# What is a good lens for wedding photography?



## atseeyob (Mar 7, 2008)

As usual it is time to spend a little on lens. I will be doing my first wedding event this May. I am a backup photographer; therefore, no risk involved. There is different light situation. There will be in door, church, park, and reception. Reading may advice, I came across this one.



Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras 

But the price seems a little out of reach ($1100). Is there any thing you can recommend that is comparable to this one. Meaning Sigma or other.


----------



## sabbath999 (Mar 7, 2008)

Don't scrimp on your lenses... better to "reach" to get a fast L lens than settle for anything less... especially if you plan to learn eventually become a wedding shooter.

My only concern with that lens is that it isn't extremely wide.

Still, L lenses are great lenses.

BTW working as a backup with no pressure is the right way to start learning the wedding business.


----------



## Mav (Mar 7, 2008)

That's a great lens for a wedding.  The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is a little cheaper, but still around $1000.  You could consider renting it for $50-100 if you don't want to tie up a grand and wouldn't need something like this all that often.  For inside the church, especially if it's not well lit and they're not allowing flash during the ceremony, even f/2.8 is slow.  A longish prime like an 85mm f/1.8 (or even better the 1.4) is great.  I shot a wedding also as a backup mostly with an 85/1.8 parked on my D80 and got a ton of great no-flash photos.  Worked good at the reception afterwards too getting some candids.

Since you're the backup, you don't need to worry yourself with getting all of the "primary" shots where this lens would be the most useful, but I don't know what the primary is expecting of you.  Usually the backup will be the one off in the background or the corner somewhere getting alternative angle shots.  That's where a longish fast prime will come in really handy, or a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom.  From my own wedding, I actually liked a lot of the shots the backup got better than the primary's.


----------



## Mav (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm not as familiar with Canon obviously, but the 85mm f/1.2L would be a kickin lens for an indoor no flash wedding, although you'd need to practice with it a bit before going to a wedding.  You can't just pickup an f/1.2 lens and expect to get top notch results right out of the bag.  A bit less demanding skill wise, the 100mm f/2 would probably be good, along with the 135mm f/2L.  If I recall, these are probably about the same price if not cheaper than the 24-70/2.8 and might be a little more appropriate for a backup photog, so I'd look into those too.


----------



## JIP (Mar 8, 2008)

I agree that an 85 would be a nice lens to have but with a wedding you are going to need more flexibility so something like a 17-55 would be essential but the 24-70 might do.  Another lens that could be considered at least needed if not essential would be something like a 70-200 2.8 .  I do agree with the rental suggestion instead of spending $100+ right now why not spend a few bucks and rent a couple of lenses like a 17-55 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 or whatever the Canon equivalent is as I see you are a Canon shooter and see wich one you find as "essential" to you as lenses and wich ones are "essential" is a matter of personal style and everyone shoots differently.  Something like this might save you from making a purchase now that you might regret later.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 8, 2008)

That is a surprisingly good range on a DX, not quite wide (36mm in the classic 35mm film or FX format) to short telephoto (105mm in the FX/film format).  For someone who doesn't like to get in peoples faces but does want to be close it will capture full length couples in portrait or a good few mid length in landscape at a comfortable distance.

You might look around for a Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 280 AT-X.  It's takes 77mm filters, and as far as I can tell is a Superb lens (I've only had mine for a short while).  It's built like a top line Tokina -like a tank, and the last model they made- the 280- has a mechanical clutch which you can just grab and slide back to manually adjust and push right back to go auto again.  There is no fiddling around with it, it works almost as well as the Nikon AF-S lenses.  It has also been favorably compared with Canon L lenses and the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8

Tokina bought the design for this lens from a French Company called Angenieux  which now concentrates on cinema and military applications
( http://www.mflenses.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=56 ).   

Leica fans will know the name.  If you look around on the net you will 
notice that there was apparently a focusing problem with Nikon F100's on some models but unless you have one, I wouldn't worry too much about that.  You also hear about their being soft at the wider apertures but I am seeing that it's more a matter of the focus needing to be right on than the lens being soft (some people pay a lot of money for portrait lenses that exhibit this behavior).  I am having no problem with flare or CA's either.  The color is rich, focus is fast, has great contrast and if you can find one (the 280) you will spend less than half of the price of an OEM.

