Stuck between 2 lenses...Help!

Johanna--seems like this is the third time you are asking about buying another lens.

http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00PZTW

If you need a fast lens for the ceremony, if it is indoors in low light, the one to get is the 50mm f1.8.

If you need a fast lens for the reception, and for other parts of the day, get the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, although I would not call that a fast lens, actually--fast ZOOM, but not necessarily fast lens. If you use flash at the reception, you can get by with the kit lens, but you will have to use higher ISO if you want to bounce, plus your recycling time may be affected. Unless the reception is outside in the day time in brighter light or the day time indoor location is bright, you might as well use flash as primarly light, meaning use of a fast lens is moot.

IMHO every photographer should have a 50mm f/1.8 (or f1/4) lens in their bag. Low cost for simply GREAT performance. It also does a great job on both the smaller sensors as well as the full frame bodies that are available.

Having said that - the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron (or Sigma or Canon version) is a much more usable and practical lens for most wedding situations. Your current kit lenses will only be of use if the wedding is outside. Inside during a ceremony - i.e. no flash - they will be almost useless.

Russ--"almost useless", but not "useless", if you use higher ISO, a tripod and shoot during the pauses during the ceremony.

I did say "almost useless" in most indoor situations.

Bottom line - an f/2.8 zoom will be much more useful than the 50mm f/1.8 lens for almost any indoor wedding work IMHO.

Nadine,

IMHO - if you are going to shoot weddings - you need the proper tools. Anything less the basics (and an f/2.8 zoom at the wide end IS ESSENTIAL) will result in poor images and an upset bride. Either make the necessary and proper investment or tell the truth to the bride and groom that you are incapable of doing an adequate job.

Well she didn't say she was going to make shooting weddings her primary career... That's what I mean about specifics in this instance. Johanna is, I guess, having a hard time deciding so clarity and objectivity are useful--strong opinions should be labeled as such, which you have now done.

These are really two different purpose lenes. My answer would be BOTH.

The 17-55 2.8 is indeed very useful. Not being able to zoom as with the 50 1.8 will hurt you. And the F2.8 out to 55mm will make for nice bokeh on your shots that the kit lens cannot provide. At 55 on the kit lens you are at F5.65 not very appealing bokeh (background blur). Now here's the opionon part, for Portaits/wedding I feel a nicely blurred background is very important. Some might dissagree, but I feel shot's with everything in focus look like snapshots.

Now the 50 1.8 also has it's place. F1.8 is even nicer than F2.8 in some cases. And it does give you the extra stop which could mean the difference between a noisy shot or not based on ISO. I would use it for formal portraits and cerimony (very low light in door).

Heck if you can afford the 17- 55, get the 50 as well for only $80 more. If it has to be on or the other, I"d take only the zoom. You want 2.8 through the whole zoom range and you need to go wide not just 50mm.

Deciding between the two lenses you mention, I think you would be better getting the EF50mmF1.8MkII.

It is less money.

If you want to use it during the Reception and the Dance Floor, and it is `too zoomed` then you will get some nice half shots.

It will be useful during the ceremony, if you cannot use flash.

It will also be useful during the Reception WITH flash, if you desire.

It will be useful as an `art lens` for you after the Wedding

If you are really concerned about the 50mm being `too zoomed` then re-consider the EF35F2 instead or as an additional budget purchase.

Most likely you could get both these primes, for the price of the zoom you are considering.

FYI: My post Mar 20, 2008; 02:48 a.m. http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00OqhJ

WW

If I had to go with one, it would be the 17-50 for the range. The 50 is very nice but limits how close you can get.

