Help with event lens ( weddings, anniversary's, etc)

[prestonpalmer]

The 16-35 is an ultrawide.  It's a specialty lens when shooting weddings and events.  You should remove that one from your list.

I disagree completely.  I've shot 200 weddings, and I use the 16-35 II more than any other lens!!! Its absolutely perfect for weddings. The 24-105 you recommended is too slow at f/4 for most wedding stuff.  If I had only two lenses to shoot an entire wedding with, it would be the 16-35, and 70-200 2.8 IS USM II.  These two lenses make up the majority of my wedding photos.  The 16-35 is one of the first lenses I would recommend.

[Tcapp]

The 16-35 is an ultrawide.  It's a specialty lens when shooting weddings and events.  You should remove that one from your list.

I disagree completely.  I've shot 200 weddings, and I use the 16-35 II more than any other lens!!! Its absolutely perfect for weddings. The 24-105 you recommended is too slow at f/4 for most wedding stuff.  If I had only two lenses to shoot an entire wedding with, it would be the 16-35, and 70-200 2.8 IS USM II.  These two lenses make up the majority of my wedding photos.  The 16-35 is one of the first lenses I would recommend.

+1 million

[helpful]

I agree that the 16-35mm f/2.8 II is a great option. At first the wide end of it is too tempting, and the shots one tends to take are not as good as someone with more maturity using a super wide angle 16mm focal length (just speaking from my own mistakes). Now I tend not to use the 16mm end of it as much, but for close spaces and uses for which wide angle is appropriate, it's a life-saver. An important group of people might happen to line up where there is no space and then 16mm is needed. But I prefer the range from 24-35mm.

For that matter I have been finding tremendous success with the 24mm f/1.4L II. I believe that using prime lenses helps me correlate the photo's perspective better with the human experience at the event. Humans don't have zoom lenses for their eyes; rather, they make small adjustments in position or distance to perceive things. A prime lens leads the photographer's style to make the same adjustments unconsciously, while a zoom lens does not.

So if I have the ability to set up the shots, like the pre-wedding photos, then I like the 24mm f/1.4L II, and I am beginning to be completely comfortable leaving it on for the entire wedding.

Note that I would never risk taking a critical shot at f/1.4 as mentioned earlier in this thread, unless I had time to carefully use contrast detection autofocus. At f/1.4 and as soon as a picture is cropped or enlarged, it does matter exactly whose face is being focused on, and it's hard to tell which face the camera chose at the instant the picture is snapped.

[dppaskewitz]

At least one observer thinks the 24-105 is parfocal:

Quote from The Digital Picture review:  "The 24-105 L is deemed a parfocal lens - "There's a cam inside the 24-105mm lens that is designed to maintain an accurate focus when the lens is zoomed from tele towards wide." [Chuck Westfall, Canon USA] Though the image remains mostly in focus during focal length change, it is best to focus at the desired focal length."

But I'm not sure whether being "deemed" parfocal is the same as actually being parfocal?

[Dylan777]

Based on your budget go with the 24-105. If you can spend a little more the 16-35 is also a great option. A little tricky for group shots though. I'd recommend 24-105 for versatility.

thanks. why is it tricky for group shots?

I can attest that at 16mm on a FF body, if you happen to put someone's head in the corner of the frame, they get serious "egg-head syndrome." You can start to see this at 24mm, and you have to be careful with your corners and peoples' heads, but at 16mm, it's really bad. Of course, you can correct it in PS, but then you loose some of the wide-ness, and it can be lots of work to get it to look right. So if you do group shots with the 16-35 at 16mm, be sure to keep their heads closer to the center of the frame.

In your case, I recommend either the 24-105/4L or the 24-70/2.8L (version 1, to keep within your budget). If you really are planning on shooting at f/11 indoors, you're going to need tons of flash batteries and maybe a fire extinguisher because your 580ex2 is going to thoroughly hate you.

Remember, an Image Stabilizer can help with hand-shake, but it can't do anything about moving subjects, like at wedding receptions. You have to either shoot fast or use flash.

If you're thinking of primes, I recommend getting a 50mm/1.4 or the 28mm/1.8. Both are excellent and affordable lenses, so it depends on how wide you're wanting to be for most shots.

For particularly dark settings, like a wedding reception room, look into setting up a series of remote flashes on lightstands. Basic cross-lighting can be very effective and usually creates interesting lighting, shooting from any direction. It also takes much of the pressure off of your on-camera flash, especially if the ceiling is high or not a color you want to bounce flash off of. Maybe two lightstands with flashes (maybe some 430ex's on manual..), one on either corner of the dance floor, main table, etc., and your 580ex2 on your camera. Either get radio remotes or use the built-in optical remote on your 580 (radio remotes are typically more reliable). I've been experimenting with this and the results so far have been great.

EDIT: If you're good at recruiting slave labor assistants, another person with a remote flash attached to a monopod can do wonders for your lighting.

100% agreed with 16-35 II...I recently pickup a 16-35 II mainly for landscape. Not a right lens for protrait at 16mm.

For prime- 50 f1.4 is great or 35L tack sharp.   

[Chris Burch]

At least one observer thinks the 24-105 is parfocal:

Quote from The Digital Picture review:  "The 24-105 L is deemed a parfocal lens - "There's a cam inside the 24-105mm lens that is designed to maintain an accurate focus when the lens is zoomed from tele towards wide." [Chuck Westfall, Canon USA] Though the image remains mostly in focus during focal length change, it is best to focus at the desired focal length."

But I'm not sure whether being "deemed" parfocal is the same as actually being parfocal?

Well when I got my 24-105, I locked focus at the wide end, zoomed in and it was significantly off focus...like unusably off.  Took me about 3 seconds to verify.  From my digging around on the internet, I came across an article that said there are only a few lenses that Canon actually admits to being parfocal.  Here is a link, but I can also vouch for the 24-70 as maintaining focus over the zoom range. 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/photo-lenses-for-video/4

[Tcapp]

At least one observer thinks the 24-105 is parfocal:

Quote from The Digital Picture review:  "The 24-105 L is deemed a parfocal lens - "There's a cam inside the 24-105mm lens that is designed to maintain an accurate focus when the lens is zoomed from tele towards wide." [Chuck Westfall, Canon USA] Though the image remains mostly in focus during focal length change, it is best to focus at the desired focal length."

But I'm not sure whether being "deemed" parfocal is the same as actually being parfocal?

Well when I got my 24-105, I locked focus at the wide end, zoomed in and it was significantly off focus...like unusably off.  Took me about 3 seconds to verify.  From my digging around on the internet, I came across an article that said there are only a few lenses that Canon actually admits to being parfocal.  Here is a link, but I can also vouch for the 24-70 as maintaining focus over the zoom range. 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/photo-lenses-for-video/4

I used to use the 24-70 as if it were parfocal. I never had issues.