One note, Nikon types don't seem to be giving these up very much so if you shoot Nikon you may have to do quite a bit of looking.  There are a few canon mounts out there (from what I've seen you can get a Canon mount for $350 and up and the Nikons go for $450 and up, as always if you are bidding YMMV).

mike

P.S. here is a Canon mount  http://cgi.ebay.com/Tokina-AT-X-280...yZ152380QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

And here is one for a Nikon (see, they are around )  http://cgi.ebay.com/TOKINA-AT-X-280...yZ152383QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

BTW, this lens is  for  FX/film and is Substantial. Read that heavy, so it's not for someone who just sorta wants one.  If you take this lens along you need to want to.


----------



## JIP (Mar 8, 2008)

I know at this point saving money seems real tempting but if you are planning on pursuing professional wedding photography whatever you do, do not buy Sigma, Tamron, Tokina or any other generinc type lens no matter what company someone claims the lenses are made by.  If you have Canon buy fast Canon lenses if you have nikon buy fast Nikon lenses if you have Pentax, Sony etc... buy a Nikon or Canon camera and get into a decent system.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 8, 2008)

LOL, JIP has spoken.  Yes boys and girls the man is made of money.  He laughs at your paltry $500 and says you must spend $2000 if you are to be a *real* photographer.  Says Fool to the poor noob that thinks that his photos being sharp at 100% is good enough and says that 400% is the standard.  And has so much business that he can spare no expense on the least little gadget and still stay IN business.

Look folks, trust your own eyes- even if you need a loop.  If you can afford the best OEM lens then get it.  But understand that you can find lenses that will do the same things elsewhere for prices that will allow you to still eat.

You also need to understand that not everyone is going to print at 4X6 FEET and therefore doesn't need equipment that will do so (or the many thousands of dollars extra it will cost).

For any of you that want to make a living or even part of a living at photography, you also need to take a long hard look at what it takes to show a profit.  If you go bankrupt you won't be doing much photography with charcoal and a slate, will you.  Can you be a blind brandphile and still start a business?  Sure,  You can also run a race with your legs tied together but why?   Nikon engineers design Nikon lenses.  Tokina was started and is still run by Nikon engineers who wanted to start their own company so that they could pursue their own dreams .  Does it mean that Nikon lenses are no good if some of the same group of people are at Tokina now?  Oh Hairy no!  I have also heard that Tokina is making lenses for Pentax, does that mean that Pentax is no good?  LOL  Please!

Look folks, do the best you can and go have fun with it.  Don't worry about the name as long as it's working for YOU!!!


BTW, I said that Tokina bought the Design not the lens.  A design from a company that sold lenses for Leica cameras which Leica was happy enough with I've read.  I guess that Leica isn't any good either, hmmm?


----------



## JIP (Mar 8, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> LOL, JIP has spoken. Yes boys and girls the man is made of money. He laughs at your paltry $500 and says you must spend $2000 if you are to be a *real* photographer. Says Fool to the poor noob that thinks that his photos being sharp at 100% is good enough and says that 400% is the standard. And has so much business that he can spare no expense on the least little gadget and still stay IN business.
> 
> Look folks, trust your own eyes- even if you need a loop. If you can afford the best OEM lens then get it. But understand that you can find lenses that will do the same things elsewhere for prices that will allow you to still eat.
> 
> ...


 
Listen Mike just to clear the air here I am FAAAAAAR from made of money. I shoot weddings part time as a third source of income (ie third job with 50-60 hour weeks) and with that I just barely get by for me my working wife and baby so please do not think otherwise. When I make a statement about gear it is from 6+years experience in the weding business (currently curtailed by a car accident that caused me a serious leg fracture for wich I have to date had 9 surgeries with more to come). The gear that I have I took out a loan to purchase because I feel like the people I shoot for deserve the best and part of doing the best possible job (regardless of what alot of people say) is having the right gear. I have been to a million different wedding venues with a billion diferent types of lighting and I know from experience that you need to be prepared for anything so if it takes signing my life away for a loan to buy the right gear so be it I am prepared. I know the gear that I have (since I bought the best) will last me loooong after the loan I had to get is paid off this is not the case with other off-brand gear that I have purchased. One last thing I am personally too poor to run out and but a relatively expensive Sigma lens now with the intent of buying a better Nikon later I would rather spend a little more now and buy ONE lens and leave it at that I know it will last me. Oh yeah and Tokina making lenses for Pentax gives me one more reason to not think Petax has any credibility as a professional brand.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Mar 9, 2008)

*Obliviously walks into thread*
....

