If you could only have 2 lenses for a wedding...

[Rofflesaurrr]

My friend is getting married on the 13th. He's having a girl with an entry level crop body do some photographs. I'm also going to be helping out. I'm interested in switching to Canon, so I figured it would be a good time to try out a body before purchasing. As I'm not the Primary photographer, there's isn't any pressure. I've used a Nikon D300s, D80, and D70 in the past.

I'm going to be renting a 5D Mark III, BG-E11, and a 600EX-RT.
The church is fairly big and well lit, so I was thinking of using a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS for the ceremony, and a 35mm f/1.4L L for the reception.

The last reception I did, I used a 17-50 f/2.8 and I was wishing it was faster. I was thinking a 35mm on a full frame should be sufficiently wide.

Any suggestions or recommendations?

 

[beckstoy]

I've been shooting weddings for several years now, and the lenses I end up using THE MOST, without question, are my f4 24-105mm and my f1.4 50mm.

Fast focusing, wide working range (with the 24-105mm vs the 24-70mm, the additional reach is irreplaceable) and the DOF options provided by the 50mm.

I shoot on the 5DM3, and that camera works great in low light with those lenses. I used to use the 24-70mm on my 40D in order to be able to shoot in the lower light that the f2.8 allows, but the f4 is plenty for the 5DM3.

Oh, and you might not find the 35mm wide enough, even on the FF which you'll be using. The low end of the 24-105mm is plenty wide for those large family shots. Much wider and you start to have to worry about distortions on the sides. 24mm on a FF will blow your mind!

...that's my two cents... =)

 

[SJTstudios]

#1: a canon 24-70 mk ii, for the versatility and speed

#2: canon 85 1.2 L ii/my 100mm 2.8 L/canon 135 f2 for extra length, and the bokeh telephoto capabilities.

 

[Cptn Rigo]

#1: a canon 24-70 mk ii, for the versatility and speed

#2: canon 85 1.2 L ii/my 100mm 2.8 L/canon 135 f2 for extra length, and the bokeh telephoto capabilities.

I use exactly the same, 24-70 and 135

 

[CharlieB]

Two bodies, FF, 5d2 or better (or 6D or better... when its finally out)

35/1.4L
50/1.4usm

thats it

All I need to do at a wedding, I can do with that. Give me a good strobe with a small to medium softbox, I'm set

 

[Mooose]

8-16mm fisheye and a 600 f4. but that's just me.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

If it's just two lenses, then a standard zoom (24-70 or 24-105, your preference) and a telephoto zoom (70-200) is going to be your best bet. That's especially true since you don't have enough experience to know what you're doing; the versatility of the zoom will probably be a blessing for you.

No matter what you do, it'd be silly to not have the Shorty McForty (or at least the Plastic Fantastic) in your pocket. It's just too good and too small a lens to not have as backup.

If you were going to do a wedding with just two primes, you'd want a 35 and an 85.

More commonly, you'd have one of the holy trinities. 35/50/85 is the classic. 24/50/100 can work well. Some might like 35/85/135.

(Of course, all these focal length suggestions assume full frame. Adjust accordingly for crop.)

However, I wouldn't at all recommend doing a wedding with only primes until after you've done enough weddings with zooms to know what you're doing.

The ideal setup for a novice wedding photographer would be the holy trinity of zooms (either 16-35 or 12-24, depending on availability, plus standard and telephoto) plus a holy trinity of primes (pick any) with two bodies. You'd keep the standard zoom on one body, the telephoto on the other body, and only swap those out with one of the other lenses when you had a specific need to do so. That'll give you enough backup equipment to laugh in the face of disaster; enough options to cover any unexpected situation you might run into; and only be moderately burdensome.

Of course, it'll set you back five figures....

Cheers,

b&

 

[sovietdoc]

24-70 ii f/2.8
70-200 ii f/2.8

 

[bdunbar79]

If you could ONLY have two lenses, I've done enough events to go for the 24-70L II and the 70-200L II IS. There's nothing I couldn't cover, and cover well. I think bringing two cameras though, you could have two primes, but for flexibility these two zooms perform better than a lot of primes in those focal lengths.

Only two primes? Hmmm. My shooting style would warrant a 50 and a 135.

 

[Bob Howland]

24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8

You stated that you last used a 17-50 f/2.8 and wished it was faster. That means you were using a crop body. The 5D3 yields amazingly good images at ISO 12800, so f/2.8 zooms will probably suffice this time.

 

[kev8d]

Videographer here, but I work with dozens of photographers shooting weddings every year.

