lens for weddings

[matt_fee]

<p>im new to wedding photography and just want to know the best lenses to use at all times,, is a canon 18-135 any good? ill be using canon gear.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Your question indicates that you should study the requirements for wedding photography more in detail. In other words: I would never consider hiring a photographer who ask questions like this. Have you considered primes, backup equipment, flashes, etc.?</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>I suggest that you read the "Weddings" topic on the Learning tab at the top of this page before purchasing any equipment.</p>

<p>The reviews of that lens indicate that it's only mediocre. But it's slow f-stop, lack of full time manual focus and slow focus speed make it pretty unsuitable for wedding photography.</p>

<p>As Jos says, there's a lot more to wedding photography than a camera and one lens. Please learn more before disappointing someone by screwing up their wedding pictures.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

 

[philip_wilson]

<p>Without repeating the comments of others I will just talk about the lens. I generally only buy the best quality lenses and thus have 16-35 F2.8 II, 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 F2.8 (non IS) and 70-200 F4 IS zooms (among others). I got the 18-135 in a kit with my 7D and thought it might be useful for the price. <br>

It is not a bad lens for the price but it is slow, the Bokeh is nothing to get excited about and it is rather soft wide open. My copy is not too bad for AF speed (at least on the 7D) despite not being ring USM. My copy is also fairly quite when focusing but is a pain when you need to go to MF. The IS on the lens is good - it appears to be almost as good as the 70-200 F4 IS. <br>

So as a low priced standard zoom the lens is a reasonable purchase. For professional wedding use I think you would be crazy to use this lens. You will not produce many great shots with it's slow speed, large DOF, poor Bokeh and slightly soft IQ. You might even be in a situation where guests are taking similar or better shots. The build quality of this lens is OK but it looks a bit delicate for professional use.</p>

[seismiccwave]

<p>Anyone with a camera in a wedding ceremony can take pictures. However that doesn't make them a photographer. </p>

[ejder]

<p>I recommend you invest in a starter kit that looks like, or is at least as expensive as, this setup:</p>

<p>Minimum of two camera bodies, mix and match any of the following: Canon 40D, 50D, 5D, 5D mark II, 7D, 1D mark III, 1D mark IV, 1Ds mark II or 1Ds mark III</p>

<p>Minimum of one fast prime f/1.4 or faster that has fast, accurate AF.</p>

<p>Minimum of one standard zoom with f/2.8 aperture throughout the range, that covers the wide end of the focal lengths from, say, 24-28mm effective up to however long it goes. This also must have fast, accurate AF - like a Canon 24-70L or Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8.</p>

<p>Minimum of one 580EX flash, preferably two 580EX flashes. Must have at least 2-3 changes of NiMH or similar batteries for each flash.</p>

<p>Minimum of 24-32gb of flash memory.</p>

<p>Minimum of 4-6 camera batteries.</p>

<p>Working knowledge of lighting, posing, composition rules.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>Tough crowed tonight. Although you need lots of cameras, experience, lens, flash...you get the idea. If I had to shoot a wedding with ONE lens, it would be my 17-55 2.8 IS. I use this on my 7D while the BEST zoom 70-2002.8 IS is welded on my full frame. Both make a deadly combo. v/r Buffdr</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>Tough love.</p>

<p>I lost a friend because I screwed up his wedding photos because I thought I knew what I was doing. I didn't have any backup, so when my camera jammed we were all screwed.</p>

<p>His wife never forgave me and it cost me a lifetime friendship.</p>

<p>Don't risk screwing up the most important moment in someone's life because you don't know what you're doing!</p>

<p><Chas></p>

 

[matt_fee]

<p>i love the way people just jump down your neck straight away by asking a basic question, like i said, im new to the game and need to understand the lenses better to buy what i need.. JOS. anyway you other guys are pretty helpful so thanks everyone. i will be doing more research on this.</p>

[felix_mizioznikov]

<p>the 18-135 is by no means a good lens. I'd go with L lenses and primes and here are a few which I believe were already mentioned<br>

