Good lenses (Sony) for wedding photography?

[Ouverture]

Uh.. Alpha CF is 1.6

Its 1.5. Only canon is 1.6

 

[Prince Photogenic]

Its 1.5. Only canon is 1.6

Oh.. i always thought only Canon is 1.5.. Oops.. my bad.. thanks for correcting me..

 

[frederickykfoo]

Yup, sorry for the confusion.
Basically a 28-70mm on FF would equate to 18-50mm on APSC (by dividing 28mm and 70mm by 1.5).

A FF lens like 28 - 70 mm should be a 42 - 105 mm lens on a APSC body.
All focal length should be multiple by 1.5 when use any lens on a APSC body to get the FF or 35mm equivalent. :angel:

 

[Edlet]

A FF lens like 28 - 70 mm should be a 42 - 105 mm lens on a APSC body.
All focal length should be multiple by 1.5 when use any lens on a APSC body to get the FF or 35mm equivalent. :angel:

Yup, 28-70mm mounted on APSC is 42-105mm. No doubt.

What i'm saying is that if I recommend a 28-70mm F2.8 lens for wedding on a FF cam.
Then using APS-C, one should get a 18-50mm F2.8 lens so the coverage is equal to 28-70mm on the FF.

Very troublesome, haha, this FF and APS-C equivalent. ;p

 

[intrance]

With 500$ budget, I would suggest buying a 2nd handed spare camera
16-80 mm+ main camera + flash.
50mm/30mm + spare camera.
Less need to swap lenses. And you have a backup too.

So what u brought lots of lenses. Imagine missing a moment while changing lens.

personally i go as the above advice, if im the main photographer..
but rent the spare camera..

 

[frederickykfoo]

Yup, 28-70mm mounted on APSC is 42-105mm. No doubt.

What i'm saying is that if I recommend a 28-70mm F2.8 lens for wedding on a FF cam.
Then using APS-C, one should get a 18-50mm F2.8 lens so the coverage is equal to 28-70mm on the FF.

Very troublesome, haha, this FF and APS-C equivalent. ;p

Agreed :thumbsup:

 

[Prince Photogenic]

Actually i was wondering, would 28-75mm (42 - 112.5mm on APS-C) be too tight? I was look through some photos that i took for events and i realised i seldom use focal lengths between 18-30mm (27-45mm on APS-C)..

 

[kei1309]

Actually i was wondering, would 28-75mm (42 - 112.5mm on APS-C) be too tight? I was look through some photos that i took for events and i realised i seldom use focal lengths between 18-30mm (27-45mm on APS-C)..

if you don't use those focal lengths, then the 28-75 would be good for you.

 

[Prince Photogenic]

if you don't use those focal lengths, then the 28-75 would be good for you.

Till now, I realise dun use much. I could have gotten the Sony or Tammy 17-50 f2.8, but I thought a Minolta 28-75 f2.8 D might serve me better, since I can still use the lens if I upgrade to FF, and that it fills the void between 55-70mm that's left by my current set-up.

F2.8 is good for portrait too right?

 

[ash17]

Why not just rent instead, if you are main photographer then u will need 2 body, 2 fast lens (e.g 17-50 f2.8 & 70-200 f2.8) and 2 flash at least. If you are just shooting for fun and gain portfolio then your current gear is sufficient. Rather u use that $500 for something else.

 

[Edlet]

Till now, I realise dun use much. I could have gotten the Sony or Tammy 17-50 f2.8, but I thought a Minolta 28-75 f2.8 D might serve me better, since I can still use the lens if I upgrade to FF, and that it fills the void between 55-70mm that's left by my current set-up.

F2.8 is good for portrait too right?

There is no right or wrong in photography. Everything is just a general guideline.
U can do it whatever way u like, as long as the client likes the photo.

It depends on the type of event and the location.
In a big ballroom or outdoors, u can use all the tele lens u like (>70mm on FF). In a small enclosed room, your choices are limited to 17-35mm on FF. Bright places even F5.6 is sufficient, for dark places F2 might be needed.

Its what's in front of your camera and how you intend to capture it that determines the equipment, and u can figure it out only by trying and experiencing.

