Canon Lens Advise for wedding photography.

[Discreet]

I think that since you are secondary photographer, you can have a bit more freedom. Anyway wedding photograhy has a lot of styles. If you are going for wedding PJ style, I think your 28-75 and 135/2L should be able to do the trick (though i would prefer something wider). If you are planning to help out the primary photographer in taking the traditional type of photos (like event-based: Photos of the family at the wedding dinner table..etc), you will NEED a wide anlge as the 28-75 is too short and a flash. The so-called money shots that the primary photographer has to take require a wider focal length because there are moments where you need to capture the picture and you dont have chance to back out. And the flash is needed too because as mentioned, you dont have time to bring in lights. In a wedding, you want to be as distruptive as possible and thus, a wide angle and flash is the way to go. On a 1.6x body, this would mean a 17-40L and 580EX for example. Personally, i found the 17-40L to be one of the best tools for this kind of work (shooting with a rebel). I cannot stress how important it is to have a wide angle lens and I personally do not think a 10-22 +28-75 is a good combination for this kind of work. Why? because you will be working within the 17-50 range a lot, and you dont have to time to switch lenses in and out.

So if you plan to shoot solo next time or are going to help the primary photographer with the money shots, go get the 17-40L + flash.

 

[Snoweagle]

For me, that's what i only used on my last wedding shoot, a 17-40! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Lensman]

Totally agree with you.

Did a last minute "job" as a backup photographer for a fren's wedding.

Used the 17-40L with the Metz 54, hardly need to move back for more space for 95% of the shots. Not much distortion also.

10-22L would be good also but $$$$ :sweat:

Would the kit lens be as good ? Well, the focal lenght is about the same. But the optical quality, to my fussy eyes, were noticably different...

17-40L + 580EX will get u past any situation.

Its not abt how fast a lens. Its abt making the best use of ur glass.

 

[jimtong]

Hi,

For wedding dinner shot, you are require to take group photo for each table, I notice you already have the 18-55 range, which is already good enough. But of cos if you can get the 17-40, it will give very good result.

Borrow one if you need to. the 17-40 L F4 is a good choice to have. Try to avoid anything lower then 17mm as this will distort people's face.

This glass gives a very good color tone and contrast which I think is very important since you will be editing all the photos after the dinner and mind you it is no joke going through all the editing process to correct color cast.

Next you need a good flash. I notice you do not have a flash in your arsenal, try to borrow one if you can.

It is recommended to use manual mode to shoot.

Good luck

 

[jsbn]

Totally agree with you.

Did a last minute "job" as a backup photographer for a fren's wedding.

Used the 17-40L with the Metz 54, hardly need to move back for more space for 95% of the shots. Not much distortion also.

10-22L would be good also but $$$$ :sweat:

Would the kit lens be as good ? Well, the focal lenght is about the same. But the optical quality, to my fussy eyes, were noticably different...

Well, the kit lens is quite good also.

Between 18mm & 17mm, the difference is pretty neligible and u wun have to move back like more than 3 steps for group or table shots.

The extra reach at 55mm compared to 40mm max with the 17-40L is also welcomed. :thumbsup: Perhaps the slight disadvantage that utilising the kit lens would be slight degradation in optical quality (perhaps u'll have to do USM in photoshop compared to the 17-40L) and you'll have to stick to f/5.6 all the way instead of f/4. But u can work around it by either getting a better flash (Metz CT4?) or shoot at higher ISOs?

After all, even when making a coffeetable book, there is very little chance of blowing up AD wedding shots to A0 or crazy poster sizes where noise levels and all the flaws of the kit lens would show up (I'm not sure abt what crazy customers other working professionals may have encountered, but this is my typical experience).

 

[matthewgjs]

24-105mm f4L IS USM
17-40mm f4L
85mm f1.8
50mm f1.8/1.4

:lovegrin:

 

[Virgo]

3 lenses:

1. 17-40 for group shots

2. 50mm for portraits with limited space

3. 85mm for portraits with enough space

Don't forget to have a good flash. 580EX is the one to go IMHO, as the recharging time is fast.

Have fun!

 

[Snoweagle]

3 lenses:

1. 17-40 for group shots

2. 50mm for portraits with limited space

3. 85mm for portraits with enough space

Don't forget to have a good flash. 580EX is the one to go IMHO, as the recharging time is fast.

Have fun!

Yes these lenses are highly recommended. But the 430EX have a faster recycling time than the 580EX.

 

[Virgo]

I haven't tried the 430 personally. 580EX's recharging time is good for me, with a higher range than the 430EX. However, 430EX is better priced than the 580EX. If budget is an issue, go for the 430EX.

Yes these lenses are highly recommended. But the 430EX have a faster recycling time than the 580EX.

 

[davidkow]

17-40 or 17-85 plus 10-22 forget the long lens

 

[Snoweagle]

I haven't tried the 430 personally. 580EX's recharging time is good for me, with a higher range than the 430EX. However, 430EX is better priced than the 580EX. If budget is an issue, go for the 430EX.

Now i'm in a dilemma, dunno whether to buy 430EX, 580EX or 85mm f/1.8 USM.

 

[kelccm]

Now i'm in a dilemma, dunno whether to buy 430EX, 580EX or 85mm f/1.8 USM.

If your 420EX is doing fine, then you should get the 85mm f/1.8 1st. The 420EX is still a good flash, and you'll still be able to use it for wedding shoot. If you want to upgrade your flash, get the better one, the 580EX.

 

[valice]

What about a EF-S 17-85mm lens? Will it be a good choice too? Since it covers both the wide and the 85mm range...

 

[Snoweagle]

If your 420EX is doing fine, then you should get the 85mm f/1.8 1st. The 420EX is still a good flash, and you'll still be able to use it for wedding shoot. If you want to upgrade your flash, get the better one, the 580EX.

Yes that's what i've been considering too, and get a lightsphere with the 580EX....but sad thing is, the 580EX is still very costly.

 

[Davis]

Hi Guys! Tks for sharing. I have bought a 17-40mm f/4L & 85mm f1.8 today. I just try a few snap for my 17-40 f/4L at night at the void deck and i set my iso to 1600 but still have to set my shutter speed to less than 15 without flash so confirm blur. Scare during wedding dinner will turn out bad so think have to use flash to support.

 

[n0d3]

Yeah defintely, don't see how you going to survive a wedding with a f/4 lens.

 

[Garion]

Yeah defintely, don't see how you going to survive a wedding with a f/4 lens.

Why not? As many of the bros here will say, with flash it is possible. I have shot AD wedding dinner/church with 17-40mm f4L on my cam 80-90% of the time with flash.

 

[Snoweagle]

That time i did a wedding shoot ONLY with the 17-40 and 90% with flash assisted, all my pics are fine so i don't see a problem using an f/4 lens for a wedding shoot.

 

[kelccm]

I have tried 1 AD wedding and 1 ROM before with a f2.8 lense, and I find that most of time my aperture is set to f4 or 5.6 and f8 for big group shot.With an external flash, you should get decent exposure with shutter speed of 1/60s. Just set a higher iso when the background is quite dark. I only use a much bigger aperture when I'm taking more abstract shot. It is more important to get your subjects sharp and well exposed then to try to get the background well exposed.

 

[catchlights]

Yeah defintely, don't see how you going to survive a wedding with a f/4 lens.

More 90% of the photographers (pro or armature) shoot wedding day with flash, day or night, and more than 90% of the pictures are using flash, indoor or outdoor.

AFAIK, many canon users use this lens, beside the kit lens and the 16~35, I don't see how come can not, so are many others.