargements can be scanned to 120Mb. Alternative is to use coontact sheets.

 

"Banking my future on films and papers that may or may not exist in five years time due to economic pressures (Ilford, Kodak, etc) is worrying me..."

 

-- There's still a big world market for film. Ibelieve it will survive your lifetime.

 

"while the highlight latitude of neg film is still sorely lacking in the digital world and very certainly is an issue for street work, working with available light and often in high contrast situations."

 

-- That's true today and I anticipate it will be much better in 5 years. From a camera marketing standpoint, increasing latitude is the BIG ONE that will encourage everybody to trade out their pro' DSLR's and undermine used prices. Digtal camera bodies are consumables IMO.

 

"I could shoot with a 5D and 35mm but the package would be far larger, the latitude less and the whole thing worryingly professional looking, i.e. not unobtrusive at all."

 

--With street photography, I carry an M with f2 lens on a shoulder strap UNDER my jacket. Nobody knows it's there till I use it; much more secure IMO. I carry a second f2 lens in my breast pocket, or my shirt pocket. If I want a colour/b&W alternative I carry a spare body in my jacket pocket. To be truthful, it's all a bit tight with a lounge suit jacket, but when I'm wearing an anorak/over-coat you would never suspect on first glance that I was carrying this gear.

 

With a DSLR, the camera is around my neck and if I want spare lenses I need a bag.

 

Hey, I'm not knocking DSLR's here, I think they are excellent, but this territory belongs to the rangefinders.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Philip, the problem is in the highlights not the shadows where digital shines.

 

Marc, however optimistic I would love to be, Ilford has already gone bust, that is all its film and paper, the paper that is possibly the most wide spread in its use in the market. It is not that it is in any way inferior, just that unless there is sufficient market it may fall again. Living in Manchester the home of Ilford I've seen and heard from the reps as they go about their business here and they arn't hugely optimistic about the future of the company even now, nevermind in 3 years time. Kodak have already stopped some of it's B&W paper and are closing more factories each year.

 

Whether I like it or not I think that any decision in an investment has to be done with the future in mind however painful that may be, I think it would be shortsighted to stick my head in the sand as to the future of some areas of film photography. Film is being killed by digital, not because digital is better per se, just that the consumer photography market is killing the film industry and no wringing of hands or love of the look/latitude of film will save it. Pro film isn't funding the market, Kodak Gold 200 is and no one is buying it anymore.

 

I do get some beautiful B&W from my 5D with the Gradient map method and using a USM contrast mask, but it isn't the same, especially in print. Above all, as I mentioned, a 5D with 35mm is not unobtrusive, it screams professional. People don't mind someone taking 'snapshots' but if you have an SLR they will turn away or start posing.

 

Unfortunatly digital rangefinders will be incredibly thin on the ground, the new digital M may be Leicas revival or its death warrant and by the time an affordable FF sensor with highlight latitude as yet unseen in almost any digital camera hits the market in a modern rangefinder form, street shooters may have been facing rising costs and limited choices/availibilty of their favorite B&W films/paper for a while. Digital is moving too fast and long established companies are falling by the way side almost monthly, the future is anything but certain and that includes the near future of even a year or two.<div></div>

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

sigh, that pic looks far too bright for screen, it was processed for print.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Marc, how do you do a contact sheet with a scanner, I've read about it a lot but I've never got it to work on my canoscan flatbeds.

[roger.a]

Marc,

How are you printing you black and white?

[fotografz]

As demand dwindles, I think color film will be maintained by one company, most likely

Fuji. If it disappears, oh well... I'd miss it.

 

B&W is another matter. It is a key player in an asthetic look that digital fails at miserably.

And it isn't just latitude or D-Max. It's the difference between the randomness of grain

compared to the clinical equality of pixels.

 

If it all goes bad in the next 10 years I'll take measures to keep it a viable choice like the

earliest photographers did without Kodak or Illford's help.

 

What I think is kind of funny is that some of the very earliest B&W works using semi-

primitive materials looks better than the latest greatest digital B&W work.

 

IMO, B&W personal photography isn't all about convenience and ease. In a disposable,

immediate need gratification world, personal art still has it's place, and always has ...

because process is part of the art, not just an inconvenience.