 

[TWmilkteaTW]

Till now, I realise dun use much. I could have gotten the Sony or Tammy 17-50 f2.8, but I thought a Minolta 28-75 f2.8 D might serve me better, since I can still use the lens if I upgrade to FF, and that it fills the void between 55-70mm that's left by my current set-up.

F2.8 is good for portrait too right?

yea of cos why not. 2.8 is fine.

 

[kenyoung]

Just wondering, will a 75 - 300mm lens come in handy should I be the assistant photographer (which I am)?

 

[marcusy]

like tat u have to stand quite far away for shooting .pepole migh block ur view as they might not able to see u ,unless u taking candic shots .actually tamrom 16-50 F2.8 should be gd enough.I might be wrong as i also quite new to wedding photography. big brother and sister here might able to help

Just wondering, will a 75 - 300mm lens come in handy should I be the assistant photographer (which I am)?

 

[TWmilkteaTW]

Just wondering, will a 75 - 300mm lens come in handy should I be the assistant photographer (which I am)?

Anything is good as long you know what you are doing.

 

[intrance]

Just wondering, will a 75 - 300mm lens come in handy should I be the assistant photographer (which I am)?

u want to buy that lens for the sake of the wedding?

anyhow.. u need to talk to the main photographer and see what he want you to cover..

generally CZ16-80 with flash is good enough..
and i will bring along 50mm 1.4 for some guests/family members potrait..

 

[kei1309]

like tat u have to stand quite far away for shooting .pepole migh block ur view as they might not able to see u ,unless u taking candic shots .actually tamrom 16-50 F2.8 should be gd enough.I might be wrong as i also quite new to wedding photography. big brother and sister here might able to help

adding on. at 300mm, your flash might not be enough to do fill-in lighting. also, you've got more things to worry about, such as image stabilization. hence, you need to pump up your ISO. not forgetting, at 300mm the DOF is also pretty thin. what you're gonna get is a lot of OOF areas. while it's nice, you have to take note, you might not get everything in focus.

so while in a cramped condition especially Church, House or Hotel etc weddings, 300mm is not a focal length you'd use, unless you're the main photographer and you've been given all rights to beat up others who are blocking your way.

so like what the other bros said, shorter focal lengths are the way to go.

but a little advice... wide angle lenses < or = 35mm, tend to have distortion at the sides... so watch out for the ladies standing at the edges of your frame at those focal lengths.

 

[Prince Photogenic]

adding on. at 300mm, your flash might not be enough to do fill-in lighting. also, you've got more things to worry about, such as image stabilization. hence, you need to pump up your ISO. not forgetting, at 300mm the DOF is also pretty thin. what you're gonna get is a lot of OOF areas. while it's nice, you have to take note, you might not get everything in focus.

so while in a cramped condition especially Church, House or Hotel etc weddings, 300mm is not a focal length you'd use, unless you're the main photographer and you've been given all rights to beat up others who are blocking your way.

so like what the other bros said, shorter focal lengths are the way to go.

but a little advice... wide angle lenses < or = 35mm, tend to have distortion at the sides... so watch out for the ladies standing at the edges of your frame at those focal lengths.

Yea.. some of them might hate you after seeing those photos...

 

[marcusy]

i did see main photographer using those long long lense in a small ballroom during a wedding dinner hehehe

u want to buy that lens for the sake of the wedding?

anyhow.. u need to talk to the main photographer and see what he want you to cover..

generally CZ16-80 with flash is good enough..
and i will bring along 50mm 1.4 for some guests/family members potrait..

 

[kenyoung]

adding on. at 300mm, your flash might not be enough to do fill-in lighting. also, you've got more things to worry about, such as image stabilization. hence, you need to pump up your ISO. not forgetting, at 300mm the DOF is also pretty thin. what you're gonna get is a lot of OOF areas. while it's nice, you have to take note, you might not get everything in focus.

so while in a cramped condition especially Church, House or Hotel etc weddings, 300mm is not a focal length you'd use, unless you're the main photographer and you've been given all rights to beat up others who are blocking your way.

so like what the other bros said, shorter focal lengths are the way to go.

but a little advice... wide angle lenses < or = 35mm, tend to have distortion at the sides... so watch out for the ladies standing at the edges of your frame at those focal lengths.

Haha thanks. =) any idea where I could get a tamron 17-50 2.8 for a good price?