What wedding lenses - your suggestions/recommendations

S

stupar

Guest
In April I have the pleasure of doing a wedding, so recently I've been looking at my kit in relation to what people commonly use.
My kit consists of:
Canon 50D (access to a 40D as a 2nd/backup body)
Sigma 10-20mm
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Canon 50mm f1. 8
Canon 430 ex II

They are ok lenses but not properly cut out for weddings.

I know the venue (mix of outdoor and indoor at the local golf club) and having spoken to the couple have found out their preferred style - which is quirky fun and candid shots.

I've thought about hiring a couple of lenses from Stewart aka lensesforhire, but shooting crop is slightly different to shooting full frame for lens decisions.

I was thinking about hiring some lenses anyway for general use to please and tease myself so could kill two birds with one stone with a few days hire to cover wedding and personal use.

Now two lenses that have caught my eye are the -
16-35mm f2.8
70-200mm f2.8
Obviously that combo leaves a bit of a gap.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the crop front. Should I stick with efs lenses etc.
Your thoughts and suggestions are greatly received.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will also have the pleasure of doing my friends wedding. She has hired a pro for the wedding it self but requested i do other shots.. I am hoping to have purchases a D7000 by then, will the stock 18-105 vr lens do the job or would you reccomend i get some addtional?
 
Anyone?
I expected this to be a hot topic straight out of the traps! :D
 
Not qualified to say but I'd likely go for the Canon 17-55 f2.8 in place of the Tamron 17-50/Canon 16-35 and team that with 70-200 f2.8.

Based in reading reviews...the Canon 17-55 has superior focusing and a touch better image quality over the Tamron.
 
I use a nikon D700 & pretty much only use the 24 -70 f2.8. I sometimes think that I'd like to get a bit closer but the size/weight of the 70-200 puts me off. On the D300 we use the 17-55mm f2.8 & that never comes off either! I sometimes use a 50mm f1.4 but vey sparingly because you have to be carefull witht he Dof.

I don't think I'd have time to swap lenses & only really occasionally would I need/want a longer lens, so anything in that zoom (17-55 crop sensor or 24-70 ff) range is perfect.
 
Thanks for the input so far guys, some food for thought.

Would appreciate any further input from anyone else (y)
 
Your kit is OK for the focal lengths you have, the Canon 17-55 would be a better option but it's not a deal breaker. But a 70-200 or 85 1.8 would be great additions.
For the times you'll use the UWA you don't really need faster. I shoot with 1 crop camera with the 17-55 and the other carries a different lens depending on the circumstances. At the end of the day about 15% of the wedding will be on the mix of 'other' lenses, with 85% on the 17-55.
'other' lenses are:
10-20 sigma
50 1.8
85 1.8
90 macro tamron
70-200 2.8
 
I have just done a freinds wedding it was a very small afair with just 20 guests. It was my 1st and and only wedding so mine might not be the best advise.

I if I had to do another I would want two bodys one with my 17-55 f2.8 and other with a 70-200 f2.8 this would help no end as you dont need to swap and miss shots. These 2 lens would cover 80% of the shots with the 17-55 doing most of the work.

I think a ff body with better iso would also be a great help.

lens for crop body that get listed in this type of tread are:

Canon 17-55 F2.8
Canon 70-200 F2.8
Canon 10-22 or sigma 10-20
Canon or sigma 50mm f1.4
Canon 100 f2.8 marco or tamron 90 f2.8 or sigma 105 2.8

Loads of books at the libary worth reading.
 
Last edited:
i use a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 for 99% of my wedding images with about even split between them. i keep 2 bodies on me so have both lens to hand as i shoot.
 
it sounds like for a crop body the best way to go is a 17-55mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8

Thanks everyone so far for your input.
 
I don't think there's much wrong with the lenses you already have tbh. Yes the Canon 17-55 would improve on the Tamron but not by a huge amount so possibly best to stick with what you have and get something else to complement it.

I've found ultra-wides like the Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22 aren't actually that useful at weddings, aside from the odd large group or building shot.

I'd echo what others have said and look at a 70-200 as it's such a useful range and handy for candids from a distance. The 2.8 would obviously give you a stop more light but also consider the F4 IS at a similar price point as it's tack sharp.

The last wedding I did I ended up spending most of my time with the 24-70 on the 7D for general shots and the 70-200 on the 40D for odd candids at longer distances.
 
Whats low light performance like on a Canon 17-55 f2.8?

I've found that on the Tamron, when it gets darker it takes a bit more to get focus lock.
 
Well, given the same f/2.8 aperture, I'd assume the focus performance would be down to the body itself as the same amount of light is reaching the sensor and AF mechanism.

