Originally Posted by Sean Setters
To be fair, I myself have done many weddings with that lens without a problem, and also has my mate who makes a living from it - hence one of the reasons I got the 24-105. Also, the 24-70 (for example) just isn't long enough.Each to their own though!
I own the 17-55 IS, and use it primarly for weddings on my 40D. It is, hands down, the sharpest lens I have ever used on a Canon Digital Body. 35mm equivalent of 27-88mm is a pretty nice range, and the IS is unbeatable.
I would argue against the 24-105L IS. 24 (38mm equiv.) is pretty long if it's going to be your workhorse lens. In my opinion, at a wedding you don't want to be messing around with f/4 lenses, they are way to dark to frame/focus through. The bright viewfinder is one of the best advantages of 2.8 lenses.
Pair the 17-55 with something a little longer like the 85/1.8 or 135 f/2 (or 70-200/2.8 IS down the road, maybe) and you'll have 95% of your shooting situations covered.
You could get the Tamron 17-50 and the 85 1.8 right now with that budget. The tamron is just as good as the Canon 17-55 without the IS. I understand the IS is very helpful, but I couldn't pay the premium of $400 for it. See Bryan's review on the Tamron. The only note I would make on the Tamron, because I experienced this, would be to make sure you take a ton of shots in the first couple of days you get it. The reason for this is sometimes the Tamron's AF is not in sync with your camera. I had that problem and didn't test it well enough to start and now am working with Tamron USA on getting the problem resolved. I have read plenty of people do not have this issue and the lens is great. The noise from the AF isn't that bad and it focuses just as fast as the Canon.
Just my two cents.
Jayson
I totally agree with this response. I use my 17-55 F2.8 on a 40D for weddings and it's my main lens. I back it up with both the 85 F1.8 and the 50 F1.4 for moody candids in low light but the workhorse is the 17-55. It is the sharpest zoom in this range I've ever used including the 17-40 F4L, the 24-105L and the 16-35 F2.8L.
Jim
I seem to be enjoying the 24-70 2.8 L on my 40d and LOVE the sharpness. I do wish that I had a 50 1.4 in my kit.
Interesting responses. I personally can't stand not having a range of 100mm for weddings, I feel way to limited, also shooting at f/4 is never a problem for me. I have a 100mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.8 in my bag ready to use on an old 350D incase I need it, or I have an assistant with me.
But hey, each to their own, its what works for the individual that matters right?!
I suggest the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It is faster, and that can come in very useful at a wedding. But it wont be long enough to cover the telephoto shots you need.
If you can make do without I.S., you might consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 instead. It's less than half the price of the Canon, but still very, very good. That would leave you with money for a dedicated telephoto.
For my style, I agree. Especially for APS-C. Personally, I shoot weddings with primes only; mostly f/1.4. If I can't get any soft flash (e.g. bounce), then I'll do as much available light as I can before switching to the off-camera flash. On my 5D2 that means ISO 6400 and f/1.4, which is common for a lot of receptions.
For me: yes. I like to have at least 17mm on crop. But everyone is different. Canon sells a lot of 28-135 lenses in kits with their APS-C cameras, and I think that's because many people like the 45mm-equivalent angle of view. Personally, I find it too limiting.
I know local photographer that do weddings with Nikor 18-135 3.5-5.6 all the time!?
Everything is a tradeoff: some prefer the flexibility of a 8X superzoom over the quality of a 3X zoom. Others prefer the speed/DOF/bokeh of a prime over the flexibility of a 3X zoom. If the bride doesn't mind harsh flash, deep DOF, barrel distortion, ugly bokeh, chromatic aberration, vignetting, low contrast, and low corner resolution, then there will be no difference between the 18-135 and a f/1.4 prime.
[]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote