Which lenses will you take ...

[hop_phan]

<p>Hi ,<br>

If you are going to take pictures of a wedding, which Canon lenses will you bring with you ( with a EOS 5D II ) and which one you will leave at home ?:<br>

- 50 f1.4, 85 f 1.8 , 135 f2.0L , 16-35 f 2.8 II L, 24-70 f 2.8 L, 24-105 F4 L, 70-200 f4 L IS . Do you think a 70-200 f2.8 ( IS I/II ) is really needed ? )</p>

[avery1]

<p>24-70 & 70-200<br>

...but I'm not a wedding photographer and am also careful to not get in their way.<br>

...oh, and a 400mm is a nice lens to have if you're taking pictures of a wedding you weren't invited to.</p>

[mathew_gardella]

<p>24-70mm, 85 1.8, 16-35mm, 5Dmk ii and a 50D or 7D.....</p>

[rt_jones]

<p>If I left one of my lenses at home it would be on ebay the next day because I don't need it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If you are going to take pictures of a wedding</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is what most of us do here.<br>

<br /></p>

[savagesax]

Take the 16-35, the 24-70, and the 70-200. Take the 24-105 as your backup.

[picturesque]

<p>Take--50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2, 16-35mm f2.8, 24-70 f2.8. Leave at home--the rest. If I were doing an outside only wedding ceremony, I would take the 70-200mm f4 and 24-105mm f4, with the other 'takes' if there is an indoor part at night, and not if there isn't.</p>

[markonestudios]

Phan, do you mean as the official photographer, or as a guest?

<p>If official: 16-35, 50 1.4, 24-70, 135, 70-200. (One of these to be mounted on 2nd camera)

<br>If as a guest: 24-105.

[hop_phan]

<p>Thanks all for your useful ideas. <br>

Mark, I mean the official photographer.<br>

Another question : Do you think trading my 135 and 70-200 f 4 IS for a 70-200 f 2.8 IS is a good idea ?</p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>Hop--no,<strong> I</strong> don't. I'd rather have the 135mm prime than the 70-200 f2.8 IS.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>The 50mm f1.4 and maybe the 135mm f2. And more importantly (but you don't list them), a moderately wide and a very wide. eg. 35mm and 20mm.</p>

[savagesax]

The 135mm is a really great lens. If you like the results you are getting, keep it. Most photographers, including myself, carry the 70-200 F2.8, but frankly there are only 1 out of 10 weddings which I would consider pulling it out of the bag.

 

The 135mm is a great portrait lens for groups of 6 or more and its also a fantastic lens for close ups of the bride.

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p >If you are going to take pictures of a wedding, which Canon lenses will you bring with you ( with<strong ><em > a</em></strong> EOS 5D II )</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >50 f1.4, 85 f 1.8 , 135 f2.0L , 16-35 f 2.8 II L, 24-70 f 2.8 L, 70-200 f4 L IS</p>

<p >You do not have anything fast and wide - other than that, you have good lens redundancy.</p>

<p >You have no Camera Redundancy, with only “with<strong ><em > a</em></strong> EOS 5D II”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >Do you think a 70-200 f2.8 ( IS I/II ) is really needed ? </p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >Nope. Not with a 135/2. – I like the x1.4mkII in the bag with it.</p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >Do you think trading my 135 and 70-200 f 4 IS for a 70-200 f 2.8 IS is a good idea </p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >No,<strong ><em > I</em></strong> would keep the 135/2 and the 70 200/4LIS and buy a x1.4mkII.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

[rt_jones]

<p><strong><em>Do you think trading my 135 and 70-200 f 4 IS for a 70-200 f 2.8 IS is a good idea ?</em></strong></p>

<p>There are only 2 segments I will use the 70-200 f/2.8 IS at just about every wedding:</p>

<p>1.) The ceremony when the "flash" part is over. <br>

2.) Candids during the social hour when the lighting is good. Again, flashless.</p>

<p>#1 is pretty important and I can't picture myself roaming the aisles back and forth even with a 135mm. I tend to position myself in one spot down the center aisle either in a pew with a monopod or towards the back with a tripod.</p>

<p>#2 can be done with any zoom but the 70-200 sure keeps one discreet. I know it's a beast but as soon as people get done gawking you're pretty much on your own.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I had a 135 F2 and loved the lens but I found out that the 70-200 2.8 IS is almost as sharp. For my style on a full frame, I use the 70-200 2.8 IS <strong>ALL </strong>the time. I would be very comfortable using the 16-35 or 24-70 and the 70-2002.8 IS. My normal setup is the 70-200 2.8 IS on full frame and the 17-55 2.8 IS on my 7D. At the end, you can shoot the wedding with any one lens you have mentioned and to <strong>me</strong>, YES the 70-200 2.8 IS is a must, not my work horse but 40% of my shots come from it. v/r Buffdr</p>

[William Michael]

<P>I think that one needs to consider two things when reading the responses - firstly how each of us goes about doing our job, and secondly the typical scenarios we each find ourselves in, to do that job.<BR><BR>As an example I like to work closer to my Subjects, rather than farther away from them . . . but also, typically, I work in situations where I must work closer rather than farther away, as Outdoor Weddings, Baptisms, Birthdays and Celebrations are rare for me; and I even when I worked in large Churches or Cathedrals, I mostly was allowed to get close, usually adjacent to or beyond the front pews . . .<BR><BR>On the other hand, in another part of the world for example, the norm might be outdoor Weddings on expanses of Lawns, or Churches and other places of Worship where there is limited access to the front area.<BR><BR>In my opinion, it is is important firstly consider the physical conditions and any restraints under which one is normally working when considering if the 70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM is necessary, or not.<BR><BR>I think that the one issue which is a given is: - if you decide that a 70 to 200 is necessary for you - then there is no choice other than it be the 70 to 200F/2.8L IS USM (or the MkII) <BR><BR>i.e. for a <STRONG><EM>Wedding Kit</EM></STRONG> the <STRONG><EM>IS is a given</EM></STRONG>, as too is the <STRONG><EM>F/2.8, a given.</EM></STRONG></P>

<P> </P>

<P>WW</P>

<P>PS: BTW I do own an EF 70 to 200F/2.8L USM and I have easy access to the IS version: but neither have been used at Weddings very often. 95% of the use of my 70 to 200, is for sport. </P>

[hop_phan]

<p>William,<br>

When suggesting me to buy " a x 1.4mkII " , do you mean a camera ?. Could you please make it clearer . My brain is numb now. Thanks.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>William W. is talking about a tele-extender. There is the Canon one, and third party manufacturers make them too. Some of the latter are almost, if not the same, as good as the Canon brand.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>What Nadine wrote, thanks.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/extender/ex_ef1_4xii.html">http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/extender/ex_ef1_4xii.html</a></p>

<p>WW</p>

[hop_phan]

<p>Thanks, Nadine. I have that one . I thought that is a back-up camera !</p>

[William Michael]

<p>. . .<br />I find this tele-extender lighter (weight) using it with the 135 and also more versatile than using the 70 to 200 . . . for the reasons I outlined above – and I like the extra stop of speed the 135 gives me as I generally don’t use Flash often.<br /><br />On another thread: <a href="../sports-photography-forum/00Wgo2">http://www.photo.net/sports-photography-forum/00Wgo2</a> we are discussing the tele-extenders. I need to get my act together and post some samples of my 135 with both extenders attached, individually and also piggy-backed.<br /><br />I have seen a the results of third party extenders, and if used judiciously they will work well for certain scenarios in Wedding Work. <br /><br />One interesting issue, is that some third party extenders can be made to work with the EF85F/1.8, which has always interested me, as the Canon tele-extenders will not allow that lens to mount, (without an extension ring in between).<br /><br />WW</p>

<p>No . . . not a camera . . . but you need a second on e of those too :)<br /><br /><br />Yes - I tend to use the exact name of the item, when describing pieces of equipment: notice I described it as the “MkII” version – the original is poorer optically, IMO.</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>16-35mm, 24-70mm and 85mm 1.8.</p>

[hop_phan]

<p>I am still listening and learning from all of you. Thank you all.</p>

[mark liddell]

24-70 f 2.8 L

85 f 1.8

135 f2.0L

 

Add the 50 if you anticipate really low light or the 70-200 2.8 if you need the reach of a 200mm.

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Need? 24-70/2.8, 50 1.4, 135/2. should take with? All (even if most stay in the car!).</p>

<p>IMHO sell the 70/200 f4 & 24-105 f4 to get a 70-200 f2.8 (both are severly limited in their shallow DOF capability by a small max apeture... can we say bokeh?) I wouldn't give up the 135/2 for anything! ... and IMHO a 70-200/2.8 is a necesity but that's just me...</p>

<p>BTW why would you have a 24-70 <strong>&</strong> a 24-105? seems like a waste of capital (or an 'L'-gasm), when by dumping one, you could get a truly stellar prime (or at least halfway there depending on the lens:-) )...</p>

[William Michael]

<p >There is no argument that one can get a shallower DoF with a faster lens at any given Subject Distance on any given Camera Format.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But I have had the discussion about the <strong >practical application</strong> of this fact, apropos Wedding Photography many times with many Second Shooters, Assistants, Students and Experience pros. . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Let’s look at the 70 to 200 F/4 and the 70 to 200 F/2.8 and consider the THREE MIAN shots we might pull over the duration of a Wedding: The Full Length Shot, The Half Shot and the Tight Head Shot. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >If one studies those shots and compares the DoF at F/2.8 and F/4 one will find that there is <strong ><em >very little practical, useful difference to the DoF one obtains with the F/2.8 lens</em></strong> </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Here are some example numbers based on CoC of <strong ><em >F/calc,</em></strong> for a 5D and a 70 to 200 and I have chosen some typical shooting scenarios (all Vertical Format / CoC = 0.025mm):</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Full Length (at 70mm) – the SD will be about 15ft; with F/2.8 DoF = 2ft; with F/4 about 2ft 9inches</p>

<p >Tight Head (at 200mm) - the SD will be about 15ft; with F/2.8 DoF = 2.5 inches; with F/4 DoF = 4 inches</p>

<p >Half shot at (70mm) – the SD will be about 8ft; with F/2.8 DoF = 6 inches; with F/4 DoF = 9 inches</p>

<p > </p>

<p >IMO this shows there is no “severe” limitation with an F/4 lens – in fact with my 70 to 200 F/2.8 I am often using F/4 or F/4.5 or F/5.6 to obtain the NECESSARY DoF - for the Half Shot, especially.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So there are the three main shots we would pull at a Wedding.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Just to head of the circular argument that DoF is dependent upon FL etc . . . yes that is correct it is, but the DoF remains the same, irrespective of FL (for practical purposes) according to <strong ><em >The Shot</em></strong>. (i.e., the size of the subject in frame).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I advocate buying fast lenses, but I do not find much credence in the argument that the main criterion to buy an F/2.8 zoom over an F/4 zoom is because of the severely limited Shallow DoF with the F/4 version – or that when comparing the two, an F/2.8 to an F/4, for <em >Wedding and Portrait Work,</em> to argue that there is a great difference innthe DoF of the two when used wide open. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The fact is, comparing F/2.8 to F/4 on a 5D, there not that much practical useful difference across the three main Shots, most Photographers pull.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>