# Best Canon lenses?



## brookie418 (Aug 20, 2008)

I am looking for suggestions for the best Canon lens to use for a wedding.  I am sure it is posted somewhere on this site, but I haven't seen it.  I have my first wedding in Oct. so I need help!!!

Since I have just been doing photography for a few months, I am still using an 18-35 mm lens for portraits.  I know that is probably the lowest quality lens haha!!  What are suggestions for better quality lenses for just portrait shoots? (family, children, seniors, etc.)

THANKS!!


----------



## NateWagner (Aug 20, 2008)

Well, first of all, if I were you I would be very cautious before doing a wedding with that little equipment. Generally you want at least two camera bodies, and a two lenses in each of a number of focal ranges and 2 flashes (basically in case something breaks you're still ok). However, if you're going to do the wedding anyway, I'll go ahead and try to answer your question. 

The answer to this question depends primarily on the church and the rules they hold about photography etc. 

If I had to choose one lens I would probably want the 17-55 2.8 IS from canon, or a more inexpensive 18-50 Sigma 2.8 or 17-50(or 55 can't remember) tamron 2.8, The Canon one will run you about 1000 versus about 300-400 for the other two.

Another highly recommended lens is the 24-70 2.8 L (this also runs about 1k maybe more). Excellent piece of glass, though may not have quite the wide range you are looking for. You could probably use the 18-35(or whatever you have) for those wider shots in a pinch.

Some people will use the 70-200 2.8, this is an excellent lens, but has a very small field of view and is thus virtually useless in group shots. You may be able to use this in conjunction with the lens you already have (though if you already don't like the lens you have that may be a problem). I would probably not recommend using much of anything slower than 2.8 in a wedding unless it is a early daytime outdoors wedding, and you're not going to do more weddings in the future. 

Hope this helps...

Oh, as far as for portraits, if it's just a couple of people an 85 1.8 is an excellent lens, or a 70-200 can be great as well. For portraits where you want to get some more of the scenery in you may want the 18-50 ish range. All of the lenses I listed are good for portraits in my opinion


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 20, 2008)

For weddings, it's greatly beneficial to have lenses with large maximum apertures.  This allows you to get faster shutter speeds, capture more ambient light and get a shallower DOF to help isolate your subjects.

I agree with Nate's suggestions.  The EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, is the "crop-body wedding photographer's" best friend.  The 70-200mm F2.8 L IS, is also a great lens to have on hand but not for group shots.

You could also consider a prime  (non zoom) lens with an even bigger aperture.  The 35mm F1.4 L is great and the image quality is extremely high.  Also, check out the 50mm F1.4 or the 85mm F1.2.

Most of the lenses I've listed are around or well over the $1000 mark. _Professional_ Wedding photography isn't for those with a small budget.  

There are cheaper options but there is also some sacrifice.  The Tamron 17-50 or the Sigma 18-50 are good options, considering the savings.

What about a flash?

What about back up gear?  If you are responsible for documenting a wedding, it's important that you have a back up camera, flash, lens etc.  Not to mention a handful of batteries & memory cards etc.


----------



## brookie418 (Aug 20, 2008)

Well, I have a friend who does photography and she is going to come with me since it is my first wedding.  She is also going to bring her camera so I will have a back-up.  She has a 70-200 mm lens that she said I could borrow.  I am also planning on buying a flash before the wedding.
I am just asking to find out other opinions on lenses.  I have seen the Sigma lenses but wasn't sure about buying them because the price was so much better than Canon's.  I wasn't sure if they were good lenses or not??


----------



## sperry (Aug 20, 2008)

i will second the canon 17-55 2.8 IS option. you can't go wrong with this lens - if you're shooting with an EF-S mount body. it has a nice range that allows quite a bit of versatility. excellent image quality too.

the large aperture and IS makes low light shooting a no-brainer. 

you can shoot the whole ceremony with this one lens - some 'two-foot zooming' might be required. it might not be the ideal textbook arsenal, but it is very effective.

good luck.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 20, 2008)

brookie418 said:


> I have seen the Sigma lenses but wasn't sure about buying them because the price was so much better than Canon's.  I wasn't sure if they were good lenses or not??



The Canon Ls have image stabilization, weather proofing, are more sturdily built, and are generally perceived as cooler.    Sigmas and Tamrons with similar specs have similar image quality.  I use Canons, Canon Ls, Sigmas, and Tamrons and it's impossible to tell the difference from the prints.  If you are pixel peeping it just depends.  For instance viewing at 100% magnification on a monitor at wide apertures my Tamron f/2.8 28-75 is slightly sharper than my Canon L f/2.8 24-70.  In large prints, or when stopped down a few stops, I can't see any difference.  I believe that often there's just as much variation within a single production line as there is between different brands.  It's best to judge each lens individually; I've seen plenty of examples of 2 photogs owning the same lens, and one appears to be slightly better or worse than the other.


----------



## Christie Photo (Aug 21, 2008)

My ABSOLUTE favorite lens is my 100mm.  I'm shooting with a D5, so I get full frame.

When I shoot a wedding, it's my go-to lens.  If I have room, I'm using the 100mm.  ALL my portraits are shot with this lens.

