Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Wedding Lenses

  1. #11
    Senior Member jamsus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by peety3 View Post
    ...
    Hey Peety3 thank you for you opinion!

    I understand what you are suggesting but i'm not a professional photograpther and more less a professional wedding photographer, me and this girl are both friends of the couple and passionate photographers, but i will not buy things "only" for the wedding or for the purpose of doing weddings. What i will "build up" in a year probably will be in the perspective of using it for the photography that i use.

    I won't get a 10-18 because personally, for traveling - i don't like that effect and i don't use it - i'm really fine with 18-135.

    The fisheye will be in for fun pictures and because the classic ultra-wide angle will probably be covered by the other photographer. Okay, maybe it will not be on the body full-time, but i need to organize that with the other photographer

    The 17-50 is an idea in general, so i will keep an eye on it.
    Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

    Jamsus

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    348
    I recently bought a used Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC for times when I want to carry my SL1 rather than the 5DIII. I have been quite happy with the IQ. Speed of focus has been adequate and accuracy very good. Minimum focus distance is also good. Probably an economical way to get to f/ 2.8 and still have some versatility of focal length.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    348

    Sample

    Here is an example of the Tamron 17-50mm in fairly low natural light indoors. The shot is not great in many ways, but could give an idea of the lens performance in a setting like a wedding. Canon Portrait profile applied and DPP sharpening set to 2 out of 10. No other processing in DPP3 before jpeg conversion. Focal length 17 mm, Aperture 2.8, shutter 1/45, ISO 1600.

    dressed by Danny Watson, on Flickr


    The scene is some of the costumes on display in the Palazzo Real in Naples.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,906
    Quote Originally Posted by jamsus View Post
    1) I will need a second body, but i'll probably take another body - personally i prefer APS-C not for the price of the body, but for the lens price & the fact that i use APS-C with 100-400 for wildlife shooting. I'm not a professional and i won't be a professional so i prefer to stay in budget but be more versatile.
    I can see your reasoning, the advantage of APS-C is price and on the rare occasion when you are out of focal length you can gain a small resolution boost.

    But versatile can be subjective. I could see how having fewer lenses because of price would give you less focal length. But the things you can do with a full frame make it more versatile in my opinion. Aside from the body itself having more resolution when a subject is fully framed and improved ISO for low light, you can also take full advantage of the creative side of many lenses. For instance the 35mm f/1.4 and its narrow dof. Personally if I were rebuilding my kit with limited funds, I would go FF and have fewer select lenses. Even if it were a used 5D II or 6D and last generation lenses.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,156
    Quote Originally Posted by HDNitehawk View Post
    ...Aside from the body itself having more resolution when a subject is fully framed and improved ISO for low light, you can also take full advantage of the creative side of many lenses. For instance the 35mm f/1.4 and its narrow dof. Personally if I were rebuilding my kit with limited funds, I would go FF and have fewer select lenses. Even if it were a used 5D II or 6D and last generation lenses.
    Bingo...a big +1 on this. I can't believe how many lenses just make more sense on FF than they did on APS-C/APS-H. I had a 50/1.8...never made much sense. Now we have a 50/1.2 and I love using it. Bought an 85/1.2 when were a mixed FF/APS-H/APS-C family...I can see the magic more on FF. Picked up a 35/1.4 and took it to photograph a neighbor singing in her trio at a nearby restaurant...spectacular. But from a perspective of a few select lenses like HDNitehawk said, I can easily see skipping the 85/1.2, perhaps a 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 135/2.

    Nowadays I just can't imagine trying to work with a 17-55 on APS-C instead of 24-70 on FF, or even a 16-35 on FF. The optics are so much better than the 10-22, and I wouldn't want the limited range of 10-18 even if the optics were as good.
    We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    348
    I had posted about the Tamon 17-50 because I thought most other forum contributors do not use this lens, and Jamsus mentioned it. However my advice would also be to strongly consider a FF camera. When I am not traveling abroad and limiting weight, I always prefer the 5Diii.

    If I understood correctly, Jamsus already owns a good quality 24-70mm f2.8 (Tamron), a 70-200mm f2.8 and the 100-400 mm. These are not wide enough on APS-C for a wedding. but would make a great all-purpose trio on full frame.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •