jren Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Quick question... has anyone shot a wedding using this lens? I realize that there are much better (and faster) lenses out there for wedding work however, I'm on a budget and can't afford a $1700 lens. I'm curious to know if this one could handle the job for awhile?<br>Thanks in advance for the advice.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamting Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>It's too slow for indoor work unless you're going to be using flash. A better alternative would be an 85, 135, or 180 prime if you can't afford the 70-200 IS.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathy_and_david_bock Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>WAY too slow, and a waste of money. Agreed with William here. Honestly, I wouldn't buy a telephoto for less than $1500. Part of the business of being a wedding photographer is buying the proper equipment to shoot it, otherwise it's just not fair to the client. Please don't take that as rude, just saying I think buying proper, professional equipment is necessary. We bought that lens and then a week later sold it and got the 70-200 2.8L IS. Eventually you'll smack yourself in the head for not buying it first. Trust me. It's just not worth it to buy any lenses that are slower than 2.8 for weddings.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon rennie Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>It's fine for outdoor work, not so good inside.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryan_hartman1 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Don't use anything with an f/ slower than 2.8 ... and even then you are probably going to have to use a bounce flash indoors.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Agree with Jon--it is fine outside in brighter light, but would be a pain to work with indoors, particularly for indoor, no flash ceremonies. For someone who wants to shoot a wedding on an occasional basis (not a pro), it is workable in this situation with a tripod and knowing when to shoot. However, if you aspire to be a pro, I would buy an 85mm f1.8 lens. About $400 and if your camera is a cropped sensor camera, it is equivalent to about 136mm. There is a misconception that a wedding photographer NEEDS an f2.8 tele zoom, preferably with IS or VR. This is plain wrong.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jren Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Thanks for the advice guys. I am not a professional wedding photographer and even if I was, I'd be starting out and would likely not be able to afford expensive gear at this juncture ( it would be off to the rental shop for me). This is something I've been asked to do for a friend and I've told them ad naseum I am NOT a pro wedding photographer. There will be a contract in which this is stated because I've read my Photo.net! :-)<br> I am not willing to purchase a $1500-$1700 lens when I will not be photographing weddings for a living. I am willing to buy the Canon 70-300mm because I think I could use it in my true love, which is landscape and travel photography with an occasional foray into architecture.<br> Perhaps it would be best to rent the faster lens in this case as opposed to buying one outright or using an inferior lens.<br> Thanks again, all.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anov Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM is $800, got rave review or what Nadine said 85/1.8. You do not need to spend 1500+ now.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jren Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>I decided on this one: Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens<br> Thanks again for the advice and wish me luck! :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_osullivan Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Or you could split the difference and get the Canon 70-200 F4 for about $550. (that's one stop faster than the 70-300 and one stop slower than the 2.8). This is a fine lens. For your stated uses, I think it makes sense all around. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathy_and_david_bock Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>The 85 1.8 is a FABULOUS choice, as is the 135 2L (if you can find one! :-D).</p> <p>Nadine: Myself.. I've never found any lenses slower than 2.8 to be at the level high enough to use professionally in the wedding industry. Sure you can shoot at F4 or even F5.6 but for someone like ourselves it's just not fast enough. I've never found a single lens that I really liked slower than 2.8? Again, you could shoot a wedding..but.. would you really want to? Professionally? I'm hoping that doesn't come across as offensive??? Just wanting to know your thoughts on it and get your side of that story!! :-D</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 <p>Cathy or David--I was merely saying that outside in brighter light, you do not need that wide aperture. Inside at a no flash ceremony, yes. Since Jen is not a professional wedding photographer, and the wedding is outside, she could get by.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagesax Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 In the Hasselblad film days I think the 80mm was 2.8. Other than that most, it not all of Hasselblad lenses were much slower. I had a 500mm that was F8! Used a pod and got some pretty amazing images. Some of my exposures were 1/2 seconds. I don't stress over really fast lenses. My main lens is the 24-105mm and thats 3.5 to 4.8 I think, and it's not rated as a professional lens. Yet I have several 40x60 prints in the 2 offices taken with this lens. The reason I have huge prints in the studios is people talk. They are often amazed how life size they look and I sell a few every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markonestudios Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 85 f/1.8 is on my list too :) What body are you shooting with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jren Posted July 1, 2009 Author Share Posted July 1, 2009 <p>@ Mark - I'm shooting with a Canon EOS 450D. Lower end SLR, I guess. At the moment, I'm trying to concentrate more on upgrading my lenses. Eventually I would like to upgrade to a Canon 5D Mark II, but at a couple grand it'll have to wait.</p> <p>Currently I have a Sigma 10-20mm/f4-5.6 wide angle lens, a 50mm/f1.8 fixed lens, and the kit lens. And now the 85/f1.8. Now I need that elusive telephoto lens. Everything comes in time. I've recently purchased a monitor calibrator, the 580 EX II Canon external flash and some basic lighting equipment. I still need a Pocket Wizard (or something like it) and those don't come cheap. </p> <p>I love photography, but it's an expensive endeavor. :)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markonestudios Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 "Now I need that elusive telephoto lens." ...Hmmmm... is that need or want? ;-) Have you found you are really lacking on the telephoto end (bearing in mind the crop factor of your 450D)? I have used a borrowed Sigma 70-300mm macro on my last few weddings. While it is useful for getting some great candids and going where your feet can't do so quickly, it is certainly not a lens I wish to own. Too soft, slow noisy AF. Generally, prints at the long end wouldn't stand up to very big enlargements. The Canon variant, however, is a lot better and is on my wishlist. I realised too that I didn't use the 300mm end much, but hovered around the 200mm and less (I shoot with a 400D - even lower end ;-)) <p>I understand that Canon's 70-200 f/4L is similar in price to the 70-300 IS. If that be the case, you may want to consider that one, as it is indeed a superb lens which I have had occasion to use. I will still get the 70-300 though, because of the extra 100mm for wildlife shooting :) <p>The first question to ask, before any lens 'upgrade' is WHY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagesax Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Cathy& David wrote - "Nadine: Myself.. I've never found any lenses slower than 2.8 to be at the level high enough to use professionally in the wedding industry." Tamron has some excellent glass but it's f5.6. The one I'm thinking of is the older 200-400mm. Not sure if they still make it, but I owned it until it fell into the ocean. This lens will keep up with the Canon 100-400 any day at the cost of around $500. The Canon 100-400 may not be considered professional, or is it? I'm not sure. But it sure produces images like a pro lens should, minus the F stop factor. I have a 400mm lens and yes it's a tad bit sharper than the 100-400, it should, it's a prime lens. In general all primes are sharper than zooms. I also have the 70-200 2.8 IS and at 200 it's as sharp as the 100-400 at the 200 mark. At least I can't see much of a difference. I'm a bit concerned that if we don't use fast lenses we aren't really producing wedding quality pro images. Maybe I'm reading too deep into this subject. Correct me if I'm wrong. I still can't figure out why the 70-300mm lens is fine for outdoors, but not inside. It's still the same lens, but you probably need a tripod to handle it inside. Am I missing something here or does this lens hate dark environments? Then this can become a camera issue too. Some cameras only work best with ISO settings of 400 or under, mainly the older pro models. The 1Ds mark 3 I have is fine at 800, but I'm not liking what I see at 1600, yet it goes up to 6400. Is this still a pro camera if I can't print a decent shot at 6400? I'm confused with all of the number games. Someone help me out here. Thanks. 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