Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

I asked this question on the open forum and got a phototog with a big head. So .......... I'll ask it here where the company is much friendlier.

Remember I shoot in dark Missions, real dark .......

From the open forum .......

"I'm in the market for some more glass and as I'm a budding wedding phototag I want to make wise choices.

When I read most forums on the subject (lenses and weddings) most jump all over the 24-70L f/2.8 II and the 70-200L f/2.8 II, only a mere $3,500 - $4,000 ... oh my

When I check comparison stats on DX0 I see many older, none IS prime lenses at the top of the heap.

Canon EF 35mm F/2 IS USM is on the very top - around $500

Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 - around $350

Canon EF 85mm F/1.8 - around $350

Canon EF 100mm F/2 - - around $450

All seem to be great glass at a fraction on the cost. I know, the old question zoom verses prime for weddings.

Personally I see myself doing just fine with about 3 primes, a 35, 50 and a 85 ....... then 1 zoom, a 70-200mm F/2.8 IS. I see the need for the zoom for during the ceremony but primes when you have the time like during the poses and family will do just fine and probably sharper. However, I do see the potential need for IS on a lens racked such as the 70-200mm.

So from you seasoned wedding pros give my your take.

Thank you ..."

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

I just picked up the newest version of the Tamron 70-200 2.8, and it really compares to the photos I have from a borrowed canon IS USM II. For the price difference, it is well worth considering.

I have the 50 and 85 you mention and am well satisfied with them, for price and IQ. All my L lenses are in the medium to wide range, as that fits what I shoot for clients. But, the other medium to long lenses I have give me images that i am proud of if I get everything else like comp, exposure, etc to my liking.

I am not a wedding guy, but have shot a few. Will have to dig some out and post at some point.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Thank you, much appreciated, just the type of info I need.

jaysnave Loc: Central Ohio

Beercat (I feel funny calling you that, but it is a cool tag name.

Anyway, great timing. I have been doing some deep thinking about this very topic. Today I will be headed to Midwest Photo to trade in my 85 1.8 for the new Sigma 50mm 1.4 art lens. Reason is that I have 85 covered from my 70-200 2.8. I don't have a really fast lens below 70 and this lens is getting some great reviews in low light conditions. B&H review calls it the sharpest 50mm aside from the Zeiss.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Thanks Jay

I have a 50mm f/1.4 which isn't as nice as the new Sigma Art but it's pretty darn good and I trust it.

jaysnave Loc: Central Ohio

Without adding lighting, I don't know of any other low light tricks other than full frame sensor, fast lens, high ISO, and of course those nice long exposures you do.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Can't do long exposures of the B&G ........

But they are nice for landscape snaps of the location of the wedding

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Here's my take, for what it's worth. Of course, I'm not always the most conventional person.

First, with today's higher MP counts, you can crop a lot more, so you can probably get away just fine with the prime lenses. I know, some think that cropping is a sin, but most of the shots that you can't really "set up" like the ones during the ceremony, or candid shots, aren't going to be blown up much larger than what you would put in an album.

Secondly, I saw your post about wanting to move to FX (I won't try to talk you out of it) If you do have that in your future, just make sure whatever glass you buy is compatible with a full frame body. You don't want to have to turn right around, and add to the cost of the new body, with having to replace all your glass.

If you think you are sticking with DX, think about Sigma (focus faster than Tamrons, but both are clear) you can find pretty good Sigma 50-150 2.8 VR at a fraction of the cost for the 70-200..., but the 50-150 is DX (with focal equivalent of 75-225 2.8. Same goes for the 17 or 18-50 2.8 macro, (don't have one in front of me) almost the same range as the 24-70) Fairly sure you could get both of those lenses for less than the Nikon 70-200 2.8vr, or the 24-70 2.8. (not macro) I've found both of them used for reasonable money, and found them to work very well. After killing my last 70-200 (knocked my tripod over), I now use the 50-150, and find that I like that range better than the 70-200, it's just more comfortable on my lowly DX bodies :-)

Just my 2 cents. Hope it was not as arrogant as the answers you got on the main sight.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

bkyser

Check your PM

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Nice talking with you on the phone. :thumbup: I may be hitting you up for some video questions in the future. You may be sorry that I now have your number. :twisted:

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Fell free to do so :)