wedding photography: Canon 20D and which lenses?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by lisa.ireland, Jan 17, 2005.

  1. lisa.ireland

    lisa.ireland Guest

    I've decided to get the 20D for wedding photography and I'm not sure
    which lens to get. I've heard that the 24-70 F/2.8 L USM and the 70-200
    2.8 L IS USM are the best. How is the EF-S 17-85 F/4-5.6 kit lens? Has
    anyone used the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8 and how does it compare to the
    higher priced Canons? Should I stick with IS lens? Thanks for any tips!
    Lisa
     
    lisa.ireland, Jan 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. lisa.ireland

    Skip M Guest

    Indeed, the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 are the best lenses for the purpose, but,
    if you are on a budget, the 28-135 IS may be a good choice, too. Most of
    the images on our wedding site were taken with that lens, either by my wife
    or by myself.
    Now, if Canon ever produced a 24-70 f2.8 IS lens, that would be the one!
    If you're going to give up the "L" lens and it's moderately wider end, I'd
    stick with the 28-135 IS, the extra speed is nice on the Tamron, but IS can
    bail you out, as long as your B&G don't move...
     
    Skip M, Jan 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I shot two weddings with Canon 300D and the kit lens and learned that
    you need a lens that f/2.8-4. Preferably a consistent f/2.8. If "IS"
    then thats a bonus. Also, the 18mm end is good in places where you
    don't have much room to move back. I hardly shot anything beyond 50mm
    but then these are Indian weddings so the settings and environment
    might be different for a church or cathedral wedding.

    so my choice would be the Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 "L" if money was no
    constraint. On a budget then the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD. And if
    you really have to spend less then the Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5.
    HTH,

    Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 18, 2005
    #3
  4. lisa.ireland

    lisa.ireland Guest

    because i make euros, i can afford to buy some good lenses when i go
    the US because of the good exchange rate i get. i'd like to have one or
    2 lenses for weddings. the 28-135 lens sounds good, but will that focal
    length change because it's not a digital lens? maybe i should have a
    good wide-angle for group shots like the 17-35 or 10-22, and one like
    the 28-135 that will be good for candids? i was thinking about the kit
    lens just to practise using the 20D before i invest in the better lens.
    should i bother spending the extra 400euro for the 17-85 kit lens or
    just stick with the cheaper 18-55 for practise?

    lisa
     
    lisa.ireland, Jan 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Yes, field of view will change. Given the 20D's crop factor of 1.6x,
    the 28-135mm will yield a FoV of 48-216mm. So you need a lens with
    atleast 18mm at the wide-end to shoot group photographs. Even the lens
    advertised as digital lenses will have changed FoV on dSLRs.

    And that brings us to the likes of the Canon 17-40mm "L" and the Tamron
    17-35mm f/2.8-4. They will give you the FoV of 28-xxmm on the Canon
    20D. I found that the 18mm end was good enough for shooting a group of
    ten people at a distance of about 10 meters or less (Sorry, I am bad
    with estimations). But remember that you will avoid shooting with the
    lens wide open because lenses tend to be soft at their extreme ends.
    Also, you might not find the time between ceremonies to change lenses
    etc so a good all-around lens might be useful.

    As for practise, yes, the 18-55mm lens is good for practise. Ignore all
    the negative remarks about it. Yes, manual focus is disgusting on it
    and its not very bright but good for practise and casual shooting and
    very much worth the $70-$100 its sold for, IMHO.

    The 17-85mm has a good FL range but the aperture is such that you might
    want to spend on a lens with a wider aperture, later on. So save the
    400 euros for a lens with a wider aperture. I will receive my Sigma
    24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 sometime next month so will post some experiences
    with that soon :)

    HTH,

    Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 18, 2005
    #5
  6. lisa.ireland

    Musty Guest

    The 17-85mm is a very good lens (I have it). It will also mean a lot less
    lens changes - which is very important.
     
    Musty, Jan 18, 2005
    #6
  7. The focal length won't change, but the field of view will. Non-pro
    Canon DSLR sensors are 1/1.6 times the size of a 35mm negative. That
    28-135 lens will give you the same field of view that you'd get if
    you attached a 45-216 lens to a 35mm camera.

    So yeah, if you're shooting with a 20D or 300D, 28mm isn't wide --
    it's more like a normal lens.
     
    Ben Rosengart, Jan 18, 2005
    #7
  8. Indoor or outdoors?

    Flash or no flash?

    As an argument against the expensive EF-S models, do you ever think you
    might want one of the 1 series models or might ever want to shoot film?
     
    Dave R knows who, Jan 18, 2005
    #8
  9. lisa.ireland

    Skip M Guest

    Here's some examples:
    28-135IS:
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/mc20.html

    17-35 Sigma (you wouldn't believe how little room I had to shoot this!)
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/jj6.html

    100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS USM (Shot from the organ loft at 300mm f5.0)
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/mc21.html

    That last shot could be done with a 70-200 f2.8, better. Blowout the
    background and crop it. Or with the 70-200 and a 2x converter.
     
    Skip M, Jan 18, 2005
    #9
  10. lisa.ireland

    Musty Guest

    I struggled with the same question (regarding the 17-85mm EF-S) - I though
    of selling it and getting the 17-40 f/4L since I plan to get a full frame
    SLR one of these days. The thing that kept me from doing that was:

    - If I keep my 20D, the 17-85 will ALWAYS be my most useful lens (due to its
    unmatched range)
    - If I sold my 20D, I can sell it along with the 17-85.
    - By the time I get a full frame I can always get the 28-300mm L (since 28
    will be same as what I get with my 17 now). Then I would rarely make a lens
    change.

    I am a hobby photographer, so for someone else (like the OP), who depends on
    income for photographs, L glass may be the _only_ consideration. I really
    think that the 28-300mm is very good value ($2200), it covers atleast two
    lenses range (if not 3) - dont know how sharp it is though.
     
    Musty, Jan 19, 2005
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.