Indoor ceremony lens choices

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p> Just to give a quick background. This will be my 6th paid wedding. All other ceremonies were outdoors. This wedding will ONLY have ceremony pictures taken inside the church and the formals will be outside (thank goodness). The church is very small with only two windows in it (not facing favourable directions). There are two angled walls behind the small platform. Wedding party is 6 people plus bride and groom. Front pews are close to the platform.<br>

My current gear is... Canon 20D, 40D w/grip (might rent a second 40D for higher ISO performance), 2x 550 speedlite EX flashes with pocket softbox diffusers, Stroboframe Press-T flash bracket, Canon flash battery packs for each, Metz 45 with a optical flash trigger, 2 tripods, 1 monopod, EF 17-40 f4.0L, EF 100-400 f4-5.6L IS, EF 50mm f1.8 lens. <br>

I'm going to experiment a bit but am thinking the flashes might be totally out of the question (shadow wise) even with the diffusers on and using a bracket. I want to get some lenses that will allow me to shoot mainly without using a flash.<br>

I'm currently looking at getting the EF 20mm f2.8 USM, EF 85mm f1.8 USM, and EF 100mm f2.8 macro. My other option is not get the 85mm and 100mm lens and get a better low light zoom such as the 70-200mm f2.8L IS.<br>

Would you go for a better zoom covering the 70mm plus range or should I get the 85mm and 100mm prime lenses and try and use my 100-400 f4-5.6L IS with a monopod/tripod instead? I'm looking at overall improvement to my camera setup but also to ensure that I take the best pictures I can at this one. <br>

Thanks for your help.</p>

[james_nealy]

<p>Get a 70-200 2.8. Get a third party if you have to. I use the Tamron it is good for half the price of the canon. The Sigma is good too. I would put the 50mm on your 20D and a 70-200 on your 40D (I don't see the need to rent another 40) Or get your 85mm and a 70-200 and be done with it. that is a pretty good range for a small indoor wedding.</p>

<p>On the flash if your church has low ceilings try to bounce the flash's (550's). You could trigger them wireless,I did my last wedding that way (cybersyncs for wireless) and it worked great. Minimal shadows and none where it counted! E-mail me if you would like to see some samples. Good Luck!</p>

[picturesque]

<p>It depends on exactly how dark the church is at the time of the ceremony. Dark church during the day isn't so dark, even with small windows. If it isn't that hugely dark, you 'might' be able to fare well with your long zoom and a tripod, although if the church is truly small, I can't see needing 400mm.</p>

<p>It also depends on how tele an image you want and what the church rules are. If you are allowed to move around, a fast, mid-tele would work just fine, perhaps without a tripod. Many people will tell you to get the 70-200mm f2.8L IS, but I won't. I'd much rather have fast primes. And I use a tripod (of sorts), many times, which is also quite unpopular.</p>

<p>As for lenses to get, my opinion would be that an 85mm f1.8 would be wise. Wide angles, remember, can be used with slower shutter speeds without hand holding shake--with a tripod, you are golden. And I don't see the need for the 100mm f2.8 macro unless you want it for shooting rings.</p>

<p>I also often use my 20D as a second camera, up to 800 ISO, with no problems re noise. 1600 in a pinch.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>James has a point re flash--if you are allowed, and can bounce (the place has some white or light walls and ceilings), that is definitely an option.</p>

[savagesax]

<p><em>"I want to get some lenses that will allow me to shoot mainly without using a flash."<br /></em><br>

<em></em> <br>

I worry a lot about not using a flash in a church for formals. Eye sockets go really dark and sometimes you can't even see the eyes. Terrible effect. You can get away using natural lighting outside, without the use of flash, which I actually prefer. To keep things simple, meter the church, set your exposure to that reading, use a tripod and a fill flash just to pop some light on the eyes. Most of the time, even in dark churches you can set your ASA to 800 and work with a 30th of a second at F4, with fill and you should get some really nice images.<br>

I carry primes, but for the last several weddings I'm using only zooms. With only the 14mm fisheye prime.</p>

[markonestudios]

Chad, is it that the officiant will not allow flash or is it out of your personal choice as the photographer? If the former, then the lens advice is good. If the latter, it may well be that you need to revisit the matter. I say this because, with appropriate flash technique, your indoor shots can be greatly enhanced and I daresay eliminate your requirement for faster glass on this occasion. Check out: www.planetneil.com/tangents

[William Michael]

<p>Just speaking about lenses for the purpose outlined for this Wedding: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I too, suggest <strong><em>NOT</em></strong> getting the 70-200mm f2.8L IS.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The words which resonate n my ears are: “allow me to shoot mainly without using a flash; The church is very small; Wedding party is 6 people plus bride and groom; Front pews are close to the platform; My current gear is... Canon 20D, 40D; EF 50mm f1.8 lens. ” </p>

<p > </p>

<p >. . . you need to add wide to mid telephoto and fast, not a fast telephoto to long telephoto zoom . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The fastest lens you have is the 50F/1.8. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If the EV inside the Church makes it necessary to use F2.8, the 50mm is your only lens choice, at the moment. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >You will need at about 20ft clear to pull a full length shot of the 8 person Bridal Party; you will need about 14 ft clear to pull a Full Length shot of the Bride walking down the Aisle, and then you only have about 2ft DoF with which to play.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >It is a small Church, you have cameras which NARROW the effective FoV. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >You need fast and wide to shoot effectively in these circumstances. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >When the EV is low: F2.8 is not fast. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >70mm is certainly not wide, on an APS-C body.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And as well as usually allowing a slower shutter speed hand held; a wider lens effectively gives you more DoF at any given Aperture and Shooting distance - and you will need that, too.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >As already mentioned, one big question is: are you allowed to roam? </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >On the face of it, IMO you’d be better renting a 5D and 24F1.4L: you keep the High ISO capacity (run the 40D and 5D inside), and that combination of a 50mm + 24mm will give you, effectively FoV in “Full Frame”: 24, 38, 50, 80. . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you think you need more length for inside, buy / rent the 85F1.8 too. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you follow this approach, you might need to practice changing lenses quickly, which seems is now lost in the dinosaur era. :)</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p > </p>

<div></div>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>Thanks for all the input so far. To answer some of the questions I didn't clarify... I am allowed to use a flash inside but am very afraid of ghosting on the walls (even with softbox and flash bracket)... secondly I am allowed to roam around to get better shots. I'm going to do very few pictures of the whole wedding party because I really like capturing the expressions of the bride and groom during the ceremony so concentrate more on them. </p>

 

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I'm going to do very few pictures of the whole wedding party because I really like capturing the expressions of the bride and groom during the ceremony so concentrate more on them." </em></strong><br>

<br>

Understood: it seems then, that the 20F/2.8 must have another reason for inclusion.<br>

<br>

Considering the emphasis on tight portraiture: note that FL choice in small areas becomes quite dependant upon the Subject Distance one has available. Even with freedom to roam inside, it is impossible to back further than against the wall. So IMO <em >it is critical to know how much space is actually available.</em><br>

<br>

It is difficult to gauge the actual size of: <em>"The church is very small with only two windows in it"</em> - I envisaged something like the above example, perhaps even smaller. <br>

<br>

I am still of the opinion that, without Flash, lens speed is paramount, and I prioritize that above the convenience of a zoom: hence I would opt for the 85F/1.8 and if more length were required the 135F/2L and if even more length were required the x1.4MkII <br>

<br>

I have the 100F/2.8 macro, I cannot see use for it in this specific circumstance, especially if the 85F/1.8 is available. <br>

<br>

I would have my monopod available. <br>

<br>

BTW I am not “anti the 70 to 200F2.8L”, I own one, and also I work very tight portraiture – I am just emphasizing, IMO there needs to be clear understanding of what space is actually available – in this regard, if my vision of the Church is correct, I cannot see the 100 to 400 being used inside at all. <br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>Unfortunately I won't be seeing the church before the wedding due to its distant location. I'm only basing my decision on the pictures I've been provide and the details from the bride and groom. When it comes right down to it I'll have to just make the best lens choices and go for it. I'll shoot some with the flash using a bracket and pocket softbox and some using no flash. Fortunately I'll have an hour or so before the wedding to figure things out and do some test shots to veiw on a laptop. On a side note I was just using this wedding as an excuse to buy the 100mm macro for taking head shots of my daughter and using it for some portaits at the wedding.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I think you now have a lot of corners covered upon which to make those decisions.<br>