*Clears throat and tries to quietly back step out of thread*


(Tokina lenses are very nice by the way!)


----------



## STINKY PICTURES (Mar 9, 2008)

I love this place!


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 9, 2008)

A professional should NOT skimp on good equipment. They make money with their stuff, and like in most all businesses, their equipment is merely a tool... a tool that gets upgraded regularly.

I would say that if you are pro, get the best lens out there for your business, you will see the difference in your pics and in your client's level of satisfaction.

HOWEVER, the OEM manufacturers are not *always* the best. I am not a Canon guy, but I can give you a perfect example from the Nikon world... 

In the 17-55 range, we have 3 main competitors, The Nikkor 17-55, the Tokina 17-50 and the Sigma 18-50 (there are 3 models of this lens out, and on that basis for this conversation, I am referring to the Sigma 18-50 EX DC HSM Macro F/2.8).

Several leading photography magazines tested these lenses in a shootout and in ALL CASES, the Sigma was sharper, had less flare, lower CA than any of the others. It was also 1/3rd the price of the Nikkor, and offered a 3:1 macro... something none of the competition offered. In this case the "best" lens was not a Nikkor, nor was it the most expensive one either.

To globally say that OEM lenses are aways better than aftermarket ones means that you are walking around with horse blinders onyour face and possibly missing out on some fantastic glass at affordable prices.

I am not saying that this is always the case, but YOU, as a professional, need to do this very homework and find out what is the best for your needs and the needs of your clients.

You can play safe and always go for Canon "L" glass, it is known good... and as a pro, I think it should be your FIRST consideration, but certainly NOT your only consideration.

If you cannot afford the best lens now... rent it, and purchase it when you can, or take out a business loan if possible.

I do not think you will find anyone argue the fact that using the best lens possible is always preferable to using the #2 option. Your pride and desire to be the best you can be as a professional should demand no less.

In the end, you will decide how serious you are and how far you want to take your photography, and your choice of equipmentwill reflect this.

Good luck in your choice.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 9, 2008)

My point exactly. There are great lenses out there with out the OEM's name on them.  Yes you do have to look.

It is very important to know what your business model is (this isn't as dumb a statement as it may at first seem) so that you don't over spend.  If you want to do weddings then yes, you are going to need fast glass and a quiet camera (noise wise anyway).  If you want to go on the Chuckie Cheese/pony ride circuit (a perfectly acceptable enterprise) then a D40 and a kit lens and SB600 would be all you ever need.  If you spend $10,000 on equipment and finance it @ 25% to go on the pony ride circuit, it's unlikely that you will ever pay off your gear much less turn a profit.

JIP made mention that he had taken out a loan for his gear.  What he didn't mention in that post is that he had had prior experience as a wedding photog.  (yes, JIP I do pay attention)  This rout made sense for him. If you are just starting out, please don't pawn your house for a camera and fast glass.  Start out with what you can afford and sink whatever you get back into the business.  But DO PAY ATTENTION to what is available.  There is no excuse for making do with less when with just a little looking around you could have better.  You really are unlikely 'make it' if you do things half way in any case (and by half way I mean effort wise ).


----------



## JIP (Mar 9, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> JIP made mention that he had taken out a loan for his gear. What he didn't mention in that post is that he had had prior experience as a wedding photog. (yes, JIP I do pay attention) This rout made sense for him. If you are just starting out, please don't pawn your house for a camera and fast glass. Start out with what you can afford and sink whatever you get back into the business. But DO PAY ATTENTION to what is available. There is no excuse for making do with less when with just a little looking around you could have better. You really are unlikely 'make it' if you do things half way in any case (and by half way I mean effort wise ).


