grise.photography Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Hi, I'm new here! I've been photographing weddings since July 2005 (so, brand-new at this). So far I've gotten by on borrowed lenses, but now I'm looking into investing in some of my own. I have $400, so I'm sure I'll have to go with used and an off-brand. I have a Canon Digital Rebel (I plan on upgrading to a 20D in the somewhat-distant future). I only have the 18-35mm it came with. What is a good, fast lens (preferably something that is good for low light and movement) that won't break my budget (or if it does, slightly over is OK). Beyond that, once I get more money saved up, I'll need to invest in a good telephoto & a good wide angle. I don't want to spend more than $500 per lens, at least at this point in my life. What do you all recommend? Thanks for any insight you can offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Sigma 18-50mm f2.8. Or Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Or two primes--50mm f1.8 and 20mm or 24mm f2.8. Or save up for the 24-70mm f2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grise.photography Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 i'm sorry, I meant it came with the 18-55mm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Buy used. 50/1.4 ... and then a 85/1.8 when you can afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Marc, aren't those lenses a might long for the Rebel? I think she'll need something wider than what is equivalent to an 80mm...I'm assuming she wants to replace the 18-55mm, not keep using it...maybe I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grise.photography Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Yes, I want to find a good replacement FIRST, but I am also interested in any recommendations regarding wide angles and telephotos. Most importantly, I need some lenses that work well in low-light conditions with movement. Plus, I like to be invisible at weddings, so a nice telephoto will be important for that. I'm really looking into the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 as a replacement for my 18-55mm. What does everyone think about the wide angle and telephoto? Thanks :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kennyahn Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 For what you're looking at doing, I would agree that the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 will be a good replacement. Another idea may be for you to get the Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 and a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Oh, if the 18-55 is to be replaced, then that Tamron 24-75/2.8 seems a good choice. At $390., another choice may be the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC Macro (27-112mm on the D-Reble). Slower at the long end, but considerably wider at the other end for tight quarters and sweeping shots of the church/reception. Focuses down to 8" at all focal lengths for ring shots and details. But I don't know how it performs optically ... where I know the Tamron is pretty good since my partner used to use one. Big question for Jenny is whether she has a flash other than the pop-up one on the Rebel? If not, I'd recommend keeping the current zoom, get a used Canon 50/1.4 (I sold my mint one for $200) or a 50/1.8II. and get a real flash with the remaining budget. That will make more of a difference than buying more lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_rubinstein___mancheste Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 If that lens has been giving you close to the coverage that you are needing and you are not using very little DOF/fast lenses as I assume you are not, then I can heartily recommend the 17-40L lens, there are plenty kicking around being sold 2nd hand, especially on Fred Miranda. That together with a 50mm 1.8 for low light and as a great (crop camera) portrait lens and you should be doing fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anner Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I agree that a superb flash can often overcome the downfalls of mediocre lens- obviously not in no-flash situations (like ceremonies), but definitely at the reception and for portraits. (I still use the kit lens, along with a lot of other things.) After you have a great flash, an inexpensive available light option would be the 50mm f1.8. At this point it would be better to build on what you already have so that you can broaden your possibilities rather than replacing the same tool. If you just replace the lens, you may still find yourself very limited in what you can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I think you should shoot some weddings and see what focal lengths you tend to use the most before buying anything else. Lens strategy can change if you eventually get a full frame camera, for one thing, and your preferences can change once you being to shoot a lot. It is a common belief among beginning wedding shooters that a telephoto (zoom) is necessary to be invisible. While some photographers do use the telephoto to get their "candid" shots, many use wide angles to do the same, relying on their abilities to fade into the background while standing "right there". As for movement--I assume you mean fast lenses that allow you to use shorter shutter speeds--there is more to that whole area too, such as using your flash while dragging the shutter, a technique you should research. As for wide angles, Canon is not known for their wide angles. So if you were to go for "good", any of their wide angle primes is "good", with their wide angle, prime, L lenses being "very good/excellent" and expensive. Third party wide angles are not much better. On the telephoto end, the best lens for the kind of shooting you describe is the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L. It is a huge lens with a big price tag. The 135mm f2 L is one of the best lenses Canon makes, but that lens, on a crop camera, is equivalent to 216mm, and it is expensive too. The 135mm f2.8 SF (Soft Focus) Canon lens is good quality (without SF dialed in) and a bargain, but you may not like the fact that it is not USM, so focusing is not as sure. Maybe the 85mm f1.8 (an excellent lens) that Marc mentioned would work for you on the crop camera, but if you get the Sigma 24-70mm, it wouldn't give that big a difference from 70mm. The reason I advise thinking carefully and going slowly is because "lens jumping" can cost you more in the long run than what you think you will save. I always recommend laying out a lens strategy and buying the best. If you can't afford it now, save, and rent in the meantime. If you last in wedding photography, you will probably end up with those best, expensive lenses anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_lee___minneapolis__m Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I heartily recommend Sigma EX lenses. Fantastic build quality (usually), they look gorgeous with a felt/suede like finish. I had the 18-50 2.8 EX DG on my RebelXT and loved it. There is an almost identical thread in the last week or so that I posted. In short, on the 18-50 I always wanted longer than 50mm, but the 70-200 2.8 Sigma was too long and couldn't focus close enough. I'm moving to the 24-70 Sigma 2.8, a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR (switching to Nikon D200!) Regards, Aaron Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I'm not always a big fan of Sigma EX series lenses since I had one fail recently. But I think the 18-50 f/2.8 is probably the best lens for weddings that can be had for about $400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry schaefer - chicago, Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 My Sigma shots<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry schaefer - chicago, Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Sorry on the size. Damn.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry schaefer - chicago, Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 This not good at posting pictures<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry schaefer - chicago, Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 Enought these are at 495 wide I quit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now