I'm looking at rentig/buying a new lens for weddings

[Photog82]

So far, we have gotten by nicely with the lenses we have now but we are shooting a wedding at the end of the month that is going to be inside in a semi-dim room. To give you an idea, this is the location (http://www.katebakerphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/morgan_hill_event_center_maine_wedding_ceremony%28 pp_w896_h597%29.jpg).

I was initially looking at the Canon 24 1.4 but thought that it would be too wide at a distance. I normally use my 24-105 with by 580EX II and it's worked OK in churches- I love that lens in a studio and outside but am not sure if it's right for churches and halls.

Any suggestions for Canon lenses for me to look into? My current lenses are in my profile. I'm leaning towards the Canon 50 1.4 L or the 100mm Macro IS L 2.8 as I can use that for close ups and portraits as well but how well would that work in dim lit rooms?

[Sean Setters]

For not a lot of money, I think the EF 85mm f/1.8 is a good candidate for low-light, indoor weddings. The 50mm f/1.4 works decently, depending on how much flexibility you have in movement. I have also used the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM (orig. version) with great results, but I usually turn to the primes when the light level dictates an even wider aperture. But if I had to settle for an f/2.8 aperture, I don't think I would buy a prime - I'd rather have the versatility of a zoom (EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM / EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM or their predecessors).

I find the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 works very well for indoor events - I think it's a great focal length for wedding receptions.

[Photog82]

I'm thinking about the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM but it seems to overlap the 24-105 as far as focal length goes but it does have a wider aperture. I usually switch between the 24-105 f/4 and the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. I was looking at testing a 1.4 to see how it performs in low light though.

On my 7D the 35mm is basically a 50mm and the 50 1.2 is 80. I wonder if the 50 would be best if I wanted to use 1.4 as it has extra reach?

[peety3]

Can your shots tolerate a wider aperture from a DoF perspective? If not, you need to chase better ISO performance, not aperture.

[Haydn1971]

May I suggest an alternative - try a 6D with your 24-105 rather than new glass - you may want to then look at the 24-70 2.8 MkII which on a 6D will give you better results than fast primes on your 7D in low light

[Photog82]

May I suggest an alternative - try a 6D with your 24-105 rather than new glass - you may want to then look at the 24-70 2.8 MkII which on a 6D will give you better results than fast primes on your 7D in low light

What I don't like about the 6D is that it has less focal points than the 7D. If anything, I'd go for a 5D but I'm not ready to go FF yet.

[Kayaker72]

Hi James,

You mention the Canon 50 f/1.4 L. Did you mean the 50 f/1.4 or the 50 f/1.2 L? I see you have the 50 f/1.8. That was my first prime lens. I upgraded to the 50 f/1.4 about two years ago. It is a much better lens, IMO. The nifty fifty is a great lens, but I didn't care for the AF and prefered the sharpness starting at ~f/2.8. The 50 f/1.4 has much better AF (still leaves something to be desired) and I like the center frame sharpness starting at ~f/2. It also has a little bit of pop to its photos that I like.

Regarding your actual questions. My first recommendation would be to try to go to the church and test out your current lens lineup to see how it works from different vantage points and what exposure settings you need, assuming the church is reasonably close to you.

If that can't happen, I actually think you have wide covered with the EFS 17-55 and the EFS 10-22. As a guest, I shot a wedding two years ago that looks somewhat similar to the church in your link. My 7D and EFS 15-85 did pretty well (a number of my photos have been used by the couple). My exposures were ~1/60, f/4-f/5.6 and ISO 800-1600. So I think f/2.8 may be enough, in which case, and considering your EFS 17-55, I would be tempted to buy or rent a 70-200 II. If not that, I would be tempted by the 80 f/1.8 or 80 f/1.2. Equivalent to 128 mm on the 7D, it would be great for closeups.

Regarding the 100 mm L macro. I enjoy that lens much more on FF than I did on my 7D. For macro work, it is still good on the 7D. For most other shots, it is long.

Hope that helps....Good luck,
Brant

[Photog82]

I meant the Canon EF 50 f/1.2 L. I do have the 50 f/1.8, I like that lens but it's consistently soft even after changing the micro adjustments. I did play with it a bit tonight and feel that have a better 50mm vs the 35 MAY be the way to go for this up coming wedding. I'd rent the 50 1.2 and may buy the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L lens for shots that I can't get up close with in the low light and for those closeups of the ring, flowers, etc (plus I could use it for other macro photos that I'd like to take for non-wedding purposes).

I'm looking at the 70-200 but it's just too expensive at this point, even used as I'd want the mk II. If we get more jobs then I'd consider it.

