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

[Tcapp]

Here is a group shot at 24mm and 1.4. I know, its a boring shot and totally unedited, but its just for demonstration purposes so

 

[Bosman]

Here is a group shot at 24mm and 1.4. I know, its a boring shot and totally unedited, but its just for demonstration purposes so

I think thats a good shot adding in the negative space. F1.4 looks to have handled it nicely. I like negative space and total close up shots. When i do portraits i often do both styles.

 

[Tcapp]

Here is a group shot at 24mm and 1.4. I know, its a boring shot and totally unedited, but its just for demonstration purposes so

I think thats a good shot adding in the negative space. F1.4 looks to have handled it nicely. I like negative space and total close up shots. When i do portraits i often do both styles.

Plus, doing it like that allows for an 8x10 crop without cutting anyone's parts off. (I hate 8x10 as a size. I much prefer to keep my 2:3 ratio)

 

[Marsu42]

Here is a group shot at 24mm and 1.4. I know, its a boring shot and totally unedited, but its just for demonstration purposes so

It would be interesting how much difference it would have made if you'd have taken a step back and shot with 35/1.4... it's a very interesting shot because the distortion supports the group being together, do you do these shots often or only seldom because the clients aren't ready for distorted shots?

 

[Tcapp]

Here is a group shot at 24mm and 1.4. I know, its a boring shot and totally unedited, but its just for demonstration purposes so

It would be interesting how much difference it would have made if you'd have taken a step back and shot with 35/1.4... it's a very interesting shot because the distortion supports the group being together, do you do these shots often or only seldom because the clients aren't ready for distorted shots?

If I had the 35 1.4 i would have used it! Actually, I would have used the 50 1.4 if I could have, but it was in the shop sadly. Anyway, as I said, that photo was totally unedited. I always correct for distortion and whatnot before I deliver, if it needs it.

I may get myself a 35 f2 if i feel it would benefit me, and if the wife doesn't find out!

 

[Jettatore]

You only have 1 body, although it's a very nice one. Your 70-200 f/4 IS is very nice for your intended purposes, and it's lighter weight vs. 2.8 versions should be appreciated on a long days shoot so long as you get the shots you need out of it, which you should be able to. What I would do is rent. Rent a 2nd body, and 1 or 2 lenses and perhaps a second flash. You will need two CF cards for this. Keeps costs down, + you can figure in the price of renting in your event contract pricing. I wouldn't rent 2 lenses in the same focal range as to worry about which is better during an event. Just rent the 24-70 2.8 and a second body/flash and try that. Next event rent something slightly different. Rental prices are crazy good. My estimates put that for any one piece of equipment you rent, that if you were to rent it between 20 and 30 times, you could have owned it. But that is not bad at all. If you are really good with the flash I think you can get away with pretty much any good lens and wouldn't stress about it too much.

 

[brando72]

Thanks for the great suggestion!

 

[RLPhoto]

Go with cheap lenses like the 55-250 or the 50mm 1.8. Your shooting at tiny apertures and they will produce sharp pictures at those apertures. Do not stop down too small either or diffraction will rob your sharpness also.

 

[Chris Burch]

I have a 5D2 and most of the lenses you mention -- mostly shoot events and weddings. I rarely pull out my 16-35mm unless I have a very wide group to shoot. You'll get significant distortion on the edges as someone mentioned. You'll also get some distortion at wide end of the 28-70mm. I would venture to guess that the 16-35 is probably better at controlling distortion at 24mm than then 28-70mm is since it's right in the middle of the range on one lens and at the widest end on the other. If you were shooting with a crop sensor it might make more sense to use the 16-35, but it's quite wide on a full frame. My 28-70 is what I use about 90% of the time when I shoot events. It's also my least favorite lens quality wise, so I cannot wait for the version II to come out.

Then there's the 24-105mm. I LOVE the zoom range of this lens, but alas there are issues. I just got one with my 5D3 kit and have only used it for video so far. The image stabilization has never had much appeal for me in still photos since I always shoot faster than 1/60 anyway when people are involved. It's very useful in video shooting, though. If you shoot a lot of natural light photos, you'll miss the wider apertures with this lens. One really disappointing feature that I didn't know about before I got it...it's a varifocal zoom, which means the focus will shift as you zoom -- my other L series lens are all parfocal and retain focus across the zoom range. In stills...not a big deal since you can just adjust your shooting method to lock focus after zoom. On video however, it's really hard to zoom and pull focus at the same time, unless of course you happen to have a 3rd hand. I was very psyched about the IS on this lens for use with video, but the varifocal discovery was a big letdown. There aren't really any better options in that zoom range with IS though unless I go to a non-Canon lens.

So I guess my advice would be to either get the 24-70 f/2.8L for best all around, or get the 24-105 + a fast prime (50 or 35mm).

 

[AJ]

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

The two main options are 24-105/4 IS and 24-70/2.8. These lenses have the range of focal lengths that you need for weddings, where you need to work quickly and compose quickly. Which one of these to choose is one of the most debated questions on photography forums. If you're not sure, rent them both, go out shooting for a day, and choose the one you like the best.

The newly announced Tamron 24-70/2.8 USD VC adds yet another option. From the samples published on the net so far, it looks like it'll be a good lens.

 

[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.