 

Ben on scanning negs for contact sheets on a flat bed: how are you trying to do it now

with your Canon? The Epson comes with contact sheet holders: 35mm @ 4 strips of 6

frames, a slide holder for 8 frames, a MF holder for six frames and a LF holder for two 4X5

frames. Scans at 300 dpi in seconds. I process my own B&W or I get my film lab processed

in rolls as opposed to cut. Look at them on a light box and select the strips for contact

sheets. Then scan the one's I'm interested in printing.

 

Roger, currently using a Epson 2400 with the new B&W inks and better choices in the

printer dialog. But the paper is the real issue. Already that is changing. There is a new ink-

jet paper from Crane that looks and feels like fiber based silver print paper. I've ordered

some and will report on it when it comes. It's not cheap, but it's for exhibition quality

prints, not mass production. Sounds perfect for B&W art prints that have been scanned

from film.

 

In a related note, I was rummaging around in my darkroom today and came across a B&W

print my wife had made in 1975 in high school . Not one single digital camera print I've

made in the last 5 years can hold a candle to that freaking 30 year old silver print made by

a then high school student. Something is terribly wrong.

[al_kaplan1]

I've currently got a show of 16 B&W silver gelatin prints at my local Starbucks. One is current work from last year. The other 15 prints, mostly 11x14's, I pulled out of my files. They still look fantastic, and were made 35 to 40 years ago. I've booked a wedding and a few commercial jobs based on the show, as well as selling a few prints of Bob Dylan and Janis Joplin. The last couple of weddings I shot were mostly B&W. B&W, and film in general, will be around for awhile, just harder to purchase supplies.

[grant g]

Having both crop and FF...If I had to bring just 5, I'd bring: 10-22, 24-70, 24-105IS, 70

-200IS and either a 28/1.8 or 50/1.4.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

"Not one single digital camera print I've made in the last 5 years can hold a candle to that freaking 30 year old silver print made by a then high school student. Something is terribly wrong."

 

Yup, like if they had culled all the horses in the world just because cars became popular. B&W hasn't been replaced by digital by a long stretch but it could still become increasingly expensive and the choice cut far down, how stupid. I've never been much into B&W but now I want to make inroads into some serious B&W work and the future looks increasingly stupid. I didn't mourn Agfa when it died, I used to manage an Agfa lab and hated the films, the chemistry and the paper. Culling off the weak isn't such a problem, if Ilford was to die again then I'd be really annoyed just as I was the first time when I was still shooting med format HP5 and delta 100. What a waste.

 

I was trying to scan the negs in the sleeves but it didn't work at all, while on the subject, I didn't know there was as high a spec flatbed scanner on the market, how does it compare to your minolta? The ability to scan for contact prints, scan med format and 35mm, as well as prints all in one package sounds very attractive though by the same standard would make me quite wary of it!

[fotografz]

Ben, The Epson 4870 I use has been superseded by the next model 4990 with an even better

D-Max of 4.0. Like mine it has Digital Ice which eliminates dust and scratches. The "Photo"

model comes with all the contact sheet holders and is about $450. here in the US.

 

I've used my 4870 scanner for original neg scans also. Not as good as my Minolta Scan Multi

Pro, but for many application has been more than enough. What's amazing is to scan silver

prints with it ... something I just read that Elliot Erwitt does. I've also scanned 5X5 lab proofs

and enlarged them 2X with no problem. Amazing actually.

[uk]

B&W Printing ?

 

When Calumet in the UK decided to pull back from the B&W paper market I bought 30

boxes of Oriental Seagull fibre based 10x8, 11x14 and 16x2 graded papers for $8 each !

 

Keeping for a rainy day.

[fotografz]

Ben, here's an example of the Contact sheets made on the Epson flatbed.

 

I set the size to 8X10 @ 300 dpi and it scans 6 MF frames in about 4 minutes. I can then

select individual frames in PS to make basic exposure adjustments or Auto Color individual

frames if my exposures were off one to the other. That way I can make sure it'll work before a

full up scan.

 

If you want to scan an individual frames in the same scanner you just select that frame and

up the resolution from 300 to 3200 (or higher).<div></div>