We are planning on going to the church at the time the wedding is going to be shot and test everything out... we have two flashes I'm wondering if I should get a third, I'd have one, my wife one and the 3rd could be controlled off camera by my flash for added coverage as well.

[Jayson]

I shot weddings in very dim lit situations with a 7D and had great results. For the ceremony, you should be able to use your flash before and after. I used flash for the walk up and walk out and it worked pretty well. Those times I used the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non VC) and the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L v1. During the ceremony, I used the 70-200 f/4L IS and it worked great. You can use lower ISO and a slower shutter speed with the f/4 due to the IS and the lack of movement during the wedding itself. There were times I switched to the 85mm f/1.8 when I was allowed to get close to the alter for the lower DOF shots. I used the zooms mostly during the ceremony because it is hard to zoom with your feet when restricted and you don't want to detract from the wedding for the couple or the spectators. During the reception and the dance, I used a 50mm f/1.4 and the 35mm f/2 (old one) with flashes. I had two cameras the whole time. Most of the reception and dance I shot with the 35mm since it was wider.

You can make your current lens lineup work if you don't want to buy anything new. Just make sure you have a backup camera in case something should happen even it is an SL1 or a T something. At the same time, don't forget, you can rent pretty cheaply from Lens Rentals if you are interested in the 2.8 versions of the zooms or a 5D mark 3. Just rent them for a whole week so you can get use to them.

My opinion has always been the 50mm f/1.4 is a good buy. It is not very expensive and f/1.4 is sharp enough. At f1.8 and above it is very sharp. Don't forget about the new sigma 50mm f/1.4 if you don't want to spend the extra bucks on the Canon f/1.2. Looks to be a stunner.

[Photog82]

I rented the Canon 50 1.2 and really enjoyed using it for the wedding and with my daughter. It's not as sharp as my Canon 25-105 but it performs so well in low light with a little bit of flash it's really a nice lens. I'm thinking about buying a copy but am wondering if there's another lens that is a little sharper or is this the way it is with such a wide open lens? Here are some examples (All shot at 1.2):

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3855/14412736506_a1ff82159a_b.jpg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5237/14434742654_926655da04_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3837/14249623380_c845ccee28_b.jpg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5497/14435114244_e4aa1eee20_b.jpg

[Kayaker72]

Hi James.....I've never used the 50 f/1.2 (I own the 50 f/1.4). But, the Sigma 50 f/1.4 Art (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-DG-HSM-Art-Lens.aspx) is being reported as sharper than the 50 f/1.2.

Here is Bryan's comparison at f/1.4 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0). Then Sean and I have both purchased the 50A. Here is the thread (http://community.the-digital-picture.com/showthread.php?t=7681&page=3). While there has been some concern with AF, thus far mine is fine. And I put it through some tests over the weekend and it was much sharper than my 24-105, 24-70 II, and 50 f/1.4 @ 50 mm.

BTW, I ordered two copies of the 50A to test side by side about 2 hrs apart in early April. I received one copy about two weeks ago and just received the second copy today. So, assuming it tests out, I may have a second copy someone could buy off me.

[Sean Setters]

For what it's worth, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is quickly becoming one of my favorite, go-to lenses. It really is a fantastic lens.

On my recent two-week beach vacation I wanted to be able to capture environmental shots (landscapes) and portraits (possibly in low light). I took my 5D III and 4 lenses - the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, Canon EF 17-40mm f/4, Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art.

If I can only bring one portrait lens with me, right now it is the Sigma 50mm Art for three reasons:1) The focal length is an ideal compromise between a perfectly-suited-for-portraits 85mm+ focal length and something that's too short for my tastes, 2) the image quality is superb at nearly any aperture below DLA, and 3) it seems to nail focus on relatively static subjects extremely well.

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3882/14162143857_9442d90986_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/nzsFY6)
Amanda on the Beach (https://flic.kr/p/nzsFY6) by budrowilson (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

I really enjoy my 85L II - but the Sigma is a more practical tool for a myriad of situations.

[Photog82]

I've never used a non-Canon lens... the idea of it seems odd to me but from Bryan's review and the sample posted here it looks really nice and the price is pretty decent too. There isn't a huge difference between 1.2 and 1.4. I'd primarily use this inside with my daughter and when situations arise that are low light. I love my 24-105 and don't think that I could replace it with a similar model.