I hate to jump in here but get both! Is a 100.00 for the 50mm 1.8 that much out of your spending limit? You can use and learn a lot from this lens. Good luck

"IMHO - if you are going to shoot weddings - you need the proper tools. Anything less the basics (and an f/2.8 zoom at the wide end IS ESSENTIAL) will result in poor images and an upset bride. Either make the necessary and proper investment or tell the truth to the bride and groom that you are incapable of doing an adequate job."

i have never, in my 20 years of photography owned a zoom of any kind. i have shot entire weddings on 1 or 2 primes with no upset brides. as a matter of fact i shoot currently with an s5 pro and 50mm on one shoulder and a leica m8 with zm 21 on the other and the 15mm heliar in my pocket. gear does not determine whether or not you will perform "adequately". it's your ability to utilize what you have with skill and creativity. i would, personally consider having a fast, and i mean f1.2-f1.8'ish fast, prime in your set-up. not only do they perform wonders in tough light... they are excellent for isolating subject matter. spend a saturday morning with a bride getting dressed and a 50mm f1.4 and you'll never look back. if you are good and committed either lens will be a great addition.

Do some research in magazines, regarding comparisons with lenses. These articles are very straight forward and frankly they pretty much tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth! You will get good information here on photo.net, and again not so good info.

My personal feeling is you are way under prepared gear wise. The cameras and lenses are fine for normal use, but I get the feeling you are trying to get out of spending money for PRO gear. You and your clients will both suffer because of this. I own 2 porsche cars and I would never think of taking the cars to jiffy lube, or hire someone for $8 and hour to replace the clutch with a Toyota part, therefore I don't think 3rd party lenses are the way to go, although there are some good ones made, but stay with Nikon, since thats what you own. The body, glass, and sensors are all setup to Nikons standards.

Can you shoot a wedding with your present gear? Of course you can. But at the same time you are doing a wedding and your gear can make and break a wedding.

Here is another example. I've seen wedding photographers show up in jeans. Even if the photos were ok most likely the bride and groom won't like them. You need to dress the part. A tux for evening weddings, and the finest gear you can score. If you need to barrow to buy on a credit card do it.

In the film days, before digital was out, almost all wedding professional photographer used medium format cameras, and most of them used Hassy's, Mamiya's, Bronica's, so forth. Showing up at a wedding carrying $20,000 to $30,000 was the norm. The negatives were at least 3 times or more the size of 35mm so you had much more room to enlarge prints with amazing quality.

With digital since you can see the pic and for some reason people think cheap priced cameras are OK for weddings. They aren't. They cannot compare to medium format. People can write to me all day long telling me how great their pics are, but it's not the same. Medium format will always win out. There of course exceptions with a few recent cameras, such as the Nikon D3 and the Canon 1Ds Mark 2 and 3. These 3 cameras actually approach medium quality cameras, but most pros still say medium format still beats out these $8000 DSLR cameras. So if you show up with $1000 worth of gear expect to see what you pay for.

2 lenses I feel are very good and with an upper end Nikon or Canom pro model are the 24-70 2.8 canon and the 28-70 2.8 Nikon. An added 17-50 is really all you need for weddings. If you want a fantastic portrait lens both the Nikon and Canon 85mm 1.2 or 1.4 prime lens is about the best setup for a professional wedding. Next is the 70-200 2.8 /vr /nikon or the 70-200 2.8 IS canon.

My last comment is simple. If you are charging the client money for your talent, time, and your gear 3 or 4 weddings will take care of most of your PRO gear, figuring $2000 per wedding, so think of investments for the future, not just a tool to get the 1/2 ass job done in a day.

My personal feeling is shoot THIS wedding with whatever gear you have. You will be just fine. And if this becomes an actual living for you, talk to your accountant a bank or 2 and start looking at the BIG picture. Get a loan with zero interest for 2 years. There are banks that offer it. I was just offered this through Bank of Americe, but my gear is paid for. If the say no, just 1 year only with zero interest take that too and soon you will find another card company offering 2 years. Just transfer the funds.

Since I don't know what your plans are keep it simple, but if you join the big leagues of wedding photographers have a blast. It's the best job one can have.