 
When I first started into WEDDING photography (I had other photograpy experience) the person I was going to work for required me to have 2 sets of gear including camera, lenses and, flash so yes when I first started into wedding photography I DID take out a loan to be able to purchase the best possible gear because I was serious about being a PROFESSIONAL wedding photographer so I purchased PROFESSIONAL gear.


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 9, 2008)

JIP I understand where you are coming from but I agree with the others. There is professional gear made by all manufacturers.

You do not need to spend gazillions on lenses when starting out.   I did but I have the finance to do that. I've used many Canon lenses and have also dabbled with Sigma and Tamron too and although maybe not quite as good, they would be perfectly acceptable for professional use.

With photoshop and Lightroom around you can get a lot more from your equipment.


----------



## Lakewood Photography (Mar 9, 2008)

Lens suggestions for Nikon D80 (portraiture, weddings)?  Thanks much!


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 9, 2008)

Which style do you prefer?  The range on the first would be good if you like standing back a bit.  A ~17-55mm f/2.8 would be better if you like being in close.   The standard 80-200 f/2.8 being the other.

I got the aforementioned 28-80mm to go along with my 18-70mm (fast enough in the short end) and I carry a 50mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/2.8 ( I tend to use this with an eleven mm expansion tube for macro shots of rings and minutia) and keep the 80-200mm on my second body.


----------



## JIP (Mar 9, 2008)

Lakewood Photography said:


> Lens suggestions for Nikon D80 (portraiture, weddings)? Thanks much!


 
A. Look at my sig I would like to (and intend to soon with another loan) add a 17-55 2.8 a 24-70 2.8 and if I can afford it a 10-22 but that would be a luxury seldom used specialty lens.

B.  As I originally stated I cannot afford to buy junk (or cheaper lenses now and buy something else later I just do not have that much disposable money.  I prefer to buy the right glass now and not have to buy more later.


----------



## atseeyob (Mar 9, 2008)

I really appreciate for all inputs. Since all of you have valid reasons to support one lens over another and I am rookie in wedding photography, I will go ahead and start renting rather than purchasing. Based on the outcome, I will make the purchase in the future.


----------



## JIP (Mar 9, 2008)

atseeyob said:


> I really appreciate for all inputs. Since all of you have valid reasons to support one lens over another and I am rookie in wedding photography, I will go ahead and start renting rather than purchasing. Based on the outcome, I will make the purchase in the future.


Excellent choice!!! since so many people have different prefrences for what they like as far as lenses this is the best way to go for someone just starting out and not sure what focal-length suits them best and if you are going to invest big bucks in a lens you want to make sure it is the one you want.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 9, 2008)

Hi, I just ran across a link while cleaning up my bookmarks and thought you might like to see the site.

http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/

If you are going to do it, do it right.


----------



## Antithesis (Mar 9, 2008)

Find out what the primary likes to shoot most and use something with a different focal length. If the primary is shooting wide, your going to want something tight, like an 85mm f1.8 or 70-200 f2.8 and just get portraits and reaction shots. 

I think the rule of thumb is to get the fastest and highest lens quality that you can afford. If you can afford an L, then by all means get it. You won't ever need to replace it, where if you buy a Tokina or Sigma or something, you'll want to replace as you start to see some money. If you get into it as a profession, you'll evenually fill your bag with all top quality equipment, or atleast you should. 

The weddings that I've done, I've found the 17-55 range to be the most useful to my shooting style.

Edit: after reading JerryPH's post, I thought I'd add something. My two most recent lens purchases were a Tokina 12-24 and Sigma 70-200 f2.8, because these were all I can afford on a college students budget. The Tokina is plenty sharp and I will probably keep it as my wide lens, and I don't think I'll ever have to worry about it breaking because it's built like a tank. The Sigma on the other hand is a decent lens, but is just holding me over until I can afford the Nikon counterpart with VR and a more usable f2.8. Reliability is also something you'd really have to consider for your primary lens that your going to use a whole lot. I doubt the Sigma that Jerry mentioned comes anywhere close to the Nikon in that regard. My next lens is going to be the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 and will probably stay on my camera 90% of the time.


----------



## Mav (Mar 9, 2008)

Good discussion.