16-35 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 or 4.0 with IS, 50mm 1.4 or if you can afford the 1.2,<br>

the money lens is the 85 1.2L<br>

maybe a few non L primes around 20, 35, 1.4-1.8 or so.<br>

I'd recommend eventually getting in to full frame bodies. 5d or 1ds.</p>

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>matt-<br />High quality fixed focal length lenses are generally the sharpest, have the most contrast, and are the fastest lenses out there. The zooms aren't so far behind as they used to be and what you lose in image quality, you get back in convenience. In general, the more focal lengths a zoom lens spans, the more image quality it will give up. 18-135 spans a lot. <br />There are plenty of good threads on equipment here, along with a fair share of misinformation. Marc Williams wrote a pretty good article a few months back and I think you'd benefit from reading it. Wedding photography is pretty demanding on your equipment and if you plan to be in it for the long haul, it may be wise to invest in the best that you can afford. My personal recommendation would be to buy a high quality 50mm if you're using a full frame body, or it's equivalent if you're using a smaller sensor. Buy a decent flash that you can experiment with and that you can hook up to a pack if need be. You can always rent or borrow an extra body, lens, or flash when needed. That's what I did when I was starting out. I still rent equipment when I need something I don't have or when I want to try something new out. When I was an assistant, it wasn't uncommon for a photographer to show up on set with only his phone. We'd rent whatever he'd need. Maybe it's a good idea for you to rent a few lenses to see which works the best for you.<br />If it matters, the lenses I own are 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a 24-70mm, all used on full-frame bodies. I could shoot an entire wedding with the 50mm, if I had to. I find that I use it 80-90% of the time.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Canon 17-55mm f2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Add a flash--580EXII. Add, Canon 85mm f1.8 and Canon 50mm f1.8 or f1.4. This will cover just about anything while you are determining your style and methods. These are not necessarily the best lenses, but some of them are. After you have determined your style and methods, you will know what else you would want in the way of lenses.</p>

<p>Don't forget complete back up gear--camera body, lens and flash.</p>

<p>I should add, I am assuming you have a cropped sensor camera.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Matt how did you come to be shooting weddings. Are you attending one as a guest sometime in the near future? Your original posts just says you are new to weddings but it does not tell us in what context you would be shooting the wedding. If your attending as a guest a general purpose lens like the 18-135 could be all that you need. If you are helping out a family member or friend by shooting their wedding when they have no other option then thats great and the 18-135 could again be just what you need. If you have just sold yourself as a wedding photographer to some unsuspecting couple then you should have had all the equipment requirements sorted out a long time ago. What lenses have you been using so far?</p>

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>On a full-frame body, a 24-70 2.8 zoom gives you a lot of flexibility. On a crop body the 17-55 2.8 will give you a similar range. Beyond that, get a few good primes, maybe the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.4. Both are affordable. Rent the 70-200 2.8 for now. With one good body and a fair-decent backup (even a modestly priced 2 year old used Rebel would do fine as a backup) you would have an adequate starter kit. Oh, and a couple of good flashes, probably a 580exii as your prime flash and maybe a 430ex as your backup. Batteries and cards, too. Even so, I think if I watched craigslist for used equipment and sales at stores for new equipment, I could put this kit together for a fairly modest price. A lot of wedding photographers today are still using the original 5D, which can be picked up used for a pretty modest price used.</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong ><em >“im new to wedding photography and just want to know the best lenses to use at all times” </em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I use Canon DSLRs and I prioritize Lens Speed as my main criterion, there are many reasons for my views on fast lens speed – if you want to know the ins and outs of my rationale and all about my passion for <strong ><em >“System Redundancy”</em></strong>, search my older contributions. I wax lyrical about this lens choice stuff and building weddings kits. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also Josh Root has written a basic article and Marc Williams has recently done a Master Series on all types of gear for Weddings, both are well worth reading. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >MY needs mean I have two zoom lenses: 16 to 35/2.8 and the 70 to 200/2.8 </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The Primes which suit MY needs are: 15/2.8, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2. (300/2.8 can get – rarely used)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >“MY needs” are predicated upon the fact that I have a DUAL Format kit – that is I have a 20D, 30D and 5D. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >You, for example, might only have a 50D, in this case the EF-S 17 to 55/2.8 would be a good zoom lens as a basic tool for you , but for me that lens would be a waste of money, because it cannot mount on my 5D.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p >This type of question is asked often and for an APS-C camera a good “budget starting point” is a 17 to 55 or 17 to 50 f/2.8 zoom and added to that a PAIR of fast Prime Lenses.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >IMO the 35/2 and the 85/1.8 is a better budget choice of two fast Primes than a 50/1.4 (or 50/1.8) and the 85/1.8.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >My rational is that in tight spaces or for large groups or both, the 35 is more flexible than the 50. If necessary with an adequate amount of skill a Photographer should be able to cover the whole gig with just the 35/2 using an APS-C camera, but in most circumstances it would be more difficult to do so, with just the 50mm lens - this last fact begins to scape the surfcae of my theories of "System Redundancy". </p>

