View Full Version : What's a good fast zoom lens for covering wedding candids?
stormywhether
19-09-2005, 12:50
Doing my first wedding early next year and after assuring the B&G that they won't be getting any remotely Bailey-like results, I'm quite looking forward to it.
The deficit in my glass collection comes in the short zoom/fast ap category.
I've been looking at Sigma and Canon (for the 350d) and I'm leaning towards the Sigmas, particularly the 24-70, which goes at F2.8 throughout the range.
I was even contemplating the Sigma 70-200 that comes in the 2.8 flavour to extend the range and maybe give me a little more sway when it comes to longer range efforts.
What do you think? I'm thinking the Canon 2.8 that goes 24-70 in L is waaaaaaaaaaay too expensive for me right now, but I know that the 2.8 will be pretty crucial in a lot of instances.
puddleduck
19-09-2005, 12:57
I think I'd pick up the Sigma 70-200 if I was an "unofficial" photography just to get the range, but as you are doing it in an official capacity I wonder if you'd be better with the 24-70 instead, as presumable proximity won't be an issue.
My favourite low light lens though is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - I'm using this around Toyko a lot - its probably my most used lens at the moment.
stormywhether
19-09-2005, 13:24
What price did you get the 30 for Andy? Sounds quite an intriguing prospect. Although it would have to be some bargain now I have the 50 1.8.
May eventually be persuaded to go 24/70 and 70/200. And then the 300mm fixed!
puddleduck
19-09-2005, 13:34
The Sigma 30mm was about £235 from OneStopDigitial - it really is a pretty amazing lens, though I guess on the value for money stakes its hard to compete with the price of the 50mm 1.8 really! I never really got on with 50mm on digital - I like the 30mm as it pretty much gives 50mm with the FoV of digital. Your 50mm should be pretty good for wedding portraits though.
I think the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is supposed to be much better than the 24-70 - a good alternative to the 24-70 is the 24-60 which is supposed to be better than its slightly bigger brother.
That Sigma 24-70 f2.8 is real cheap, anyone used one? I was saving for the Canon version of the same stats!
I wouldn't go for a 50mm max for Weddings. It's not a flattering focal length for portraits, sure you'll want wider for group shots but portraits you want something in the 70-120 range, the bride will thank you. Just stand further away if need be.
puddleduck
20-09-2005, 22:07
That Sigma 24-70 f2.8 is real cheap, anyone used one? I was saving for the Canon version of the same stats!
I wouldn't go for a 50mm max for Weddings. It's not a flattering focal length for portraits, sure you'll want wider for group shots but portraits you want something in the 70-120 range, the bride will thank you. Just stand further away if need be.
I've used the Canon variant of the 24-70 and I didn't really rate it - seemed to back focus at 24mm and front focus at 70mm!!? - could have been sample variation though. Apparently the 24-60 is much better.
Actually SW, do you have a macro lens around the 90mm / 105mm range? Most of these tend to be around f/2.8 and make good portrait lens - I used one for some paid work, although had to apply a softening filter as it was almost brutally sharp.
stormywhether
20-09-2005, 22:09
I know this sounds pap, but the best candids/portraits I get at work are taken using the KodakGear 80-210 I've had since the year dot.
I know it's a crap lens, I don't doubt it for a minute, but the last portrait I did for our business magazine using that glass was positively lauded by everyone who saw it.
I absolutely love the 80-210/70-200 range. I'm seriously considering shelling out on the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS L.
puddleduck
20-09-2005, 22:20
That Kodak lens sounds just the job then - I take it its a bit soft? For portraits to some extent this is desirable anyway, you really don't want a lens so sharp you bring out every wart, line, hair and pimple!
For portrait shots I do with my Tamron 90mm I actually have to desharpen with filters - it can take 10 years off and adds that nice soft focus look so beloved by aging Hollywood actresses :)
I've used the Canon variant of the 24-70 and I didn't really rate it - seemed to back focus at 24mm and front focus at 70mm!!? - could have been sample variation though. Apparently the 24-60 is much better.