In terms of low light use generally, the IS can help enormously with static or slow-moving subjects.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Well, given the same f/2.8 aperture, I'd assume the focus performance would be down to the body itself as the same amount of light is reaching the sensor and AF mechanism.

In terms of low light use generally, the IS can help enormously with static or slow-moving subjects.
Click to expand...

See that was my thinking for just going with the 17-55mm
The constant f2.8 will help but the IS will also assist, especially for the evening shots.
 
Well it will to a point but you'll still have moving subjects and thus risk motion blur if you push your luck too far.

TBH, when indoors you're best off using flash and/or relying on a fast prime like the 50 f/1.8.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Well it will to a point but you'll still have moving subjects and thus risk motion blur if you push your luck too far.

TBH, when indoors you're best off using flash and/or relying on a fast prime like the 50 f/1.8.
Click to expand...

Well the 50 f1.8 is going to be in the pocket and the 430 exII is definitely coming with me :)
 
I'm not a wedding photographer but I will share some of what I learnt from a wedding I shot with a 450D and a 500D with a canon 10-22 (69/24), sigma 30mm 1.4 (83/7), canon 50 1.8 (7/4), 24-70 2.8 (498/254) and 70-200 (23/10) The number in brackets are the number of shots taken/kept with each lens. Yes there are a lot of duplicated images with the 24-70 as it was used for posed shots to combat eyes closed.

The 10-22 shots were mainly used for the page background shots so good light anyway, things like the empty ceremony room, the venue I even used it for some b+g shots outside the venue, I love this lens, the colours everything is is so sharp.
30mm was also used for some of those to pick out details in the room decoration but also the night do in the dark room
24-70 was general shots and was probably on one camera all the time
50mm nothing special really just low light stuff I could have shot with the 24-70 but I had the lens and I wanted to use it.
70-200 were catching the groom playing bowls with his dad the morning of the wedding, and the kiss and ring swap close ups it also got used in the bridal prep for a few close ups as the room was huge.

So not a lot of use to you but give you a few ideas on how I as a non wedding photographer use the lenses I had available to me. If I had to choose which 2 I would have taken if that was all I could take it would be the 24-70 and 10-22 but based on the percentages of keepers to shot the 70-200 was way up there as was the 50mm. This is something I need to think about as a freind has aske me to shoot her wedding but I need to travel to Jersey to do it so may need to travel light.
 
andrewj said:
I use a nikon D700 & pretty much only use the 24 -70 f2.8. I sometimes think that I'd like to get a bit closer but the size/weight of the 70-200 puts me off. On the D300 we use the 17-55mm f2.8 & that never comes off either! I sometimes use a 50mm f1.4 but vey sparingly because you have to be carefull witht he Dof.

I don't think I'd have time to swap lenses & only really occasionally would I need/want a longer lens, so anything in that zoom (17-55 crop sensor or 24-70 ff) range is perfect.
Click to expand...

The 17-55mm f2.8 is a brilliant lens. I did wedding over near hull in Dec and thats pretty much all I used apart from the 85mm f1.8
 
70-200 f2.8 is pretty much standard and definitely my first choice

but also think about lenses that uncle bob doesn't have.

10mm Fish-eye can give great images and allow you to get creative
300mm f2.8 will allow you to get close from very far away and will look great when attached to your camera.

HTH
 
SimonTALM said:
300mm f2.8 will allow you to get close from very far away and will look great when attached to your camera.

HTH
Click to expand...

LOL, I did take mine to the above wedding with the intention of getting the b+g on the balcony outside the bridal suite and shooting them from a distance but time just disapeared and we never got the chance to do that shot. :(

The grooms uncle did have a bit of fun playing with it and the 2X on his 50D
 
Vertigo1 said:
Well, given the same f/2.8 aperture, I'd assume the focus performance would be down to the body itself as the same amount of light is reaching the sensor and AF mechanism.

In terms of low light use generally, the IS can help enormously with static or slow-moving subjects.
Click to expand...

That assumption could be miles from reality. I haven't used the particular Tamron but I've used lots of 2.8 lenses from different manufacturers and the focussing speed and accuracy differs a lot from lens to lens.
The canon 17-55 focusses in low light where some of my other lenses will give up, and it generally focusses faster than anything else I own.
 
stupar said:
See that was my thinking for just going with the 17-55mm
The constant f2.8 will help but the IS will also assist, especially for the evening shots.
Click to expand...

The Canon is way better in low light than the Tamron. I've owned both.
 
The23rdman said:
The Canon is way better in low light than the Tamron. I've owned both.
Click to expand...