<p > </p>

<p >***</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“is a canon 18-135 any good?”</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p >It is good to keep as a spare lens (if you already have bought it). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It is NOT a purchase you should make for a Professional Wedding Kit – it is way too slow and if you are serious about reasonable quality, it will not be suitable for many (most?) situations. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

[Charles_Webster]

<p>matt,<br>

we're a bit tough on people who don't provide enough information about what they are doing, and their knowledge of the subject, for us to answer the question simply and directly.<br>

because, every time a GWC (guy witha camera) decides he's a wedding photographer just because he owns a digital SLR and gets in trouble, it leaves a bad taste in some client's mouth toward all photographers.<br>

I don't do weddings, but every time a craigslister advertises that he can shoot products for $40 a shot and delivers crappy pictures, it makes it that much tougher for me to get my next assignment<br>

the form and wording of your question tipped you as a newbie, and newbies and wedding photography are too often trouble<br>

everybody was a newbie once, and every one of us went out on a shoot inadequately prepared, we're just trying to share some of our experience<br>

Since you just joined yesterday, I suggest you read the stuff on the Learning tab, and hang around the Wedding forum to pick up some tips, and perhaps find an opportunity to assist a seasoned pro at a couple of weddings before buying some gear and setting out on your own.<br>

and if you think we're a tough audience, wait until you meet bridezilla and her mother ;-)<br>

<Chas></p>

[dip_gohil]

<p>Anyone with a camera in a wedding ceremony can take pictures. However that doesn't make them a photographer.</p>

<p>you don't see jeff ascough using a kodak brownie when he shoots weddings.</p>

[pazellisphoto]

<p>Have a back up of everything. Camera, lens, batteries.... the fastest glass is the best glass especially in a church due to low light and usually flash is not allowed.<br>

I shoulder 2 cameras... a fast lens on one and a zoom on the other. I even carry a pocket digital just in case.... silly, but I am always ready for disaster. Learned that lesson with my first wedding. </p>

[matt_fee]

<p>thats great guys. to answer your question on how i got into it, im assisting a friend at the moment who is a wedding photographer and was just using his gear. im buying my own stuff now so i want the best i can get for the job, and hopefully im not gonna screw up someones big day. im a bit away from covering my own weddings yet, but im planning to be ready for next season.</p>

[matt_fee]

<p>hi guys, me again. still toiling over what would be best to get for shooting weddings. ive come to the conclusion i might be ok with three lenses, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 and a 50mm. now thats going to be expensive glass but i was thinking maybe to save some money by buying the sigma 70 200 lens. i just want you guys opinions on that lens. itll be going on a 50d more than likely with the 24-70 on a 5d mkii. </p>

[lou korell]

<p>Making good photographs at a wedding is very demanding, so you should get the best lenses you can afford.<br>

There will be a difference in the quality of your images by using less than the best lenses. Now, what does that mean exactly? A great photographer can work with almost anything, but if you do some research, they do not choose to use anything but the best even if they can utilize cheaper equipment. Tools are important.<br>

It is not easy to start in the wedding business. You will get some people being critical for asking your questions for the simple reason that if you have experience you will know what you need already. But how to get that experience? Working as an assistant or second shooter with an established pro whose work you admire is the best way to discover what your needs in equipment will dictate. If you haven't done a wedding on your own yet, there is no way that anyone's advice will give you absolute answers. You have to work a little first to figure out what your shooting style is and how best to make the pictures you want to make. This is a trial and error effort. Unfortunately, you cannot "experiment" too much at someone's wedding. This is why you would be better served by "not" being the primary shooter at several wedding so you can try different equipment and techniques to see what is most useful and comfortable for you.<br>

Comfort is an important element of shooting weddings. You are going to bust your tail working all day at a wedding. You must find the gear that is easiest for you to maneuver. How much weight do you "really" want to carry? How easily can you run around with the gear you have? What kind of bag will carry your gear? How many lenses do you need or want to carry? Do you need long lenses for ceremonies? What kind of flash equipment is good for you? Do you understand lighting well enough to buy the right gear?<br>

