Whats the best lens for wedding photography?

J

jameslongstrong

Messages
101
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm off to a wedding in a week or so. The bride is a friend of my other half. Basically I'll know no one at all and have decided on renting a lens from Calumet for the weekend to see what I can get.

What is the best lens to rent taking in to consideration that I have no idea of the venue or the lighting etc. All I know is it is in Cockermouth so I'll be taking my wellies.

Any advice would be much appreciated. I'll be taking the 40D and already own a 50mm f1.8, 18-55mm kit and 70-300mm f4-5.6

CHEERS!
 
from what i can gather the three main lenses are 24-70mm 70-200mm and 50mm. Speak to Stewart at Lenses For Hire as they are very good on prices
 
Calumet are doing the 24-70 for £32 for the weekend. I think that is the way forward. I've rented the 70-200mm for local football and think it's a bit too big to be taking to a wedding where I don't know anyone (although it is a brilliant lens.)
 
Like everything else it depends what you want to shoot :) Just because the venue happens to be a wedding that doesn't change.

Some wedding togs like to use fast primes like 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.2 and flash is vulgar. Others are happy at f4 and using some flash where it's needed. It depends very much on the feel of the images you want to create.

It also depends on just what kind of pics you will be able to take. I use primes for shooting bridal prep with no flash but you won't be shooting those and I use a zoom for shooting bride and groom shots and that can be 17-40, 24-70, 24-105 or 70-200. The choice of lens being dictated by the pics the couple want and the background I have to work with. An unflattering background and I'm much more likeley to shoot tight. A floodlit castle and I'm definately going to shoot some wide.

Also depends on lighting, I have access to off camera flashes when I need them so it's my choice of whether I want to shoot at f5.6 and f8 or whether I want more subject isolation at f2. A lot of venues are very dark at this time of year and you will be lucky to be able to shoot much above f2.8 at all and you will have to bump up the ISO.

The short answer is that there IS no best lens for weddings. It's such a varied environment I use all sorts.
 
depends on the scenario and whether you're going to be using flash a lot as people have said it's going to be varied but off the top of my head i'd say either

24-70 f2.8
24-105 f4

you might find depending on where you are that 24mm on a crop is a pita especially for group shots
 
AliB said:
Like everything else it depends what you want to shoot :) Just because the venue happens to be a wedding that doesn't change.

{snip}.

The short answer is that there IS no best lens for weddings. It's such a varied environment I use all sorts.
Click to expand...

+1 what Ali said

Hugh
 
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8

Then you can use flash or not...
But i shoot with a nikon D700 which can see in the dark as well so that helps..!
 
AliB said:
and flash is vulgar.
Click to expand...

Not if used well.

OP - Your main lens for your first wedding needs to be a zoom. I would doubt you have the experience to ensure you are in the right places all the time to use a prime lens so a zoom will give you more flexibility. The 24-70 is the most versatile for your needs and at 2.8 it's fast enough for MOST situations - it's certainly faster than your current mid range zoom.

If you have a second body definately put a longer lens on for candids and really nice head & shoulders portraits. If you don't have a second body I'd advise sticking to the mid zoom for most of the day.

And flash at the right time and place (ideally off camera) will give you many more options if the light is really bad (which is likely this time of year).

HTH

Ryan
 
400D = 17-55 IS for my money. you might need to get wider than a 24-28mm will allow on a cropped camera.
also a flash is handy with some nice diffuser usage.
 
If I had a vote, I'd go for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS too. I think it's a much more useful range than 24-70mm on my 40D. But if your local Calumet store has a 24-70 and it doesn't have a 17-55 then I guess that could sway your decision...

Calumet's pricing is pretty decent for a weekend. Their price for the 24-70L is actually £42 (£32 headline price, plus 15% damage waiver, plus 15% VAT), which isn't much higher than our price (£39.25 for 3 full days including VAT and comprehensive insurance). But of course we're in Maidenhead and they're in Nottingham, so not having to charge you for delivery definitely swings it for them.

Good luck!
 
boyfalldown said:
OT llike the nikon 17-55 you mean??

