outdoor wedding in May

[sss809]

On a 30D what lenses would you recommend for shooting an outdoor wedding in May? The wedding will be in the afternoon, probably lasting until at least the evening.

Thanks!

[Rhys]

On a 30D what lenses would you recommend for shooting an outdoor wedding in May? The wedding will be in the afternoon, probably lasting until at least the evening.

Thanks!

In wallet size...
Canon 17-85IS (on a budget),
Tamron 28-75,
Canon 24-70L,
Canon 17-55 IS (on a big budget).

If you need a longer lens then you have several options...
Canon 70-200 F4L
Canon 70-300 F2.8L
Canon 70-200 F4L IS
Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS

To be quite honest I'm not that impressed by independent lenses by Tamron/Tokina/Sigma etc. I'd say stick with Canon.

I shot a wedding with a 17-85IS and it was a very good lens.

You will also need a flash - as a minimum the 430EX but preferably the 580EX2.

[DonSchap]

I shot a wedding with a 17-85IS and it was a very good lens.

Oh Rhys ... you're just saying that because "Coldrain" isn't around to dispute it. :D

Consider a TAMRON SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical (IF)

33620 (http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4640/lens-test-tamron-17-50mm-f28-xr-di-ii-af.html)
(Click on image for review)

and a Tokina ATX 535 50-135mm f/2.8

33621 (http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/3966/lens-test-tokina-50-135mm-f28-pro-dx-af.html)
(Click on image for review)

These two lenses will deal with the evening hours very well and provide quite a dynamic combo for the close-in work. Some of the best two-lens offerings in the past year or so.

[Rhys]

Oh Rhys ... you're just saying that because "Coldrain" isn't around to dispute it. :D


Seriously, the claims of distortion and vignetting are extremely exaggerated. I found the range 17-85 was ideal for a wedding. It's the equivalent of 28-135 which was perfect for 35mm.

I was very happy with mine.

[Mark_48]

I'll also 2nd the recommendation for the Tamron 17-50 that Don suggested. I've got one that's on my 30D most of the time and I have used it for weddings. I do have the Tamron 28-75 also, but I've found that in darker venues it tends to hunt for focus occasionally.
If your getting paid to shoot the wedding make sure to have a backup camera body and flash. Kind of embarrassing to have a camera crap out half way through and have to say, "Sorry folks, don't have the whole wedding"

[Rhys]

My only problem with 17-50/18-55 is that it's a short range. I found I was using my 17-85 at 85. I would have liked more but was happy to stick with the 17-85 without changing lenses. If I'd have been changing lenses then there'd have been the possibility of dust on the sensor (not welcome).

[Mark_48]

My only problem with 17-50/18-55 is that it's a short range. I found I was using my 17-85 at 85. I would have liked more but was happy to stick with the 17-85 without changing lenses. If I'd have been changing lenses then there'd have been the possibility of dust on the sensor (not welcome).

Second body has a longer lens.

[Rhys]

Second body has a longer lens.

Yes. Much easier to carry one body and have the other as a spare. In the ideal world a 28-135 on a 5D but for a 30D the 17-85 is pretty unbeatable.

[Vich]

On a 30D what lenses would you recommend for shooting an outdoor wedding in May? The wedding will be in the afternoon, probably lasting until at least the evening.

Thanks!
What's your budget? Are you renting?

I would go in with 3 or 4 lenses on 2 bodies. More you become a gear-head. 2 lenses would be OK but some opportunities would be lacking.

Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS - main working lens (24-105 f4 would also suffice)
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS - all long shots. Most B&G shots
Canon 60 f2.8 macro - for macro and some prime-quality portraits.
Canon 10-22 for a few UWA shots. Not critical, but nice to have.

The wedding would be fine with a slower lens but the reception is sure to go into the wee hours. You'll want shots of the grand entrance, speeches, cake cutting, etc.

If you had to get just 1 lens - I'd get the 24-105 f4.0L. It cranks out consistently good (but not great) photos - but having a prime for some portraits would add do much.

Two flashes. 430EX are fine, but 530EX would throw more and permit some slave action. Mixing the two is OK but you'll have different controls.

All that said, you could easily bring the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and Canon 60mm macro for everything. Again, 2 bodies is recommended.

If you're confident with film, that can work as a backup although you're far better off just borrowing someone's 20D, XTi, etc etc.

Bring about 16GB in CF cards, a card wallet, and extra batteries. A battery charger could help in a pinch if you don't have extras (ie: you're not actually using your backup camera) as long as you pre-set it up somewhere and don't forget the charger at the end of the night.

I liked carrying a fanny pack for the batteries, macro lens, etc and hanging a lens holder off it.

The very best thing to bring is a 2nd shooter!


Added comment: At a wedding, AF performance is (IMHO) the most important feature of a lens. That means wider max f-stop, Ring USM (or equiv) AF system, and the best match-up between camera and lens (I believe Canon-to-Canon achieves this best). For other uses; the Sigmas and Tamrons are fine choices. For weddings, IMHO, Canon lenses have an edge.