-Pete


----------



## brookie418 (Aug 21, 2008)

Thanks for all your help!  I just see some photos that are so crystal clear and that is what I want!!


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 21, 2008)

> Thanks for all your help! I just see some photos that are so crystal clear and that is what I want!!


Remember, it has more to do with the photographer than the gear.


----------



## brookie418 (Aug 21, 2008)

Oh yeah...I know...but I know the best photographers don't use that 18-55 mm lens that comes with the camera LOL!  That's what I'm using now and I am ready to upgrade!


----------



## icassell (Aug 21, 2008)

brookie418 said:


> I am also planning on buying a flash before the wedding.



Be careful.  Give yourself enough time with the flash (and any rented/borrowed lenses) so you are comfortable with them before the big event.  You don't want to be learning how to use that flash as you are trying to record the wedding!


----------



## icassell (Aug 21, 2008)

I absolutely love my Tamron 17-50 f2.8, but if I were a wedding photographer I'd probably drop some extra cash and buy a USM lens.  The Tamron has great optics and the reach would probably be good for you, but it is a bit noisy without an ultrasonic motor.


----------



## Son Dean (Aug 22, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> The Canon Ls have image stabilization....


 
Be careful, not *ALL* L Series lenses have IS. However, *MOST* of the L Series lenses ABOVE $1500 do... other than that, everything else is spot on.

Great advice from all. Even I have learned something new!


----------



## brookie418 (Aug 22, 2008)

Ok..here's a dumb question.  What is image stabilization?


----------



## Son Dean (Aug 22, 2008)

brookie418 said:


> Ok..here's a dumb question. What is image stabilization?


 
There is no such thing as a dumb question. 

IS = Image Stabilization...

Basically, IS prevents slight camera shake from ruining your images. Unless your using a tripod or have incredibly steady hands then using IS is not that big of a deal. But for slow shutter speeds or telephoto lenses with 200mm or better, IS is a great thing to have on your lens. Without IS, taking photos of things that are poorly lit or far away often turn up as lost shots if you are hand holding the camera... Not saying that one would definitely NEED IS, just saying that it saves the photographer time and aggravation...

;-)


----------



## NateWagner (Aug 22, 2008)

right, basically it vibrates the lens to compensate for the shake from you not being able to hold it perfectly smoothly. Thus, it doesn't help much if you are using a tripod or something of the like because the camera isn't shaking much.


----------



## Christie Photo (Aug 22, 2008)

NateWagner said:


> right, basically it vibrates the lens to compensate for the shake from you not being able to hold it perfectly smoothly. Thus, it doesn't help much if you are using a tripod or something of the like because the camera isn't shaking much.



OK...  so what if I have cerebral palsy?  Is there a version for me?


----------



## photogincollege (Aug 22, 2008)

It doesnt help at all using a tripod, if you are using a tripod and an is lens, the IS should be turned off.  It will actually add shake if your using a tripod.  Just remember Is doesnt help with motion blur from the subject.  I second teh 17-55 2.8 and 70-200, if you can rent another camera or are borrowing from your friend, do so and slap the 70-200 on that. That gives you access to pretty much every focal length you will need instantly.


----------



## Alex_B (Aug 22, 2008)

A combination of 24-70 f/2.8 L and 70-200 f/2.8 L would be my choice if I did weddings.
 Both on full frame since I would also want some wide angle.


----------



## wxnut (Aug 22, 2008)

70-200 for sure. I shoot the processional with a 28-70 from up front, but then its to the back of the church or the balcony to shoot the rest at around 200. I try to sneak up the sides to get the parents as well...












The 200 works great at the reception as well before the lights are turned out for the dance. No one sees you taking pics of them cause you are so far away...











And I would use no other lens for the artistic shots of the couple...






Hope this helped you.

Doug Raflik


----------



## brookie418 (Aug 26, 2008)

Yes, ya'll have been so much help!! I really appreciate it!


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 27, 2008)

> The 200 works great at the reception as well before the lights are turned out for the dance


I agree...but I try *not* to take photos of people while they are shoveling food into their mouths


----------



## epp_b (Aug 27, 2008)

> OK...  so what if I have cerebral palsy?  Is there a version for me?


Yes, it's called a tripod and a remote.


----------



## brileyphotog (Aug 27, 2008)

Fast glass is key for weddings and candid portraits...I swear by Sigma especially for weddings since you are going to be doing some pretty serious PP to your shots anyway, negating your very slight optical quality differences from Canon.

I've also had good success with Tamron equipment - the new Tamron 70-200 2.8 is only $700(!) and is getting great reviews all over the place.


----------



## NateWagner (Aug 27, 2008)

Agreed, I love my sigma lenses... I would like to get the 17-55 2.8 IS canon lens, but for now, I have purchased both the 18-50 2.8 sigma, and the 70-200 2.8 sigma for about 100 less than the 17-55 canon would be. 

The tamron is another excellent 70-200 lens, unfortunately unlike both the canon and the sigma it doesn't have the usm/hsm. However, you can get it brand new for just a little more than a used sigma.


----------