Hugh
Click to expand...

It has no IS/VR/OS/VC and while is built like a tank is very expensive for what it is, rrp is £1000 plus right now although used prices are around £700 the new Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC is going for around £400 in shops right now!
 
Lardinio said:
It has no IS/VR/OS/VC and while is built like a tank is very expensive for what it is, rrp is £1000 plus right now although used prices are around £700 the new Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC is going for around £400 in shops right now!
Click to expand...


Its is built like a tank, but it rarely goes for RRP if you shop for it. Itd does have no VR but why do you need it on that lens, thats not meant as a silly question, but you've complained about the weight but want a heavy VR unit adding, and at those focal lengths you'll have issues with subject movement at shutter speeds which would give any advantage with VR
 
ryanyboy said:
Not if used well.

And flash at the right time and place (ideally off camera) will give you many more options if the light is really bad (which is likely this time of year).

HTH

Ryan
Click to expand...

I agree with you Ryan, hence I have two of the blighters :) That's a quote from Jeff Ascough, world renown low light wedding tog who hates the things :)
 
boyfalldown said:
Its is built like a tank, but it rarely goes for RRP if you shop for it. Itd does have no VR but why do you need it on that lens, thats not meant as a silly question, but you've complained about the weight but want a heavy VR unit adding, and at those focal lengths you'll have issues with subject movement at shutter speeds which would give any advantage with VR
Click to expand...

OK, I am not asking for a 17-55 with VR. I am asking for an equivalent canon lens, as such. The Nikkor is already 760g, then you need to add VR. The canon is 645g with IS included. I would forsake some of that tank like build and may be that'll help keep the cost down a bit, as the 17-55 is too expensive for what it is. The Tamron 17-50 VC looks great but I would like a decent AF-S focus motor.

On the value of IS/VR at these focal lengths. Imagine - Dark (ish) enviroment, small aperture f/5.6 upwards for decent depth of field, ISO maxed out the only choice you have is top lower shutter speeds to get the correct exposure. If you're not on a tripod or similar , how exactly would you reduce shake? Obviously, I'm assuming you either want subject movement in the image (creatively) OR the is no subject to move in the image, as your comment is very valid.
 
AliB said:
I agree with you Ryan, hence I have two of the blighters :) That's a quote from Jeff Ascough, world renown low light wedding tog who hates the things :)
Click to expand...

:) Got ya.

I think it'll be a never ending battle between those who do and those who don't use flash. I can never decide if those that hate them just don't know how to use them and those that do use them aren't good enough to find the opportunities to shoot without. :lol:
 
if i had the cash it would deffo be the 24-70 f2.8
 
Lardinio said:
The Tamron 17-50 VC looks great but I would like a decent AF-S focus motor.
Click to expand...

Get an old one that are camera driven, they focus a lot faster. I have the 17-55 and the 17-50, the Nikon is slightly better on IQ, though you have to really pixel peep to see that and, other than us, who the hell bothers doing it?........:D

The tamron is a cracking little lens....:thumbs:

Though I must admit that I have no VR lenses anymore,I cannot see the point of it on this sort of focal range......:shrug:
 
I would always advise to go for the non-EF-S lenses. If you kit yourself out with EF-S lenses (like the 17-55) and then upgrade to full frame you'll be buggered!
 
fracster said:
Get an old one that are camera driven, they focus a lot faster. I have the 17-55 and the 17-50, the Nikon is slightly better on IQ, though you have to really pixel peep to see that and, other than us, who the hell bothers doing it?........:D

The tamron is a cracking little lens....:thumbs:

Though I must admit that I have no VR lenses anymore,I cannot see the point of it on this sort of focal range......:shrug:
Click to expand...

Cannot find a used 17-50/2.8 Tammy without BIM for love nor money. Anyway, early reports on the VC is that there are many improvements over the BIM version - including AF speed (if not noise), IQ and specifically build quality.