I've tried some third-party glass and have generally found that you get what you pay for when it comes to lenses.  The third-party stuff may perform as well as or even better than the OEM brand lenses that cost a lot more in magazine testing, but there's a lot more to lenses than magazine test results.  Some of these third-party lenses while sharp, often have hideous bokeh rendering.  Ugly bokeh easily ruins portrait shots, and this isn't commonly tested in magazines.  Sometimes there's an odd color shift that results in weird looking photos if the lens propagates different colors with varying efficiency.  Overall color and contrast just aren't the same more often than not.  Those MTF sharpness tables are tested at varying focal lengths and apertures, but at only ONE optical frequency.  What about everything else?  (here's where your test matrix quickly snowballs, lol)  What about focusing speed?  What about focus accuracy?  What about tracking ability?  What about reliability?  What about build quality and durability?  What about "sample variation"?  You never stop hearing about sample variation and focusing issues with third-party lenses, but it's truly rare to hear about it at all on the OEM branded stuff.  And you know that Sigma/Tamron/Tokina PR isn't just going to send a random sample of one of their lenses to the press for testing.  Samples are cherry-picked, just like for automotive testing.  So what you see in the mags might not necessarily be a good representation of what somebody buying a retail copy of the lens will truly get. 

Clearly the OEM branded lenses are built to much higher standards.  It's enormously difficult to make a lens do all things well at the same time, and when you try that's when it ends up costing a lot of money.  Top of the line professional glass is going to be overkill for most hobbyists and amateurs.  It's sorta like a luxury branded car.  Yeah they're nice to have if you can afford them, but not needed for most people.

I have a Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro II lens, similar to the 28-80 that Mike_E pointed out above.  It's a very nice piece of glass with truly outstanding build quality for the price I paid for it - $250 used.  For the money, it's a great lens, but it's _most definitely_ no $1400 Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8.  It just isn't, and if you try to convince yourself that it is you're kidding yourself.  All of that extra money buys you something, and it won't all necessarily come across in synthetic magazine tests.  Just like the essence of the performance and/or handling characteristics of a car won't necessarily come across in acceleration or skidpad numbers.  If you're a professional competing with other professionals for business, definitely get the PRO glass.  For all hobbyists and amateurs or enthusiasts, it's an optional luxury item sorta like deciding whether to splurge on a BMW, or to just get a Toyota which is "nice", but no BMW.

That said, if anybody wants a Nikon mount Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro lens, I have one for sale.  PM me.   It got replaced with a Nikkor 17-55DX f/2.8 which costs 5 times more, and is simply an amazing lens.  Images come straight off the camera looking hot with no post-processing needed, not even sharpening.  The color, contrast, bokeh, sharpness, even wide open, is just "there".  It also has machine-gun like tracking with the AF-S motors clicking at about 3-5 Hz.  Is the Tokina bad?  No, but it's simply no Nikkor.  Do I truly "need" this professional lens?  No.  I could have gotten by just fine with the Sigma or Tamron versions for a lot less money.  I don't shoot weddings or other things for a second source of income and only really do it for fun and for the experience when my buddy who _does_ do it for additional income calls me up to come along as a backup.  But I nearly killed myself at the office last year, finally got my big bonus, use this range all the time, and wanted to reward myself with something nice to shoot my 11 month old with, who is only going to be 11 months old once, (and 10 months, and 9 months, and 1yr, etc).  For a car I'd rather have a Toyota and am not too particular.  I'd rather shoot with "BMW" lenses, though. 




BTW, not even a week after getting this lens, my daughter already managed to accidentally give it a good whack with a not so lightweight solid wooden rattle that she has.    I would have been seriously scared with either the Tamron or Sigma lenses, but it didn't even faze the Nikkor, nor would it have the Tokina, both of which are built to very high standards mechanically.  Considering I'm down on the floor shooting my daughter a lot, I'd much rather have a well-built Tokina than a perhaps optically better Sigma or Tamron if they're not going to take any "abuse", lol.  Tokina has a 16-50mm f/2.8 which is rather pricey but well-built, but also got panned optically, even in magazine reviews.  I never considered it, but it might be worth looking into for somebody else.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Mar 10, 2008)

Mav said:


> Some of these third-party lenses while sharp, often have hideous bokeh rendering. Ugly bokeh easily ruins portrait shots, and this isn't commonly tested in magazines.


