What to buy?

[alexandrutunschi]

<p>I can buy one of the following lenses for my Canon 450D (XSi):<br>

Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 USM with SoftFocus<br>

Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD Macro<br>

or Canon 55-250mm</p>

<p>I want to have a good tele lens for wedding photos. This lenses are in my price range.<br>

What do you think?</p>

<p>Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you!</p>

 

[nathan_meador]

<p>I don't think any of these lenses by themselves would be good for wedding photos...the canon 135 is the only one close to fast enough, but I wouldn't recommend it because you won't always want the soft effect. If your price range has to be under $400, I'd say maybe the canon 85mm f1.8. Do you have a wider lens that has a fast aperture? </p>

[edrodgers]

<p>I don't like those choices for wedding work. If I was tortured into using one of those to do a wedding, I might choose a slow painful death or the 135 soft focus. I'm undecided. For most weddings, the telephoto lenses need to be fast. You are going to be amplifying camera shake and making portable strobes work really hard to cover the distance. You need a very fast lens to keep your shutter speeds up to acceptable levels.</p>

<p>If you can't swing the cost of a fast prime lens for this purpose, you might want to rent.</p>

[saskphotog]

<p>Agree with Nathan. I would not buy any of those lenses for a wedding lens. I might buy the 135 for the soft focus if I already had good wedding lenses, but on its own, it is not what I would buy.</p>

<p>Good lenses for low light situations are expensive and few weddings are well lit. I think a wedding lens must be at least f2.8 if it is a zoom, and I think faster primes are a necessary for weddings. I also agree with Nathan that the cheapest way to get a good short telephoto lens for weddings is the 85mm f1.8.</p>

[hstelljes]

<p>If your budget is for 400 dollars and you dont have a f2.8 lens, I would recommend the Tamron 28-75 lens. It's usually around 350. US dollars. It's fairly fast and decently sharp. None of the other lenses you mentioned above are suitable for wedding photography. Good luck.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Question 1 is of course: what do you have?</p>

<p>Q2: What do you miss in focal range?</p>

<p>Q3: Would a 50/1.4 or 100/2 be long enough? Would you need longer or faster?</p>

<p>@Nathan: isn't the 135/2.8 SF soft focus effect optional? So can't you just use it as a relatively fast lens?</p>

[nathan_meador]

<p><strong>@Nathan: isn't the 135/2.8 SF soft focus effect optional? So can't you just use it as a relatively fast lens?</strong><br>

<strong></strong><br>

Matthijs is right, the soft focus is optional...I was thinking it was not. It is probably the best option of the choices given, really depends on jus how much reach is needed, since the crop body will make it more of a 216mm. I also think that 2.8 would be okay for outdoor or well lit settings, I still think the 85mm f1.8 will give more versatility. I'd also suggest the sigma 30mm f1.4 if the OP doesn't have a fast 'normal' lens. I think more info is needed. </p>

[alexandrutunschi]

<p>q1: 50/1.8, 17-40L/4, 18-55/3.5-5.6, 28-105<br>

q2: over 100mm<br>

q3: longer and faster :D<br>

@Nathan: soft focus effect is optional. If you set it at 0 is just like a normal lens.</p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>The 135mm f2.8 is a decent enough lens, the limiting factor is obviously that it is a prime, and quite a long one at that, with the the 1.6 factor its more like a 200mm. Not a great focal length for the ideal portrait perspective.<br>

It is very sharp with the SF set to '0' and despite the ancient mechanics (non usm arc) it is a fast focuser. It's also nice and compact given the effective length.<br>

NB the soft focus effect is only visible at up to f5.6, and despite the 2 indents, you can set the degree of SF at anything you want up to 2. I've found leaving it at a half gives a nice complexion without overtly looking like a 70s valentines card.<br>

Why limit yourself to these 3?<br>

The advice for the 85mm f1.8 is pretty good, though personally I think the 50mm f1.8 is even better for your type of sensor. Another option is the Sigma 70mm macro. Not a fast focuser but accpetable with the limiter on, very very sharp.</p>

<p>Are you doing this for your own use or is it professional. This will sound a bit vain, and I'm not knocking your camera, its a great week cam, but if you are doing it professionally you might want to look at a more professional body. Nothing wrong with the performance of your cam, but a xxD or 5 series (even the older model) may well instill more confidence in you and in your clients.<br>

Also, if you are doing it professionally, forget consumer level telezooms. Canons non-L prime lenses are all good, for zooms you really want to be looking at L series. Partly for your confidence in it, part looking the part as well. I know its shallow, but.....</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>q3: longer and faster :D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is nothing longer and faster than the EF 100mm f/2 USM this side of the discontinued EF 200mm f/1.8 L USM. Since you seem to want cheap, you better reconsider your priorities.</p>

[alexandrutunschi]

<p>@Paul Russel<br>

It's just for the start of my "future" professional photography. Right now I am building my equipment and my hand. I will second a photographer this year to get to know better my equipment and to build my portfolio. After that everything that will result from photography will go into purchasing better body, better lenses and keep this buid for backup.</p>

[gertle]

<p>Just some thoughts, since you will be second shooting for a bit, and if you are not planning to go to a full frame camera...Sell the 17-40 and/or the 18-55 and get a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, add the left over money to your budget. Then look for the 70-200 f2.8.</p>

[paul_b.1]

I think the Canon 55-250 will be the best lens for you , untill you can afford an L pro lens, like 70-200/4(2,8)L. You're lucky..., because in any ortodox church you can use flash as you want and walk around the bride and groom durring the ceremony. The only drawback will be the cost of 580EX , wich you'll need to compensate the slow apperture zoom.

[William Michael]

<p>Having read the whole thread, I agree with Bueh B.<br>

You state you want longer and faster than 100/f2 . . . you now need to reprioritize.<br>

<br>

*** <br>

<br>

If you want longer but can live with F2.8: the EF135F2.8SF USM is the best choice of the three lenses you mention for the tasks you outline.<br>

If you want longer and are (mostly always) shooting in good daylight OR with a powerful Flash – and can really live without shallow DoF the EF-S 55 to 250 is a nice package.<br>

These two Canon lenses are often overlooked as a budget options IMO. <br>

I have used both these lenses. <br>

We bought the 55 to 250 and it performs more than adequately at F7 to F11 even at the 250mm and the IS is adequate, but not brilliant. <br>

The lens is “plasticy” giving a feeling that it demands gentleness. <br>

The 135SF can be used at F2.8 for shallow DoF tight Portraits, though F4 is nicer: and is a clear winner if you require a longer lens for Available Light capture (e.g. Rear of Church Altar shots) – because you will eventually need the F2.8 Lens Speed, to freeze the Subjects at a lower ISO selection. <br>

You should also prioritize the value of a zoom and the ability you have (or not) to move.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

 

[claytontullos]

<p>If you are doing this for fun the 55-250 would be ok.</p>

<p>If you are getting paid you really need to have much better lenses.</p>

[richard_sokoloff]

<p>Well,I was in the same boat, but a purchase is once, bodies come and go, so I went out and got a 24-105L when they were on promotion, granted in was not cheap, but you will not regret it---I shoot at higher ISO's for inside, but found that the F4 limitation was not a problem- the quality is fantastic, I will not get into the debate 2/8 verse's F4, because both are great, I wanted IS</p>