I assumed from the beginning that there were more purposes for the lens' purchases, than just this Wedding. That's why in my first answer I wrote "<em>Just speaking about lenses for the purpose outlined for this Wedding." </em><br>

The 100F/2.8Macro makes for a nice, tight portrait lens, IMO, and it's a good macro too: on both my 20D and my 5D.<br>

Good luck with the Wedding.<br>

WW<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[markonestudios]

Hi again Chad, I often shoot in confined spaces with my 1.6 crop and the 50 f/1.8 (sans flash). In situations where flash IS allowed, I will more often than not mount my 17-40 f/4L and use it. The end product often doesn't look like flash was used. I've learnt that the ceiling isn't the only surface to bounce off...;-)

<p>I strongly encourage you to have a look at the Planet Neil website about creative use of flash. It's amazing what proper flash can do for your photos, even in situations where you want to capture a subtle, low-light ambience. I also advocate the use of some sort of bounce card/diffuser. I am partial to the Demb Flash Diffuser. I'm not too sure about a softbox for on-camera flash. I think it eats up too much light. YMMV.

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>I had one more question that I haven't had any luck finding info on. Is the 20mm f2.8 any good for wedding work? Looked on photonet for an hour last night in the wedding section and couldn't find anything. I'm not really liking my 17-40L on the 17 side. It really distorts the people on the edges of the picture for group shots besides being soft even between f5.6 and f8 (at the edges).</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong><em>"I'm not really liking my 17-40L on the 17 side. It really distorts the people on the edges of the picture for group shots besides being soft even between f5.6 and f8 (at the edges)."</em></strong></p>

<p >One really needs to be specific, when using word such as “distortion” . . . to avoid forum ping pong I will make a few guesses and address those most likely:</p>

<p > </p>

<p >On the first point, the "distortion" to which you refer is most likely: </p>

<p >. Barrel Distortion - people at the edges curve slightly outwards, their hips may look wider in a FL Shot, the outside arms might look fatter in an half shot. </p>

<p >. Perspective Distortion, specifically Foreshortening: created by the axis of the lens not being perpendicular, both horizontally and vertically to the Plane which runs through the Key Subjects - Foreshortening exaggerated would be taking an image of a small child with the 17mm whilst standing over him, the head would be disproportionate to the feet</p>

<p >But more likely it is a "distortion" caused by a combination of both.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >There is also a possibility that the distortion you refer to is Chromatic Aberration.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The first issue(s) are corrected with better technique: </p>

<p >. Subject Arrangement – aligning the subjects more along / in kilter to the Key Plane of Focus; Keeping the lens axis perpendicular to that line; leaving negative space at the edges; using the natural scene to form a frame around the edges of the subjects, are just some remedies. Foreshortening is exacerbated by high or low camera viewpoints and at the closer Subject Distances, at the wide Focal lengths, so , obviously these should be avoided.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >When using a wide lens for portraiture, attention through the viewfinder is very important: to the alignment of horizontal (and especially) Vertical lines captured in the frame, such as a park bench, or a door frame, for example. “Vertical lines captured in the frame”, also include the Woman’s arm, who is arranged at the edge.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Internal group arrangement is important – the relative positioning of the man in a dark suit cost or the woman in a sleeveless dress – if both were of similar larger proportions, for example. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The CA can be corrected adequately, in Post Production.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >The second point (soft between F5.6 an F8) also requires clarification, as, IMO if you are soft at F7, at the edges, on a 40D with the 17 to 40F4L, on a 10x8 full crop print at arms distance, then I am a little concerned about your lens. At what magnification are you seeing this "Softness"?</p>

<p >I haven’t used the 20 on an APS-C, but I have trialed a 17 to 40 on my 20D, and the edges were acceptable to me at 17mm: it is difficult to compare personal tolerances / acceptable values, in this forum without details.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >My guess is you will be happier with the IQ performance of the 20mm, thorough F5.6 to F8, at the edges: though I have not used this lens on an APS-C camera: I base my guess simply on my knowledge of lens design, and the limitations thereof.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>