[Photog82]

I rented the Sigma lens to compare it to the Canon 50 1.2L that I rented a few weeks back and so far I'm very impressed with it. I am getting more infocus and sharp photos @ 1.4 than I was with the 1.2. I did use my flash to lighten up her eyes. I think that I may buy this lens and a plus for me is that all of my filters for my Canon 24-105 L are 77mm so they will fit this lens.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5574/14380471860_77d023a309_c.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3899/14566360372_d629b0d7e1_c.jpg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5551/14567189625_ae26c04426_c.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3851/14565514344_bff5367ecd_c.jpg

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5532/14380548598_a9d57deae8_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3879/14380692827_aec7e4a94c_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3877/14380541848_2dc4c64987_b.jpg


I took this the other night to experiment as well. I wish that I'd taken some with my Canon 17-55 2.8 lens to compare. I'll have to see if they are out tonight. Firefly's, taken @ f 1.4 for 30 seconds.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5577/14565465464_32334eb4bc_b.jpg

[Tad Atkinson]

I used a 50 f/1.8 at a reception last week and got amazing results for a $100 lens. On a 6D in very very minimal light.


Tad Atkinson
http://www.palmettophoto1.com/

[conropl]

I rented the Sigma lens to compare it to the Canon 50 1.2L that I rented a few weeks back and so far I'm very impressed with it. I am getting more infocus and sharp photos @ 1.4 than I was with the 1.2. I did use my flash to lighten up her eyes. I think that I may buy this lens and a plus for me is that all of my filters for my Canon 24-105 L are 77mm so they will fit this lens.


James:

With such a beautiful subject as that, any lens would perform well.

Pat

[Anthony M]

When the 6D was announced, I very nearly went over to the dark side - well actually back to the dark side. On paper the AF was beyond dismal. I was fit to be tied. I didn't want to be forced to move up to the 5D mkIII, and the D600 was looking pretty good considering I was only invested in one FF lens, and hadn't upgraded my flashes yet.

Once I got my hands on the 6D, that all changed. Don't sell the 6D short, I'll put it up against the 7D's AF for everything but sports when it comes to AF accuracy and speed. Especially for the type of shooting you do! It literally can see in the dark - and I'm not kidding. I really can shoot things I can't even see. It would give you a new lease on life with your lenses (except the 17-55).

Funny thing - I'm not at all enamored with the 24-105 on crop. I won't even bother with it and would much rather use my EF-S or Sigma DC lenses. My little 17-50/2.8 EX DC OS (I think that's it) is oodles sharper, nice, compact and faster too. I've got the 24-70/2.8 II as well, but the 24-105 is such a nice range my nice lens stays in the little gray bag frequently. And, suddenly f4 is plenty fast. Besides - never in my wildest dreams did I think I could let the camera stay on auto ISO! Before I could never shoot much above 800, and even then the noise was apparent. Now, I have to look at the EXIF data to see just where I'm at. Only if I think I need to worry about it do I set it.

I highly recommend you at least try the camera out - the prices lately are the cost of a lens, and not a particularly expensive one at that! The cost savings on the 6D has allowed me to invest in 600EX-RT's and L lenses and a new motorcycle and (well, maybe not quite) but you get the idea. :p

BTW, if I was still shooting crop as my main camera, I'd have picked up the Sigma 18-35/1.8 in a heartbeat. Perhaps it's a bit too wide for your purposes, but for a zoom it's pretty amazing. I also couldn't live without my 70-200/2.8 - and especially when I was on crop. 3lbs gets a bit heavy though.


For what it's worth, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is quickly becoming one of my favorite, go-to lenses. It really is a fantastic lens.

I have a bunch of Canon rebate cards from the last round of "double dips", and enough to pretty much pay for a lens. The 2 I'm looking at are the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and the Tamron 150-600. The Sigma is looking to be an extraordinary lens by any measure, where the Tamron looks to be a lot of reach for not much money. But not a lot more than that. I think the only thing keeping me from the Sigma is I've got that range covered 3 fold. Then I see pictures like that. Since I'm going to be taking my annual trek to Hawaii, I guess I better come to a decision fast!

Problem is - I think I'd have to call B&H to spread the lens out over a bunch of cards - unless you have some magic TDP link? I always click through on you guys!

[photojohn]

I used to shoot mostly primes but the 24-70 2.8 II is really amazing. It has a prime look to it, especially when zoomed out to 70mm at 2.8. It is fast sharp accurate. It is my most used lens on the wedding day.

[peety3]

I was initially looking at the Canon 24 1.4 but thought that it would be too wide at a distance. I'm leaning towards the Canon 50 1.4 L or the 100mm Macro IS L 2.8 as I can use that for close ups and portraits as well but how well would that work in dim lit rooms?
Every time I see a new reply in this thread, I keep thinking back to this original post. I mean this kindly, but I do mean it: if you can't pick between a 24, a 50, or a 100 Macro, I question whether you should be buying any of them.