That was my understanding too.
The tamron is a heavy hunter when the light gets tough.
 
Phil V said:
That assumption could be miles from reality. I haven't used the particular Tamron but I've used lots of 2.8 lenses from different manufacturers and the focussing speed and accuracy differs a lot from lens to lens.
The canon 17-55 focusses in low light where some of my other lenses will give up, and it generally focusses faster than anything else I own.
Click to expand...

Interesting! Obviously the USM focusing mechanism of the Canon is superior and thus it will focus faster and more accurately but, when it comes to low light performance, I'd have thought that, with two lenses of the same aperture, it'd be primarily down to the body. Then again, what do I know, I'm only guessing :D
 
Vertigo1 said:
Interesting! Obviously the USM focusing mechanism of the Canon is superior and thus it will focus faster and more accurately but, when it comes to low light performance, I'd have thought that, with two lenses of the same aperture, it'd be primarily down to the body. Then again, what do I know, I'm only guessing :D
Click to expand...

As we can see from the people who've definitely used both, you were only guessing. None of my non-Canon lenses focus as well in low light as my Canon usm lenses. People who've only used kit lenses or 3rd party lenses are genuinely shocked when they see the focus performance of both the 17-55 and the 70-200, the gear is leaving me as the weak link ;)
 
Well its defo settled then.
Canon 17-55 f2.8 and Canon 70-200 f2.8.

Now an interesting question. Do I hire the 70-200 f2.8 Mk1 or Mk2.
From what I can see there is minimal difference between the two and on the basis I am only hiring for a few days I'm thinking I'd be better just taking the Mk1 unless others can suggest otherwise.
 
99.9% of the time 24-70 2.8.

70-200 2.8 - cant remember the last time I used it at a wedding.

Looking to add a 85 1.4 over the next few months, so the usage on the 24-70 might drop to 80%
 
Phil V said:
As we can see from the people who've definitely used both, you were only guessing. None of my non-Canon lenses focus as well in low light as my Canon usm lenses. People who've only used kit lenses or 3rd party lenses are genuinely shocked when they see the focus performance of both the 17-55 and the 70-200, the gear is leaving me as the weak link ;)
Click to expand...

Oh I know how well Canon USM lenses focus, I have five of them :D

I just didn't realise how much better they were than the third party alternatives.
 
Get yourself some better primes.

Sigma 30mm 1.4
Canon or Sigma 50mm 1.4, if you really push the boat out then 50L.

You may want to upgrade 1 of your body to full frame too.
 
Hi Guys,
I will also be looking at doing a wedding, lukcily not as the official photographer.
I currently have the lenses mentioned below, as a amateur guest photographer, would these be sufficient?

Nikkor 55-200mm 4-5.6 G IF ED / Nikkor 16-85mm 3.5-5.6 G ED VR
 
I rented a 17-55 but found I couldn't get on with it at all, I used it as I'd paid to rent it but could have managed without, I could have also managed without the 10-22 I borrowed and shot most of it on my 50mm f2.5 and my 100mm f2.8 (the 17-55 was handy for the group shots on my crop 500D but am hoping to trade up to FF soon so my 35mm will cover those). My choices seem to go against the normal choices but they suit me and how I like to photograph :) So, waffle over, for me I would say 70-200 f2.8 and a fast prime that's wide enough for your groups and full body shots (or for you, your 17-50, and rent the zoom - is the nifty-50 any good for close up detail shots? Mines the macro version so I don't know off hand)
 
CrazeUK said:
Hi Guys,
I will also be looking at doing a wedding, lukcily not as the official photographer.
I currently have the lenses mentioned below, as a amateur guest photographer, would these be sufficient?

Nikkor 55-200mm 4-5.6 G IF ED / Nikkor 16-85mm 3.5-5.6 G ED VR
Click to expand...

As a guest photographer, stick with what you have and have fun
 
What about 70-200 f4 (non IS)? Granted it's quite slow for low light, but much much cheaper.
 
Just to update the thread, my order is placed with lensesforhire.
Canon 17-55 f2.8 and Canon 70-200 f2.8 mk1.
Took the 7 days hire so I can have a personal play with them too.

Met with the bride and groom to discuss ideas recently , going to visit the venue in the next couple of weeks, after that just need to wait on the big day.
 
I shoot with a 24-70 and a 70-200 but I am seriously considering buying prime lenses and just soles using them. Namely a 24 , 50 and 85 . The depth and quality is amazing also pin sharp!!
 
70-200 is always worth having in your kit for those shots you can't get close too
 
Prime do give better quality but are less often less convenient. Like most things its a matter of balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top