Sigma 120-300 for wedding?

[701]

It is probably a dumb question, but I am wondering if anyone used Sigma 120-300

f2.8 on a wedding before?

 

I am planning to get this lens for my wildlife shooting and it happens that in 3

months I will be shooting a wedding for my friend (they can't afford a

professional, so we will have 3 people working together on this event).

 

I wonder if it's even worthed trying to carry this lens there? I have been

shooting with a 18-50 f2.8 and a 85 f1.4 for couple weddings, just trying to see

if I can get more reach with the heavy lens.

 

Thanks for all suggestions.

[ed_farmer]

I use my 80-200f2.8 at just about every wedding that I shoot. However, the 120-300 is not only longer, but bigger and heavier. If I had both, I don't think that I would carry the Sigma to weddings, but if I only had one or the other, I would most likely carry whichever lens I had.

 

Ed

[william-porter]

<blockquote><em>I wonder if it's even worthed trying to carry this lens there? I have been shooting with a 18-50 f2.8 and a 85 f1.4 for couple weddings, just trying to see if I can get more reach with the heavy lens.</em></blockquote>

<p>Sounds like you've shot a couple of weddings. Did you feel then that you <em>needed</em> more reach? A rifle's not much use in a knife fight. If you have to shoot from the back of the church 75 feet away, a long, fast zoom might be useful. Otherwise, a lens whose short end is 120mm sounds to me like the lens for a couple of shots, at most, and a way to miss shots the rest of the time.</p>

[stephen_kinosh]

I have a Sigma 24-135 that I LOVE. A bit on the heavy side but not having to change lenses is a blessing.

[mike_earussi1]

The question is, how strong are you? That is a big heavy bulky lens, fine for a tripod but I certainly wouldn't want to hand hold it for an hour or more.

[701]

Thanks for the suggestions. I was thinking to use a monopod to shoot during the ceremony when there can't be too much walking around, but I can see a 6lb lens is hard to bring around and will catch too much attention.

[wedding-photography-denver]

I would find the 85 plenty for most days, but the lack of options for something longer is a bit limiting.

 

I would sooner get a 200mm than that lens though. Personal pref.

[kin_lau]

I have the 120-300/2.8 for wildlife and I also have the 70-200/2.8 & Canon EF85/1.8. Even if I didn't have the 70-200, I would _not_ drag the 120-300 around for a wedding (I've done a few), I'd use the 85/1.8 instead.

[savagesax]

You may need the lens for the wedding or future weddings if you are not permitted anywhere in the church/temple except in the back and without flash. Some places have pretty strict rules. Other places let you room all over the place! Anyway, find out what the rules are. If you are lucky and able to go anywhere you wish, leave the lens home.

[savagesax]

opps -typo ROAM, not room!

[ken c oshkosh, wi]

I've started using my 300 2.8L IS at weddings. Paired with my 20D I can get in on the rings and kiss w/o being there. Normally I shoot with a pair of 5Ds with fast primes or the 70-200.

[mike_pallas]

I dont see the need for that at a wedding. 100mm at the top and 24mm at the bottom is plenty.

[kaiyen]

This is close enough to a new thread for me to just jump in here...

 

 

I am considering the 120-300 for weddings as well. I'd use it some for wildlife, too, as it's very TC friendly. The reason is that I want something longer for those shots from the back of the church or the balcony. A 300 2.8 is pretty heavy, too, and loses the zoom versatility. And since I'm a Nikon shooter, my other options in relatively long are an older 400 5.6 (too slow), the current 80-400 (slow AF and too slow) and the 300 4 (would be slow if I were to add a TC, again no zoom).

 

But the 120-300 is _heavy_. Even on a monopod just moving around with the thing invites banging into things.

 

I'm very torn...I like the idea of having a zoom to which I can add a TC yet still be at f4 and go out to 450ish _before_ the FOV crop factor.

 

allan