Canon body with 17-40 F4.0 and 85 F1.8

[martindomok]

<p>Anyone out there shooting weddings with a single body (40D, 50D) and only these 2 lenses: <br>

17-40 F4.0 and 85 F1.8, plus a flash of course... <br>

The only reason I would go for 85mm lens is that is cheaper and smaller than 70-200 F2.8, which Im used to, but soon will be without it. <br>

Thanks for feedback. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>No, not me.<br>

<br>

I think it is dangerous to have all that speed (F1.8) at 85mm on an APS-C . . .<br>

But only F/4 at 24mm to 35mm<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

[martindomok]

I see ur point, most of the stuff with wide angle is done with flash anyway, I dont think I will need that much speed there.

The 85mm would be for outside portraits mostly and formals.

 

Im a bit hesitant to go for the fix lens as the zoom gives more flexibility and Im not sure how I would fo a wedding with an

85mm lens and let's say 24mm F1.4.

[martindomok]

But would love to give it a try as a second shooter... I mean with 24mm F1.4 and 85 F1.8 only.

[kayumangi]

<p>It's all a matter of taste really.</p>

<p>I prefer to shoot exclusively on fixed focal. Primarily the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4</p>

<p>My off-camera lighting coupled with the tremendous DOF I get out on both lenses make very great pictures and very happy customers =)</p>

[benjamindbloom]

<p>I wouldn't shoot a wedding with just those two lenses, but I have both and use them as a small walkaround kit sometimes. Both lenses take beautiful photographs, but in dark rooms, I feel limited at f/4.</p>

<p>As for one body - I'd also never shoot a wedding with one body. If you had two bodies and a flash for the 17-40, it might work, depending the venue.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>You certainly <strong>can</strong> shoot entire weddings with those lenses. Whether you choose to is up to you.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>There is more than a matter of style or taste to consider - it can be a matter of the shooting situation and being prepared for all likely scenarios.</p>

<p>The 17-40F/4L +85F/1.8 would be very limiting inside small Churches with "No Flash Rule".</p>

<p>You might not get any situations like this - we do.</p>

<p>We have a lot of older CoE type Stone Churches with little window light . . . 17 to 40 at f/4, sans Flash, is too slow even at ISO1600 - I would like F/2 and in a normal to wide FoV. The EF35F/2 is an handy lens. My comments are swayed by personal experience and also I tend to look at the widest range of shooting situations as a default for any lens choice, for a Professional Kit.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>"The 85mm would be for outside portraits mostly and formals."</em></strong></p>

<p>IMO this scenario is limiting, too, and for two reasons:</p>

<p>1. > unless you are more inclined to shoot without Flash Fill. SD is at about 20 to 25ft with an 85 for a full-length Portrait (Vertical Orientation) and about 40 to 45ft for full-length Portrait (Horizontal Orientation).</p>

<p>IMO the 85 is great for a Tight head and tight half shot and still within easy range of Communication and Flash Fill - the 85 is very nice for tightish Candid Portraiture too and also a flexible Telephoto for working longer shots inside medium to large Churches.</p>

<p>2.> The other issue to consider is the hole one would have between 40mm and 85mm. This is the range of the "traditional" Portrait FL for the APS-C format Camera.</p>

 

<p >Whilst there seems a current trend to dismiss traditional Portrait Theory generally; and moreover to dismiss closely looking at the popular FL used over the last 100 years for Portraiture and Formal Groups but rather just to favour the 70 to 200 as the “final solution”; I think it is good idea to have a think about "the why", historically, Photographers would choose FL= 40 to FL = 85 as their main RANGE of Focal lengths for Portraiture and Formal work - the exact RANGE your selection does NOT have.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p>MM, I also agree with BB, one NEEDS more than one body, WW.</p>

[e._hughes]

<p>Definitely need more than one body... and at least with my style of shooting, those lenses would NOT work. I would find myself always wanting to go wider, and then just about always have to use fill flash for anything wide (with the 17-40 f/4). In my work, any lens above f/2.8 is pretty much useless, ESPECIALLY ON AN APS-C camera! The iso capabilities usually are pretty dismal on these cameras... and that means you need faster lenses, etc. etc. etc. Unless you want to use your flash all the time, which I don't like to do. Keep in mind that the 85mm is equivalent to a 135mm on full frame (if you have ever used 35mm or full frame) which I find to be too telephoto for a wedding. 50mm is about 80mm on your crop sensor, which is pretty appropriate for wedding ceremonies. This set up could probably work if your style of shooting depended on using a lot of flash, and you like a lot of close-up shots the rest of the time. Certainly not my cup of tea. To reiterate my original point: definitely need another camera body!</p>