No, this apparently is not true.  A hypothetical mathematically-perfect lens would render bokeh with very sharp edges (One article described it as looking like a bunch of rolled-up condoms), it's the imperfect lenses that create the better bokeh, ironically. (Good bokeh, to me, is characterized by perfectly even, soft-edged circles of confusion, not too sharp, not too blury)

This article is the best one I found that explains it in detail.


----------



## Mav (Mar 10, 2008)

There's more to it than that.  Compare Nikon's 85mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 lenses.  You can argue all day long as to which is sharper and not come up with an answer.  One thing that's obvious though is that the f/1.4 has very nice bokeh rendering whereas the f/1.8's is on the ugly side.  I'm no lens designer, but it looks like the solution lies in using more extremely expensive optical/photographic grade glass in order to get both.  My 50mm f/1.8 lens was extremely sharp, but had hideous bokeh.  My f/1.4 version has very nice bokeh, but lacks that critical sharpness that the f/1.8 had.  My Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 has nice bokeh and it's insanely sharp all at the same time, which is probably why it cost a grand.  

I've seen image samples from the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and it's definitely sharp, but the bokeh is also definitely ugly.  Haven't seen bokeh specifically from the Sigma 18-50.  The Tokina 16-50 as I recall had fairly nice looking bokeh, but just wasn't all that sharp of a lens at least compared to the others.  You can only get so much at certain price points.


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 10, 2008)

Mav said:


> Haven't seen bokeh specifically from the Sigma 18-50.


 
Obviously bad examples as bokeh was not the goal in either shot, but enough to give you an idea with a Sigma 18-50. I could do a lot better if the goal is to show off the lens' bokeh later on when I have a bit of time.













The 18-50's macro capabilities are nice as well (this is still reduced but enough for an idea):





Believe it or not, thats an old memory chip I had laying around and tested with. What you are looking at is a single module of memory on that stick of ram.

It's a very sharp lens and has no additional warming contrasts that the Tokina adds, so colors are more accurately depicted:


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 10, 2008)

The OP asked if there was a lens that was "comparable" (i.e. close to) to a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L lens.  The OP also stated that the L lens was not in their budget.

You can only do what you can do and renting is fine.  I guess some people don't need to practice or doesn't renting for weeks on end add up?

The Tokina I was taking about was supposed to be soft @f/2.8 and it will only go to 80mm.  This has minor photoshop- resizing and a defogging, but the bokeh is straight from Tokina...





80mm@f/2.8  ISO100  (the focus point is the "a" in Tokina on the bag.

No, it's not a Nikon but I didn't pay $2000 for it either. And, I really don't think that anyone is going to gripe when they get their photos!

mike


----------



## JerryPH (Mar 11, 2008)

Concerning a best lens for photography, there is no one such animal. The demands of a wedding are extremely varied from closeups in small rooms to needing a wide angle for group shots to a telephoto to get the shot of the couple from the back of the church.

I any case, no matter what lens you do choose, one thing does stand out in weddings... you shoot in places that have inherently very poor light and are going to need a fast lens.

So, though a 10-300 mm at f/1.2 would be the ultimate lens (if you and 2 of your buddies were willing to carry it with you... lol), in weddings, one will need several fast lenses to fit the situation if they want to get all the good shots. Though one can do many shots with a mid-range zoom (ie: 17-55), it is going to not be very helpful in places where the couple is more than 20 feet away (pretty much anywhere inside the church, outside portraits, reception candids, etc...)


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 11, 2008)

Yes, but the OP wasn't asking about the Best lens.  He already knows about Canon's L glass- as he has a Canon. 

The question was is there any thing close.  (you can check easily enough)

There are several Serviceable lenses that  cover that range.  What Many don't seem to understand is that most wedding shots are not printed at 20X24 but at 4X6.  If you get a great prime for the shots you know are to be enlarged to go along with the rest of your kit you can do some fine work!

No, you won't be doing $10,000 weddings but you aren't going to be doing those anyway until you have a LOT more experience!!!  By the time you get there, you should have acquired all the great glass you will ever need.


----------