Lots of photographers get away with only two lenses: 24-70 and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

I've also seen a few shoot exclusively with primes: 35 f1/.4, 50 f/1.2, 135 f/2.

If had to do it with primes, I'd choose the 35 f/1.4 and the 135 f/2.

 

[Nishi Drew]

I've shot with a 70-200, 50 1.4 and 10-20 on a crop body. Decided I'll go FF so I was thinking a 70-200 and 35 prime would work well. I've read others referring to that set "the ultimate combo". Considering too that the 70-200 is both versatile, fast enough, and has stabilization that helps when you get tired after hours of running around with it~

 

[dpollitt]

You can't go wrong with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII at a wedding. It is one of the most used by far. Very versatile for the ceremony and reception. To pair with that, you either would want the 24-70mm as a zoom, or probably 2 primes like the 35L, 50L, 85L, or 135L.

So if you are really limited to 2 lenses, I would do:

• 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII
• 24-70mm f/2.8 mkII

 

[sb]

I'll do one better - if I only had 1 lens for a wedding it would be 35mm 1.4. In fact even if you give me all the lenses I can carry, I'll still use 35mm 85% of the time

 

[rpt]

If all you are going to do is center point AF and reframe I guess you may be ok. If you plan on using any other features, plan to rent it for a few days to get used to it. My 2c...

 

[Menace]

Just shot a wedding last weekend; approx 80% of the shots were with 70-200 2.8 IS II, 15% with 50L 1.2 and 5% with 24-105.
Alo, Ex 580 II with external battery pack - worked like a charm

 

[Quackator]

The 24-105 is my major workhorse, and I love adding the 1.8/200 to that.
Two lenses, there.

As far as primes are considered, I don't like the bokeh of the 1.4/35mm, would either
recommend to wait what the MkII version will be like, or grab the 1.4/24mm MkII instead.
That's far more pleasing in it's bokeh.

I have the 1.2/85, and while this is a good lens, it is also a diva.
Buying again from scratch I'd rather buy the 1.8/85 AND the 2/135mm
instead. And still save money.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

16-35, 70-200.

You can go wide for large groups in tight spaces, and close for intimate portraits.

 

[jpollackphoto]

I shoot weddings with two primary lenses, my 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I may use the 16-35 f/2.8 II if I need a wider group shot or if the space is extremely large, but I use that lens primarily for architectural photography. I've found that f/2.8 is plenty fast as long as I have - or create - sufficient light; I wouldn't want to attempt shooting a wedding without several flashes and lots of extra batteries.

Jonathan
jpollackphoto.com

 

[se_photo]

This is second post I've read in as many days where a wedding guest/ friend/ relative is planning to show up and help photograph a wedding (sometimes with a bag full of pro gear)- and they aren't the official photographer. As a professional wedding photographer for 10 years, nothing makes me groan more. Please, please, please if you want to be the photographer for someone's event, ask them or if they ask you, take on the whole job. I feel badly already for the official photographer at this wedding- god forbid she only has a crop camera. If you perceive this photographer as less than 100%, it's not your job to show up and prove it with rented gear. Your friend hired her- period. They will live with the good, bad, and ugly of their choice. Do they have twenty pizzas showing up in case the prime rib sucks? I doubt it. I know people enjoy photography as a hobby and there are some very good hobbyists out there. It's fun to rent gear and it's fun to shoot when there's no pressure. The official photographer doesn't have these luxuries. Want to know a secret? Being a professional wedding photographer has little to do with cameras at all. It's smiling, putting a nervous bride at ease, coordinating a drunken bridal party of 14 into a photograph, taking photos with a dozen iphones over your shoulder competing for your subjects' attention, chatting gear with hobbyists without wasting time or missing shots, it's projecting confidence, being well groomed, being in the room when something happens, staying on your feet for 10 hours with two heavy cameras weighing you down, it's getting a club sandwich while guests get surf and turf. It's downloading, backing up, editing for hours, album design and redesign and redesign. it's paying an assistant, business insurance, marketing, payroll, taxes galore, equipment repairs and maybe myself. We do it all for that little rush of composing a photo and making people smile and swoon when they enjoy your artistry. We do it because we can't do anything else. So go, have fun, take photos, just show some respect and understanding for what the "official" photographer has on their plate. Sorry, I had to vent a little- or a lot. To play along nicely, I'll add that I use a 16-35 LII and a 50 1.2 or 85 1.8. I really wish they made a 65 1.4 or a 50-80 1.8 zoom- that would be sweet.