You often have about 1 second to center and snap before the photo suffers as a result. When you have longer to prepare, you often don't get a 2nd try at the best moment and mal-functioning AF can force you into a lessor photo during PP.

[Vich]

My only problem with 17-50/18-55 is that it's a short range. I found I was using my 17-85 at 85. I would have liked more but was happy to stick with the 17-85 without changing lenses. If I'd have been changing lenses then there'd have been the possibility of dust on the sensor (not welcome).

The 24-105 f4 can be a happier range than 17-55 since the 17-24 range can tempt you into some high-distortion (too close to subject) shots anyway. If you know how to use it, UWA distortion is very nice but most novices over-use it and make people fat and oddball looking.

One way to look at above 55mm for most shots (ie: you're not stuck in the bleachers that is) is that you're basically just doing in-camera cropping and allowing for a less in-your-face approach. So; it's preference - I'd rather have f2.8 than above 55mm but I would never fault anyone for preferring the opposite.

[Rhys]

The 24-105 f4 can be a happier range than 17-55 since the 17-24 range can tempt you into some high-distortion (too close to subject) shots anyway. But if you know how to use it, UWA distortion is very nice but most novices over-use it and make people fat and oddball looking.

One way to look at above 55mm for most shots (ie: you're not stuck in the bleachers that is) is that you're basically just doing in-camera cropping and allowing for a less in-your-face approach. So; it's preference - I'd rather have f2.8 than above 55mm but I would never fault anyone for preferring the opposite.

The 24-70L is quite nice too. Actually, that's a good point. I remember using a 24mm lens with a 35mm camera and finding that it distorted pretty well.

24-70 on a crop body is about 36-105 in 35mm format. 28-75 is about 42-108.

Using a 24-105 combined with a 12-24/10-22 or similar could be interesting although I fear that anything wider than 24mm (in 35mm format aka 16mm) will produce an unreal effect. This is why my preference is for a 17mm as the widest. Having said that, I did have an occasion when photographing the B&G's place settings when I could barely get everything in at 17mm.

[jwhite]

I basically used two lens on my first wedding (outdoor). the 24-70 and the 70-200. I liked the 70-200 the most. I'd occasionally use the 85mm on more portraits. Of course this was on a 5D, which changes things a little. The 70-200 might be a little too long on a 30D. Messing with a second body might be too much for a first wedding. I'd rather carry around the lenses and take my selection. Better to just have a second photographer.

Jason

[Vich]

The 24-70L is quite nice too. Actually, that's a good point. I remember using a 24mm lens with a 35mm camera and finding that it distorted pretty well.

24-70 on a crop body is about 36-105 in 35mm format. 28-75 is about 42-108.

Using a 24-105 combined with a 12-24/10-22 or similar could be interesting although I fear that anything wider than 24mm (in 35mm format aka 16mm) will produce an unreal effect. This is why my preference is for a 17mm as the widest. Having said that, I did have an occasion when photographing the B&G's place settings when I could barely get everything in at 17mm.

You might take a closer look at shots you take at 16mm side by side with shots of the same guests at say, 35mm. They're just a little wider, legs a little shorter, heads a bit bigger. A lay person won't tell you why, but they'll like the 35mm shot better (or better yet, 85mm).

At a wedding reception the brides mom wanted some shots with some guests sitting at a couch. I obliged with my 35L attached. Showed her the chimp and "delete that, I'm fat!". I said "Oh, that's just the lens, and because your legs are closer to the camera". I put on my 85 f1.8, stepped halfway across the room, and took a few more. She said "Wow, I want a copy!". Exact same pose and setting.

It's actually distance-to-subject combined with depth-of-plane. It's called perspective distortion. The wider lens just promotes closer cameras.

It can be a dramatic effect, and as long as the wrong body parts (or people) aren't pushed the wrong way, it's fine, or even flattering. For a 1st time wedding shooter, I'd say stay above 24mm if possible.

[cdifoto]

On a 30D what lenses would you recommend for shooting an outdoor wedding in May? The wedding will be in the afternoon, probably lasting until at least the evening.

Thanks!

17-55 IS on one body, 70-200 IS on the other. 580EX on both.

[sss809]

Thanks for all the suggestions!

I currently have the 85 1.8, 17-55, and I can borrow a 70-200 2.0 IS. I have just one body but can borrow another from a co-worker. It's going to be a very casual wedding, but obviously I don't want to blow it and now have photos for the bride & groom.

[Vich]

Thanks for all the suggestions!

I currently have the 85 1.8, 17-55, and I can borrow a 70-200 2.0 IS. I have just one body but can borrow another from a co-worker. It's going to be a very casual wedding, but obviously I don't want to blow it and now have photos for the bride & groom.
Can I get that 70-200 2.0 when you're done? Kidding - surely you meant f2.8.

You're just about set! Add a flash for fill-flash and after dark shooting.

A macro for some ring shots would be nice. You'll only use it for 10 minutes of the whole night.