Prime Lens choice for Wedding Photography

[andrew050703]

Before I start I should say "I'm not a pro" - I have little intention of becoming a full-time wedding photographer; having said that, I enjoy taking pictures at weddings & want to avoid using 1600ISO.

My question is: What prime lens should I get for church interior wedding shots for the ceremony etc. I have limited budget so it'd have to be either

Canon 50mm f/1.4, or
Canon 85mm f/1.8 (no I can't afford the 1.2 versions)

(having said that, I haven't ruled out third parties - just haven't looked)

I have a 40D (XTi?) so get the 1.6x crop; but don't know which holds up better for low light/focusing/sharpness etc. My local shop didn't have either instore so I can't compare. I'd welcome any experiences with either.

The main thing I want to avoid is having to be in someone's face to get the shot, or using a flash during the ceremony

[BCains]

IMO an ideal lens would be the Canon 24-70 2.8 L

Another option is the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8

[peskaa]

I'd head for the 50/1.4 personally. I used to have one until I upgraded to the /1.2L, and it was lovely.

[Scarlet Fever]

the 85mm will give you more reach (being a ~130mm equivalent), and I've heard its a bit sharper wide open. You'll have to stand quite far back if you want to do group photos, though.

I took some pics for my cousins wedding, and the 50mm was a brilliant portrait lens for the couple when I was standing a couple of metres back, but it was fairly useless when groups of 5 or 6 got together. The 85mm can only make this situation worse.

Also, the xxD series have always been known by their number; a 40D is a 40D, no matter where in the world you are. The xxxD series, however, have different names in America to the rest of the world. An XTi in the States is a 400D in Europe and Australia (I'm not sure about the other continents).

XT - 350D
XTi - 400D
XSi - 450D

IMO an ideal lens would be the Canon 24-70 2.8 L

Another option is the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8

See Post #1;

I have limited budget

A lens retailing for about USD$1300 isn't for someone with a limited budget. It's an awesome lens, but not cheap.

[ChrisBrightwell]

On a crop body, I'd go with the 50/1.4, myself.

For what it's worth, the guy who shot my wedding used an 85/1.2 on a 1D ... The 50/1.4 on a crop body roughly approximates that.

If money were no object, I'd shoot matching 5DII bodies with a 24-70/2.8 on one, a 70-200/2.8 on the other, and a few L primes in the bag. :cool:

[BCains]

See Post #1;

A lens retailing for about USD$1300 isn't for someone with a limited budget. It's an awesome lens, but not cheap.

Yeah i realize that, hence the Tamron 17-50mm recommendation. :)

The 85mm is a great lens, but wouldn't ideal as your only lens
especially for group shots/ scenery etc.

What is your budget?

[neutrino23]

Why do you ask for a prime lens? If you use a single prime lens you will always be missing out on something. Either you need to carry a couple of primes or an expensive zoom.

If you are shooting indoors it is almost always too dark for the usual f/4 zoom lenses. You can use a tripod and longer exposures (which works great) but people tend to move leading to blurred images.

I think you'll need to get either a couple of fast primes or maybe one fast prime and a slower zoom and a good tripod.

One other prime to consider:
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens.

[OreoCookie]

That's a question of focal length, not IQ. I'd just look at the pictures you've taken in the past and see which focal length you prefer. To get the same shot with 50 mm, you have to be very close to `the action.'

[andrew050703]

Why do you ask for a prime lens? If you use a single prime lens you will always be missing out on something. Either you need to carry a couple of primes or an expensive zoom.

Well a zoom lens would be useful but I'm not sure if the 24-70L/70-200L f/2.8s will cope with the light (I'll be shooting in quite an old cathedral) - that's why I wanted the maximum aperture possible to buy. I'd have to hire the zoom lenses if they would cope as I haven't got £1000+ to spend.

[lazydog]

Hi
I was asked to do a friends wedding a couple of months back. They didn't want a pro and were happy for me to give it my best shot. Some time ago I went for a Canon 350D and the best lens I could afford at the time - a 135L f2. For the wedding I knew I needed something a bit wider so went for the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. My experience was that the two lenses covered what I wanted but the big downer was having to work with one body - switching lenses was a real pain and tricky under pressure! Having a friend help will make a big difference but I guess if you've only got 1 body a zoom might be better.

The Sigma handled the indoor lighting of the church very well without a flash, but the problem I had was focus which was tricky to get right. I would probably put it down to my inexperience and in better hands I'm sure it would produce better results. When comparing the two lenses, the Canon 135L outperforms the Sigma and is my favorite lens. It really came into it's own outside the church for the general shots as I could snap away from a distance without getting in anyones way. For group shots etc the Sigma was great. Together I think they make a good combination.

hope this helps

b e n

[jessica.]

Churches usually frown on flashes so the investment in the 50mm 1.2 is probably quite crucial. The 1.8 is completely out of the question. Understand the 50mm is not a lens you'd use for group shots. You'll want something wider to be able to shoot close enough to see the faces but far enough to allow room for all bodies. There is no room for screw ups here.

With a 50mm you won't need to be in their faces, again flashes aren't really an option anyway.

I wouldn't sacrifice not getting the shot at someone's wedding for price. You'll make that money up in the long run (or with one wedding if you're actually any good).

[jampat]

Renting lenses is pretty cheap. About $20 per $1000 of lenses per day. If it is just a one time thing, rent. This way you can see what works for you if you decide to invest in the future.

[ChrisBrightwell]

Churches usually frown on flashes so the investment in the 50mm 1.2 is probably quite crucial.

The razor-thin DOF @ f/1.2 is almost useless for portraits and f/1.2 itself is usually overkill in any reasonable lighting.

[rouxeny]

Agree with the above comment on DOF. I have a 50/1.4 and often find myself shooting at 1.4 because of inadequate lighting. I get the exposure right, but the DOF is so narrow that unless I've focussed perfectly, invariably something that I don't want out of focus, is. For portraints, 1.4 is pretty narrow, at close ranges, you'll get eyes, but not nose in focus.