Thank God some-one finally mentions the 24-70 2.8L I thought that was THE wedding lens. PErsonally I have had a hard time with the 50 1.4 because of that razoe thin focus. I know if its in the hands of someone who know show to us eit properly its fantastic. If I am shooting quickly with that lens someimes I loose the focus. I havnet owned the 50 1.8, is the only difference the 1 stop faster, are both equally as sharp?

johanna in all seriousness (and with the best intentions) i think you should take a buying time out. the nature of the questions you are posing hint at a slightly under skilled photographer spending money before they really know what it is they need. if you are 3 months away from shooting a wedding and you have no idea what the needs are lens wise you have a big, big task ahead of you. not impossible but big indeed. i suggest working through situations as close to the conditions you're going to be in as soon as possible. find them, stage them whatever. figure out for yourself if the 18-55 and a speedlight are going to provide what you need. shoot every which way you can think of, dial in flash compensation, bounce it. do it all over again, and again, and again. try shooting natural light... over and over again. meter, check exposure, meter, check exposure and commit the situations and exposure solutions to memory. borrow some friends and practice on them... have them move, dance drag that shutter. when you are read to shoot this wedding you won't need any of us to tell you what to buy, you'll know exactly what it is. please take this as friendly advice as that's what it is intended to be... good luck and get practicing

You should buy the 50mm 1.8 regardless. wedding or no wedding. If you want to stop motion in a dark room, you need to use flash, period. Much has been said so far, but I would say that your intent with your business will make a difference here. Also, is this an outdoor ceremony? If it is, you can likely use your kit lens no problem. I would also agree that if you are unable to ascertain the answer to your question without searching the forum for previous posts (including your own), then what will you do when presented with a much more daunting decision that needs to be made in 30 seconds at your first wedding?

Jon Kobeck:

I think the 24 to 70F2.8L is (was) THE Wedding lens on 135 format. Certainly many who already had that lens use it on APS-C format bodies, and many use it very successfully as their main zoom lens for Weddings.

However, I think you might find that many Professional Photographers using APS-C Digital bodies, and buying NOW, favour the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS, (or similar third party) as their main working zoom.

Unless Johanna has changed cameras she has an XTi, and, moreover I find it is usually safe to assume, in the majority of posts from novices, in this forum: firstly they are using digital; and secondly they are using APS-C format.

Also upon close scrutiny of the post where the 24 to 70L is mentioned, Bob refers specifically to: `upper end Nikon or Canon pro model`.

I interpret that to mean Canon 1 series or Nikon D3: none of which are APS-C, and thus not as LIMITED at the wide, with the 24mm or 28mm FL.

***

The 50F1.8MkII and the 50F1.4 are both sharp from F2 or F2.2 and smaller. Well, the two I used were.

I bought the F1.4 because it is F1.4 and I use F1.4, often. And the F1.4 has FTMF. There are many posts about these two lenses, read them till you drop, or cry. :)

The bottom line is, IMO the 50F1.8 is very good value for money.

The other bottom line is, IMO it is far too often recommended as a `must get lens` because it is so inexpensive, and WITHOUT noting the result of using a 50mm prime lens on the APS-C body: it is a short telephoto lens on those smaller format bodies.

The point is, just as the 24 to 70 was developed as the Pros `Standard Zoom`: the 50mmF1.8 was developed as the economy `standard prime` . . . but for 135 format cameras.

BTW, not being a smarty pants, but F1.4 to F1.8 is about 2/3 of a stop: F1: F1.1: F1.2: F1.4:F1.6: F1.8: F2.0 . . . is now the most accepted gradation (in thirds). But that 2/3 of a stop can mean the difference between 1/15 and 1/25 HH, and I can pull many more at 1/25 than 1/15. You have to be very careful with the AF in low light. If you want the sharpest 50mm image, in the Canon range, get the 50mmF2.5 Macro.

WW

Johanna, over one year ago I had similar problem. I had to buy equipment and i didn't have enough money - at the end i ended up shooting with 30D & 400D and Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS (i bought that after having Sigma 24-70 f2.8 which wasn't wide enough on my 30D), Canon 135 f2 L and Canon 50mm f1.4. I had also 2 Canon 430EX... I was told that i have good gear for the wedding photography.