[felix_mizioznikov]

<p>I just shot one one the beach with 2 canon 5d2's and 17-40 and 70-200. Going with one body would have been impossible because of the amount of wind and sand, shooting with one cropped would have been even worse. 40d would have been EVEN worse because it does not have micro focus adjust so if your using the 85 1.8 and it miscalibrated ever so slightly you will only find out when viewing in full size when you will see your focus is not on the front of the face but about 2 feet behind. </p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>While the lens selection is fine IMO, the lack of a second body is not so great.</p>

[martindomok]

<p>Marius, what is the most common F number U use on both lenses? </p>

[martindomok]

<p>William W - here where I shoot, all churches permit flash, no worries there. But sure, they can be small sometimes. <br>

And appreciate everyone's input. Thanks. </p>

<p> </p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>I ditto the second body - and I think it depends on the type of wedding you are shooting - small intimate wedding - it might world fine. But for anything larger than that you need more power. I shoot a lot with the 14-40 on a 40d and love that lens - it's great for receptions with off camera lighting - however if you want a varied look from your photos you have to have a varity of lenses to achieve that - I would add a 70-200 4.0 for the ceremony - you can go without the IS by putting it on a tripod and shooting at higher ISO - I would also add the 24-70 2.8L as you can get a nice marco from this lens and if you are going to shoot you have to be able to get all the detail shots with nice DOF. if you could only buy one I would purchase the 24-70 - and practice with it as it is a tempermental lens. I would upgrade your 50 to a 1.4 -that is IMO a better lens then the 1.8 and has a very nice autofocus feature. </p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>What are the chances of you selling the 17-40 and 85 1.8 and get a 17-55 2.8 IS? Also get a 100 2.8 Macro lens for your head shots! It all depends on your location as well. I have shot an entire wedding (outside) with a 70-200 2.8 IS. BTW make no mistake the 85 1.8 is a great lens. v/r Buffdr</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"where I shoot, all churches permit flash, no worries there" </strong></em>OK WW</p>

[martindomok]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4445796">Francie Baltazar</a><br>

thanks for ur comment :)<br>

I have got 24-70 F2.8, had it previously when I worked for the paper, but used only 3 lenses, 16-35, 70-200 F2.8 IS and 300mm F2.8.<br>

Great lenses, as I said also I had 24-70 F2.8 and hardly used it, that focal range, simply just isnt for me.<br>

Also, I have that lens now and never use it. I might be returning all the gear and planning to get 2 new lenses for events and weddings, most of the stuff I shoot with a wide angle, (17-40 is the option, cheaper than 16-35) and sure, 70-200 F2.8 would be the way to go, but Im limited on budget and had a chance to play with 85 F1.8 and thought it could me lond lens..</p>

 

[kayumangi]

<p>M M</p>

<p>If it's inside the church or mosque (where there is not enough lighting) I usually stay at f/2 sometimes I do go wide-open (f/1.4 or f/1.8) coupled with very high ISO's like 1600 and lately 3200 with my 7D.</p>

<p>The Sigma 30mm has a very shallow depth of field so I use it if I am really close by.</p>

<p>Since I use Manual Off-Camera Lighting (if lighthing is allowed) the aperture I use is more geared towards the effect/feel rather than having a correct exposure thus I don't necessarily stick to one f-stop.<br /> <br /> But for arguments sake I use f/5.6 a lot of times.</p>

<p> </p>

[cip]

<p>I use two sigma 15-30mm 3.5-4.5 and 50mm 1.4 on a 30d (also have a 135L which I find awesome for low light ceremonies). Wide zooms are easily hand held down to speeds of 1/15 ~ 1/30 - only issue to be cognizant of is motion blur. However, flash would help with this in dimmer light... </p>

[benjamindbloom]

<p>Interestingly, I was shooting an event yesterday and had a chuckle when I realized I had a 50d, 17-40, 580EX, and 85 1.8 on my person. For this particular event, those were the lenses I needed. (I used some others throughout the event, but those were the two I often wanted right at hand.)</p>