Prime Dilema

[Joel Bookhammer]

So Ive been debating on weather or not I should get another lens for wedding photography. Would love to haev some feedback on what you guys think. Right now im shooting with a 40D and the lenses are the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS. What im debating is weather or not a nifty fifty would benefit me or not for lowlight pictures...such as walking down the isle.


Would like to know what you think, isle pictures from any lens would be a plus if you had them. At this point there is not a another camera body in the near future (although the 7D is looking like a possibility).


thanks


Joel

[Sean Setters]

I bought the 50mm f/1.4 for just such occasions--though I haven't shot at wedding (or reception) with it yet. You might also want to consider the 85mm f/1.8, as it'll give you a little more reach while still gathering more light than either of your other lenses.

[Chuck Lee]

I used a EF 50 1.4 for isle shots last summer. Off cord flash with 40D and EF 50 on tripod. It worked well. Just remember to per-focus on proper spot. Set to manual then hit shutter at the focus spot. It's harder than I thought. Two out of 10 had closed eyes. Why the heck would someone blink when I'm hitting the shutter......jeeze!! the gaul of some people. [:D]


It really depends on the lighting. If it's a modern church with theatre lighting you'll have to use flash. You could just as easily set the 24-70 on 50mm @f2.8-4.0.


So, don't justify the expense; just buy the lens for crying out loud.............[:D]

[Dallasphotog]

I use the EF24-70mm f/2.8 on my 5DMKII for the aisle shots. You are really restricted in your foot room near the front and I need to be able to compose with the zoom as the father and bride walkto me.


I have the EF50 f1/.4, but the DOF wide open won't assure you a father, bride, bouquet and suchall being in focus.

[Daniel Browning]

Right now im shooting with a 40D and the lenses are the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS. What im debating is weather or not a nifty fifty would benefit me or not for lowlight pictures...such as walking down the isle.


The nifty fifty (f/1.8) is a good deal at $100, but I've never tried to use it for a wedding. I prefer the 50mm f/1.4. (I shoot all primes at weddings. 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2) and one zoom (70-200 f/4 IS).

[lculpin]

I wouldn't be without at LEAST the 50 1.8 for weddings - great DoF for the little detail shots (dresses, settings at the reception, sand pouring or candle lighting, signing of the registry... all sorts of stuff) and great for low light just in case. I use a 1.4 now but no one's ever complained at the shots the 1.8 took ;)


I WOULD suggest that if you're doing weddings professionally (aka getting paid) you should definitely invest in a second body... I have three, and even though one is my junky old amazing-at-the-time 300D, I still keep it around just in case.... I don't even know the last time I used it (though I've been lending it to my assistant who is looking to become less voice activated light stand and more photographer for certain things, like concerts, and I'm actually amazed at how well it holds up all of these years later) but I always have it with me (and all of my old glass, 50 1.8, 70-200 f/4L, shit kit lens.... you just never know, right?). I still use a 20D as my second body (can't get ahold of a damned 5D2, they're gone before they're even in stock), and ignoring the fact that I'd dread going back to shooting with one (or starting I guess, I've always shot with two), if your camera craps out on a paying gig then you is sca-rewed :S


In other news, the 1.8 is $100. Just go buy it :P


And as for a backup body, hell, go get a used rebel or something... but just make sure you have one. It sucks if a lens breaks or your flash dies but at the end of the day if your camera ain't working then no amount of glass or light will help (plus I promise that after working with two bodies for all of 30 seconds you'll swear by it :P)

[crosbyharbison]

If I were you I'd either save for a Full Frame camera or if you're dying for a lens go for the 50 f/1.4.

[flaminfury]

i recently used the 50 1.4 for a wedding i co-shot a week ago, along with my 100 macro and my 70-200 F4. the 1.4 really does get you some pretty good shots when the light gets low. i dont know how much difference it makes when you have the 2.8 zooms, but for me, my 100 failed half way thru and i was stuck with just the 50 and the F4 zoom and trust me, the 50 came in really handy when the f4 couldnt handle the low light. tho i have the 5dmk2, i still try to refrain from pushing the iso past 3200. for the price of the 1.4, if you're getting paid for the weddings, it shouldnt be too hard to justify. its really a valuable part of my kit.

[Joel Bookhammer]

Thanks for all of the replies, after hearing your thoughts and reading bryans reviews (for the 100th time), I getting the 50 1.4 would be a great investment.


Thanks,


Joel


P.S. If anyone else on here is like me we should one day be able to read of all the canon lenses by heart, I think I've read eachreview atleast 4 or 5 times now. [:)]

[Keith B]

The nifty fifty (f/1.8) is a good deal at $100, but I've never tried to use it for a wedding. I prefer the 50mm f/1.4. (I shoot all primes at weddings. 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2) and one zoom (70-200 f/4 IS).






Daniel


Do you use multiple cameras or just change lenses a lot?

[Daniel Browning]

Do you use multiple cameras or just change lenses a lot?


I take two cameras and lots of lens changes (plus the second photographer), but I've seen other high end pros do it with one.

[Keith B]

Do you use multiple cameras or just change lenses a lot?


I take two cameras and lots of lens changes (plus the second photographer), but I've seen other high end pros do it with one.






I admire that. I use to have that mentality, but the stuff I shoot, I'd show up and have very little time to plan shots so I'd start shooting and decide I needed a different lens and after a couple changes I'd find my subject were losing patients and faith. So now the only prime I own is the 50 1.4. if business picks up I'm going to get the 35 1.4.

[lculpin]

There is a COLOSSAL difference between 2.8 and 1.4... ie two full stops, which can make the difference between a picture blurred from subject motion or not pretty easily.

[Daniel Browning]

I'd show up and have very little time to plan shots so I'd start shooting and decide I needed a different lens and after a couple changes I'd find my subject were losing patients and faith.


Planning ahead helps a lot, but I've never had a problem with subjects losing patience. In fact, I find myself purposefully going slow as I change lenses because it takes the attention off me for a while so I can think about how I'm going to approach the next shot.

[Keith B]

I can see that




I'd show up and have very little time to plan shots so I'd start shooting and decide I needed a different lens and after a couple changes I'd find my subject were losing patients and faith.


Planning ahead helps a lot, but I've never had a problem with subjects losing patience. In fact, I find myself purposefully going slow as I change lenses because it takes the attention off me for a while so I can think about how I'm going to approach the next shot.






I can see that working. I unfortunately photograph the rich and snooty business tycoons in the area and they always act like I'm keeping them from making their next million. It is nice when I get to shoot someone that gets it.