My experience after that 1st wedding: for the major part (i mean 90 %) of the wedding (we talking about full day shooting) i used 17-55 - because it's very versatile... You need wide angle - you shoot 17 mm, you need close up and 55 mm is there for you - no need to change the lenses... And I think it is important for someone inexperienced (me one year ago and you now) not to think about equimpent too much - it's enough when you stressed about screwing up someone's big day. That is when that zoom comes handy. Regarding the other 2 lenses: I almost didn't use 50mm because (as it was mentioned already) on your camera (the same as mine that time) it will be 80mm... for me it was too long when i needed that in church (i took most of the photos using 17 to 25 mm) and too short for those candid shots when you're 15 or 20 m away from your subject. For those candid shoots I used 135mm (which was a little bit over 200mm on 30D). After having that first wedding done with that gear I knew exactly what i need next time. I learnt that noise on 400D is too visible on ISO 1600 and the safe limit (well at least to me) was ISO 800... that means that you need fast lenses to get shuter speed fast enough - saying that - when people are motionless you can probably shoot with speed as low as 1/25 (consider your hands may be shaking), when they move you need at least 1/50 maybe 1/60 s... During my first wedding sometimes i was getting speeds as low as 1/10 with f2.8 and ISO 800... that was quite dark church... And the reception was very similar - the only difference was that i could use a flash...

After i shot that wedding, i had spoken to photog that i know and has loads of experience and works this way for years (he togeter with his wife, shoots around 200 weddings each year across Europe). He said that if i'm really serious about wedding photography, i should get a loan and buy better equipment. His main point was about cameras, but when i'm buying new cameras i need to get new lenses as well (17-55mm is only EF-S lens). So that's what i did and at the moment I'm working on 1d mk3, 5d and 30d as a backup. Also i got new lenses (16-35mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8).....

the bottom line is that you need to be sure about your gear and that it can perform well even in tough conditions (like a dark church). The best idea is just to find out what time and where that wedding has a place, go over there before and check settings that you need to use (that's what i did). Sometimes - and my first experience shows it - even f2.8 is not enough, and as it was mentioned in one of the posts, you need f1.2 or f1.4... and regarding that 50mm on your camera - you can get Sigma's 30mm f1.4 - which is close to standard 50mm on your camera body and it's not too expensive...

i hope you will benefit from my experience and i wish you good luck...

Greg

In the meantime, I will point out that I do not regularly research questions/people and answer most threads directly, staying focused on the question asked. The reason I point out the history behind this question is because I remembered Johanna's name, having answered the previous 2 or 3 related threads re lenses for this September wedding. Much of the information given above is, as I predicted, a rehash of answers given previously, including lenses that are totally outside of Johanna's budget and complete with warnings re readiness to shoot a wedding. The reason she lists the above two lenses is actually a result of the progression of the previous threads.

So--I believe I answered the question above, but to give a very succinct answer, given that I re-read all of the previous threads. The wedding is, by Johanna's description, outside in a garden in Orange County, California.

1. Buy nothing. The kit lens is fine outside and can be made to work inside or at night with flash as primary illumination.

2. If determined to buy one of the two above, I would buy the 50mm f1.8 for later low light use.

Shooting wedding ceremonies indoors requires f2.8 zooms and with a 70-200mm lens you also need VR/IS as 1/200 is not going to be possible. During the reception for the dance shots f2.8 is a minimum and f1.4 is a real plus.

On a Nikon DX camera that translates to the 17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 and Sigma 30mm f1.4 for starters. I would not dream of shooting a wedding for free much less for pay without the above and two bodies and two flash units. There are no retakes and a botched job is something you may forget but the poor bride never will for as long as she lives.

Slower lenses translates into slower shutter speeds and more motion blur from both camera movement and subject movement. An assistant of mine in an effort to save money go the Canon 24-105mm f4 and the non-IS version of the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lens. None of her shots with the non-IS telephoto were usable and the 24-105mm required twice as much flash which greatly limited the quality of the reception images.

I can bake a layer cake in my oven using my existing compliment of pots and pans. Would I enter into a contract to provide a multi-tier and decorated wedding cake for a couple? No way as I do not have the equipment or skills necessary to go to this next level.

Anyone who takes money to perform a service at a wedding should be in a position to guarantee the delivery of a minimal level of that service on that day. They should not be practicing their skills or getting experience with their cameras or their flash, etc. on their clients. It is not ethical.

One should work as a unpaid 3rd photographer until they have enough experience and enough equipment (including backup gear) to insure they can deliver the results that the bride and groom and their two families and their relatives and friends expect to receive.