This is at first a learning experience by watching a veteran work and by analyzing the kinds of shots you need to capture. Then with some experience it becomes a trial and error process after much research, on what tools are available and what suits your style. Don't be discouraged. We all buy a lot of stuff we end up no longer using in favor of alternatives. But realize that you are going to spend money. Gear isn't cheap.<br>

If you are shooting full frame, a "basic" kit could be 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, all 2.8 and all expensive. You have the entire focal range covered though with just those. Then I'd add an 85 1.8 and a 50 1.4. They are less expensive but nice for low light and easy to carry. Beyond that, if you like primes (which I always used when I shot with Canon) the 35 1.4 and 24 1.4 are both lenses you will keep forever. They are killers! If you are a prime person, you also will really enjoy the 135 f2. It is one of the best you can buy.<br>

Hope you make lots of money. You'll need it! :)</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p ><em >“what would be best to get for shooting weddings”</em></p>

<p ><em > </em></p>

<p ><em >“ive come to the conclusion i might be ok with three lenses, 24-70mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 and a 50mm. <strong >maybe to save some money by buying the sigma 70 200 lens. i just want you guys opinions on that lens</strong>. itll be going on a 50d more than likely with the 24-70 on a 5d mkii.”</em></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p >My opinion, generally:</p>

<p > </p>

<ol type="1">

<li >do you have a second camera – I cannot note one mentioned. Two camera bodies at least, is <strong ><em >essential</em></strong></li>

<li >24 to 70 is not that wide on a 50D as your main working zoom lens – some seasoned Pros use a 24 to 70 on an APS-C – but I’d bet they have a wider lens in their kit if they needed to use it</li>

<li >24 is not that wide as <em >the widest lens you have</em> - at a pinch you might use the 18 ? ? ?</li>

<li >50 is a telephoto lens on a 50D - you have nothing normal or wide which is also fast</li>

<li >you need to be absolutely sure that you will use the 70 to 200 enough that the capital (dollars) invested in it is sound, because you can buy a hellavalota other glass with that money.</li>

<li >on a tight budget - the Tamron 17 to 50 makes much more sense to me than considering the way to save money is to buy the Sigma 70 to 200. That’s already been mentioned by someone who has perhaps > 1000 under her belt and who uses the Tamron lens, she mentioned </li>

<li > basically points 2 to 6 inclusive is only repeating this:</li>

</ol>

<p > </p>

<p >“<em >This type of question is asked often and for an APS-C camera a good “budget starting point” is a 17 to 55 or 17 to 50 f/2.8 zoom and added to that a PAIR of fast Prime Lenses. IMO the 35/2 and the 85/1.8 is a better budget choice of two fast Primes than a 50/1.4 (or 50/1.8) and the 85/1.8.”</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I doubt many others will change their opinions, either, no matter how often you ask the same question.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >*** </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong ><em >“maybe to save some money by buying the sigma 70 200 lens. i just want you guys opinions on that lens”</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong ><em > </em></strong></p>

<p >I have the Canon EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM, arguably it is the best optic of the three Canon F/2.8 70-200 lenses you can buy today. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I very rarely used this lens at Weddings. I would NOT consider buying the Sigma alternative to this lens. I have mounted the Sigma 70 to 200 lens on a 5D and maybe shot off 20 images. I am not a lens snob.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Four reasons why I bought the Canon 70 to 200 lens are here: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=937529">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=937529</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >But other stronger reasons (value for money extension of the lens kit) are here: </p>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10291550&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10291550&size=lg</a> </p>

<p >and also here <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/10291550&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10291550&size=lg</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >You simply cannot do that with the Sigma lens: on the very odd occasion when you do need something longer than 200mm – the Canon Zoom wins hands down, IMO - it is even better with the x1.4MkII and easier to do using a Tripod from the rear of the Church, for example</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Although I have the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM and one reason I bought that model is because of the optic, it is my opinion that it is a rare case the this (non IS) lens is the best choice for general uses – especially if it is to be used at Weddings. Hence I suggest the IS version of this lens is the better choice. I have not used the MkII version - but the original EF 70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM is a cracker lens and I guess will be a few $ less now the MkII is available.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But my very first comment is – are you going to pull enough images with that FL range to warrant investing all that cash in one lens, considering, IMO the gaping holes you have in the remainder of your kit? </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>