Do you mean the Canon 24-70 f2.8L is iffy or a canon version of the sigma lens? Not seen a canon 24-60mm is that a sigma lens too?
Good point about macro lenses being good for portraits handy you can get in close to pick up detail too. You can always soften a lens down but never sharpen a soft one. If a lens is too sharp you can use a nylon mesh (pair of tights) to give you the soft look. I believe this is what they often used in Hollywood, less messy than Vaseline.
puddleduck
21-09-2005, 00:21
Do you mean the Canon 24-70 f2.8L is iffy or a canon version of the sigma lens? Not seen a canon 24-60mm is that a sigma lens too?
Good point about macro lenses being good for portraits handy you can get in close to pick up detail too. You can always soften a lens down but never sharpen a soft one. If a lens is too sharp you can use a nylon mesh (pair of tights) to give you the soft look. I believe this is what they often used in Hollywood, less messy than Vaseline.
Hi, sorry if I wasn't clear - I was talking about the Sigma version. Yes, the 24-60 is also a Sigma lens and is considered a bit of a hidden gem. I've not tried it yet, but I'm pretty tempted to get the 24-60 (or possibly the 18-50).
One thing to point out - the 24-70, 24-60 and 18-50 are all non-HSM so can be a tad noisy, and AF isn't lightening fast (but this depends a lot on your camera's torque speed).
Right thanks. I would need a fast focusing as I'd be using this mainly for lower light candid type photos.
stormywhether
21-09-2005, 10:34
wseed, what are the lenses that you are considering right now?
Radiohead
21-09-2005, 11:30
I had great results with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 at a recent wedding.
Partnered with the 24-70 or 18-50 you'd be laughing.
I'll probably be getting the 24-70 Canon lens to replace my 28-135 IS I have to cover that range at the mo. It seams to compliment my other lenses quite well as I already have 70-200mm and 17-40 I would then probably just use 24-70 and 70-200 for wedding type events.
I've done a wedding with just the 28-135mm and a 50mm prime in the past with only slight issue that the wide end isn't wide enough for group shots on a crop camera. It managed OK but I had to get more space between the camera and the group than I would have liked.
stormywhether
21-09-2005, 16:39
I'll probably be getting the 24-70 Canon lens to replace my 28-135 IS I have to cover that range at the mo. It seams to compliment my other lenses quite well as I already have 70-200mm and 17-40 I would then probably just use 24-70 and 70-200 for wedding type events.
I've done a wedding with just the 28-135mm and a 50mm prime in the past with only slight issue that the wide end isn't wide enough for group shots on a crop camera. It managed OK but I had to get more space between the camera and the group than I would have liked.
I'm a little confused here. You say you'd just use the 24-70 and 70-200 for wedding type events, yet you also say when using the 28-135 the wide end wasn't wide enough for group shots.
Are you saying the extra 4mm would make all the difference on the 24-70?
No I don't think 4mm would make that great a difference but I would certainly be able to manage. I took group shots of 40+ people using the 28-135 and although I was using a little more distance between me and the group it wasn't unworkable. Just checking some pics I took >40 people at 38mm.
If I took weddings further as a business then I would look at a 2nd body which wouldn't be a 1.6 crop form factor model and would then want to use just a couple of bodies and not keep swapping lenses. I'd keep the 17-40 in the car in case I needed a larger group but then that's only another 7mm on the 24-70 I haven't got.
I hope I've contradicted myself enough now.
Oh the other issue I had with the 28-135 was lack of depth of field I had to try and blur out distractions in post processing and made a hash of it so never bothered. Better to get the pics right in camera IMO.
Sprout Crumble
21-09-2005, 18:45
Quite a bit of difference between 24 and 28mm to be honest. You have to be careful going much wider than 24mm for people shots because of the exaggerated perspective.
Brozyniak
21-09-2005, 21:06
Quite a bit of difference between 24 and 28mm to be honest. You have to be careful going much wider than 24mm for people shots because of the exaggerated perspective.
I think that he was going to use the wide end for group shots. If space is limited he could need it.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.