anesh Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 This lens would take 70-80% of my wedding photos and I'm thinking Tamron 17-80. What do you think. Of the lenses currently in my bag (50mm f1.7, beercan, Tamron 11-18mm, Sigma APO Macro 70-300) only the 50mm is good enough. The beercan is slow to focus in low light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_lewis3 Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 look for lens in the 80-200 2.8 range (sigma, tamron sony, minolta or tokina) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoebox Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I have the sigma 30mm f1.4. It's fast, sharp and has smooth bokeh. It has become my favorite lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anesh Posted December 6, 2006 Author Share Posted December 6, 2006 meant to say Tamron 17-50 not 17-80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_neighbour___york__u.k Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Is this on digital? On film, a 28 - 70mm f/2.8 is a good choice. You don't want too long a lens for the recessional. Those 70 - 200 f/2.8 lenses probably come in handy for when you can't get too close, I haven't had this problem and find a 90mm f/2.8 prime to be sufficient. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anesh Posted December 6, 2006 Author Share Posted December 6, 2006 Sony A100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_illg Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I love the speed on my Minolta 28-75mm f2.8, and Adorama just put them on sale for $329 new!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_albert Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 Take a look for a Tamron 28-105 2.8. Equivelent 42-152.5. A nice range for weddings. Or go with a combo 17-50 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. get a second body so you are not switching lenses constantly. You can pick up a nice 5D or 7D cheap nowadays. They would be good for low light low noise shots, where your A100 would be good for high detail photos. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate_macdonald Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 I've shot two weddings using just my 50mm f/1.7 and 135mm f/2.8 - mind you, I don't consider myself good enough to charge people, but the newlyweds have been very happy with the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m.l Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 28/2 as a prime, if you can restrict yourself. Otherwise I have nice results with the 24-60/2.8 sigma (not with weddings though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherman Posted December 6, 2006 Share Posted December 6, 2006 50mm f1.4-f1.7, 28mm f2, 85mm f1.4... These are good portrait primes but will you have enough time to change all those primes during the wedding that is the question. I have these but I often find impractical to change lenses in such environments. If I have one choice I'd stick to 28mm f2. I have used it with no flash in the very dimly lit conditions on 5D with the help of anti shake and tungsten color calibration(Or with calibration for whatever the light source is). Using no flash is very useful for capturing real moments which is now available with anti-shake + a very fast prime lens. People can not believe that I did not use any flash with such clean results! Zooms with constant f2.8 might do the job as well(have no experience though) Hope this helps 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