In my opinion, people who use prime for weddings use it because they are much much sharper than zoom lens. And i believe that they dont use the 1,4 aperture, they use narrower aperture. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is just my opinion.
In my opinion, people who use prime for weddings use it because they are much much sharper than zoom lens. And i believe that they dont use the 1,4 aperture, they use narrower aperture. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is just my opinion.
A quick piece of info...
I have a Sigma 30mm 1.4 and a Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 with IS. For my purposes I have found there isn't much difference in the lenses. I'm not taking shots of fast moving objects and really, when I am I usually WANT the streaks I get (i.e. tail lights and such). I also like the greater depth of field as a result.
So, what I use my "low light" lens for (indoor or backyard at night parties, night shots in the city) I don't really need the 1.4. I've even been thinking of selling it or trading it in for a macro.
Originally Posted by Cory
Cory,
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 does not have IS if by what you mean is "Image Stabilized"
Tamron is rumored to be releasing a VC (Vibration Compensation) model of this lens this fall.
Originally Posted by Deva207
Actually, wedding photographers many times use the widest aperture they can. Most churches are dimly lit and a majority of couples don't want a flash going off during the actual ceremony. At those times, a very wide aperture helps tremendously.
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
Heh, that's the SECOND time I've done that and I know better. Wishful thinking / Freudian slip. A friend just bought the Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM and my mind seems to keep sticking on that.
Originally Posted by Cory
I thought that exact thing when I read your post......LOL []
I wanted to make sure we didn't excite any newbies.
Funny, your wishful thinking has been fulfilled....how prophetic dude!!
Please slip and say "my 5D MkII with in-camera sensor stabilization" Please say it....Please say it.....over and over.