Any Wedding Lens Advice?

[RLPhoto]

So, my wife and I have three weddings right at the start of 2013, but here's the kicker; I think we're lacking a little glass.

We have the following
5DII, 60D, 17-40L, 35L, 50 1.4, and a 430ex ii. We also have a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 which I am not the biggest fan of and will be selling soon. We would like to keep our purchase at a max of ~2K and don't mind buying new, refurbed, or used (from a quality seller).

What do you all think? I strongly believe that this forum is an invaluable resource for photographers who are beginning their business and thank you all in advance for your support.

-Tabor

If I were you, I wouldn't even bring the 70-300. The 35L + 5D2 and the 50mm + 60D during most of the day. I would rotate either a 135L prime or the 70-200MM in when needed.

Keep it simple, 2-3 lenses and flashes on both cameras, even for just the AF assist beam. Use the 17-40 for the show stopper photos of the church but that's about it.

[keithfullermusic]

If I were you, I'd look at the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8

While these lenses aren't as amazing as the primes out there, they a still really really really nice lenses.  The problem with wedding stuff is that you are constantly moving around and taking pictures of people all over the place.  Unless you're really experienced, you are going to run into problems switching primes all the time.  Don't forget, what use is a great lens if you aren't able to get the shot?

I will say that when I am doing the "set/formal" shots I love using my primes, however, when I'm running around getting candids the 24-70 is on the camera about 95% of the time and I might have a 50mm on my second body.

[bp]

70-200 IS II.  No question.  You've got the wide end covered very well.  The 70-200 would become your workhorse, and if you do spring for the mk2, you'll be blown away by its IQ

[bdunbar79]

I never shoot events, such as weddings, without a 24-70L lens.  I've done without the 70-200, but not the 24-70.

[willis]

85mm F1.2L II - 24-70mm F2.8L - 70-200mm F2.8L, Pretty much perfect setup, covers a nice big area ( 24 to 200 ) All lenses got Superb IQ on FF, great on low light situations.

[Zlatko]

We have the following
5DII, 60D, 17-40L, 35L, 50 1.4, and a 430ex ii. We also have a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 which I am not the biggest fan of and will be selling soon. We would like to keep our purchase at a max of ~2K and don't mind buying new, refurbed, or used (from a quality seller).

You have the mid-range nicely covered with the 17-40, 35 and 50, but you don't have a good telephoto for weddings.  I recommend replacing your 70-300 with either the 70-200 f/4 IS (my preference) or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (bigger and costlier, but better for low light).

I would also recommend the inexpensive but extremely good 85 f/1.8, in addition to a 70-200.  That would cover the telephoto range very well.

[sameerthawani]

I would suggest the 70-200 f/2.8 - but here's why:

A lot of weddings/indoors are subject to low-light and limitations on the use of flash. I was shooting in a conference room once, and my lens would only allow f/5.6 at near 200mm. I couldn't use flash, and had to resort to high ISO. Although the high ISO's in camera's nowadays are pretty good, even then you'll still see the noise and grain and every camera is better at a lower ISO than it's higher ISO.

Believe it or not, sometimes even at ISO 3200 you're not getting enough light with an f/5'ish aperture at high zoom.

In these situations, a zoom lens with a wide aperture such as f/2.8 is a blessing.

If you can't afford the Canon, I would take a look at third party lenses which offer high zooms at f/2.8. Yes I know that some folks will disagree with third party, but if I had to choose between the ability to have 200mm at f/2.8 with a third party lens vs not having that, I would choose the third party. Better something than nothing.

Just my two cents.

Sameer Thawani

[mitchell3417]

70-200 2.8L is hands down the way to go IMO. In the style I shoot it is a must have for weddings. Spends most of the day on my camera. And you have a very similar setup to me on the shorter end. 17-40 and 50 can do everything you need.

[sameerthawani]

Let me just add - I agree with another poster here : I would keep the 70-200mm on on the 60D and another lens/lenses which covers the wider ends on the 5d MKII.

[K-amps]

You don't have a 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii yet? 

Once you get that... I'd suggest the 135L or 85mm but first, I'd get the King Zoomer. 60+% people agree it is a good choice.

[preppyak]

You have the mid-range nicely covered with the 17-40, 35 and 50, but you don't have a good telephoto for weddings.  I recommend replacing your 70-300 with either the 70-200 f/4 IS (my preference) or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (bigger and costlier, but better for low light).

I would also recommend the inexpensive but extremely good 85 f/1.8, in addition to a 70-200.  That would cover the telephoto range very well.

I agree with this. The 70-200 will cover your tele needs and be good for 90% of its uses...and a tele prime would be good for closer up portraits.

The prime route would be to get the 100mm macro (L or non-L), the 135L, and maybe the 85mm f/1.8. That set-up could work nicely if you've scouted your locations well in advance, and you know that you'll need certain focal lengths. You'd have them all covered up through 135, which is more than enough.

But, since you are starting out, the 70-200 is gonna cause a lot less panic than switching lenses a lot

[LightboxPhotos]

I would go for the 70-200 L IS II.

I shoot a lot of weddings, in fact I did one last saturday and I have 3 to do over the next 3 weeks.

My setup is usually as follows:

5D3/Grip -> 35L 1.4
5D3/Grip -> 70-200L IS II

I also have a 17-40 & 24-105 in the bag which I usually use for group shots, wide ceremony shots and a few others although the 35 & 70-200 sit on the bodies most.

The IQ from the 70-200 is on par with primes, and its range is so good I tend to use it for 75% of my work.

Feel free to browse my site (www.lightboxphotos.com) where all of the pics are done with this setup apart from most images where taken on my old 5D2 bodies which have now been replaced by the 5D3's although range is exactly the same. Although one picture taken of the wedding last Saturday is on my blog, this was the 5D3 + 70-200.

Cheers

Simon

[Tabor Warren Photography]

 :DWow, you all are amazing!:D

You don't have a 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii yet? 

lol No, not yet. I have been on the fence regarding the 70-200 f/2.8 mk. ii for a while now. It seems that there is a general consenses that this lens should set me up rather nicely for my work.

Thank you all again for your support. I definitely still have the others in mind, but I will likely be jumping on board with this little monster.

Also, LightboxPhotos -- I checked out your site and you are quite exceptional at what you do. Keep up the great work!

-Tabor