I would love to buy Nikon, but when the Tamron is available for almost half the price of used Nikon you have to ask yourself is it actually worth it?
 
ryanyboy said:
If you kit yourself out with EF-S lenses (like the 17-55) and then upgrade to full frame you'll be buggered!
Click to expand...
No you won't. You'll just sell them for a very decent price, since quality EF-S lenses like the 10-22 and 17-55 IS hold their value very well.
 
ryanyboy said:
I would always advise to go for the non-EF-S lenses. If you kit yourself out with EF-S lenses (like the 17-55) and then upgrade to full frame you'll be buggered!
Click to expand...

The OP is only talking about renting
 
Lardinio said:
Cannot find a used 17-50/2.8 Tammy without BIM for love nor money. Anyway, early reports on the VC is that there are many improvements over the BIM version - including AF speed (if not noise), IQ and specifically build quality.

I would love to buy Nikon, but when the Tamron is available for almost half the price of used Nikon you have to ask yourself is it actually worth it?
Click to expand...

If you require build quality, then I would say yes. The Nikon looks like it would take some rough treatment, the Tamron looks like a bang against a tree would break it.
 
"Tamron looks like a bang against a tree would break it."

I've had that lens for a while now and it still looks and works like new. I doubt that even Canon or Nikons best lenses will be much good after being banged against a tree.
 
woof woof said:
"Tamron looks like a bang against a tree would break it."

I've had that lens for a while now and it still looks and works like new. I doubt that even Canon or Nikons best lenses will be much good after being banged against a tree.
Click to expand...

I`m pleased for you...:thumbs:..so is mine.

However, the build quality of the Tamron is nowhere near that of the Nikon,I have both and can state that confidently. The Tamron is a cracking little lens and is great VFM, no doubt about that.

The reason that the 17-55 is considered pro glass is that it is built to take the knocks and bangs that can happen when the lens is being used a lot in all types of conditions and in many varied situations.
 
You don't say if its to be a church or registry wedding. That can make all the difference. if its a church wedding seek out the vicar/priest and ask permission to take photos in church, ( you may be refused otherwise and its common courtesy anyway) he/she will be able to advise where you will be able to take photos from within the church and when not to during the service. This will give an indication as to the best lens to use depending how far away you may be. If in the gallery looking down a 200mm+ lens may be needed.
For outside shots again it depends on the size of the wedding party but I would take a wide angle lens for group shots and Another lens for portrait. These 3 lenses I would suggest be the minimum needed during the day and at night say a 50 mm F1.4 or F1.8 for evening as well.

A registry office may be a bit different as most are just in a room so lens choice is more obvious.

As for which lens I would suggest a white lens for weddings and a black lens for funerals ( just joking)

Realspeed
 
I'm a bit nervous when people talk about build quality when what they actually should be talking about are things like material choice, robustness and resistance to mechanical impact / damage.

I'm pretty sure that the actual build quality of the Tamron is good in respect of assembly and that the materials used are adequate for careful amateur use. Other lenses may be built to be more mechanically robust and more resistant to mechanical impact damage but that is a different thing from questioning Tamron's build quality, which I'm pretty sure is just fine.

For example I'm pretty sure that a Faberge egg has good build quality, but next to no resistance to mechanical damage.

Sorry to be a pedant. :)
 
Lardinio said:
On the value of IS/VR at these focal lengths. Imagine - Dark (ish) enviroment, small aperture f/5.6 upwards for decent depth of field, ISO maxed out the only choice you have is top lower shutter speeds to get the correct exposure. If you're not on a tripod or similar , how exactly would you reduce shake? Obviously, I'm assuming you either want subject movement in the image (creatively) OR the is no subject to move in the image, as your comment is very valid.
Click to expand...

still not convinced by that arguement - if its a wedding, then there are subjects to move - and you'll have a hard time controlling creative subject movement at the same time - it'll just look blurry.

Hugh
 
If you can only take one fast zoom, and you are using a Canon crop sensor, the 17-55mm F/2.8 IS is the best option. The 24-70 is better built and offers marginally better IQ, but 24mm may not be wide enough for some indoor Wedding shots. This IS may also help if lighting is poor and you prefer not to flash. You can almost always step closer if you are not long enough, but you cannot always step back if too long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top