Wedding lenses

[Alphoto]

Looking for a low cost lens for shooting a wedding, can't afford the "L" lenses. I'm purchasing a canon 7d used and need a good lens that fits it.

[ScottyP]

What lenses, if any, do you already have?

[Alphoto]

 I have a 28-135 canon and a 28-105 canon both 3.5

[ebiggs1]

You already have the best buy in a Canon lens with the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens.  For price to performance it can't be beat.  That is the lens you want to use.  I have had three of them over the years!   The 28-105mm not so much.  You can sell it and get something else. Perhaps a flash or tripod.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

You already have the best buy in a Canon lens with the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens.  For price to performance it can't be beat.  That is the lens you want to use.  I have had three of them over the years!   The 28-105mm not so much.  You can sell it and get something else. Perhaps a flash or tripod.

---

My wife has the 28-135, and I have the 28-105. I never use mine; she uses hers occasionally. I think they're both pretty good lenses, considering how old they are. What makes the 28-135 preferable is IS and the extra 30 mm of reach.

That said, I don't see either one of them as a wedding lens. For weddings, you need a lens that you can use at the long end indoors, and f/5.6 isn't going to cut it on any camera the OP is likely to have. At any wedding, you're going to encounter situations where flash is impractical or not allowed and a fast lens is critical.

Of course it depends on what kind of wedding photography is contemplated. If all you're doing is taking some pictures as a favor to the B&G, that's one thing. If you're going to pose as an actual wedding photographer, that's quite another. Twenty-five years later, my wife still dreams of wringing the neck of the guy who photographed our daughter's wedding. And he claimed to be a wedding professional!

[ebiggs1]

"That said, I don't see either one of them as a wedding lens."

Hmmm, I guess I missed that as we used them for the last 25 years or so for weddings!  Actually to the tune of having three of them !

It was the first Canon lens to offer IS.  Yes, it is the first try at IS and the newer versions are much better but it still works just fine.

"... my wife still dreams of wringing the neck of the guy who photographed our daughter's wedding."

And the problem was the 28-135mm?  Wow, must have been a bad copy.  Now if it was the 28-105mm I can understand.   It is not nearly as good.  It has been redone three times I believe and they still didn't get it right.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"That said, I don't see either one of them as a wedding lens."

Hmmm, I guess I missed that as we used them for the last 25 years or so for weddings!  Actually to the tune of having three of them !

It was the first Canon lens to offer IS.  Yes, it is the first try at IS and the newer versions are much better but it still works just fine.

"... my wife still dreams of wringing the neck of the guy who photographed our daughter's wedding."

And the problem was the 28-135mm?  Wow, must have been a bad copy.  Now if it was the 28-105mm I can understand.   It is not nearly as good.  It has been redone three times I believe and they still didn't get it right.

---

No, no, it wasn't the lens. And certainly not that lens. When my daughter got married, we were still comfortably mired in the film era. The problem was that the photographer, from a moderately well known Boston-area firm, had a preference for "soft focus" images, which meant that everything he took was slightly OOF. I guess it was a fad of the times, which thankfully seems to have run its course. (An irritatingly similar fad in today's world is photographing flowing water with a slow shutter speed, so that it looks blurry.)

[ebiggs1]

... and/or the extreme over-exposure.  That's about all my niece shoots anymore.  But she is making a living so who am I to say.  The younger folks now what is in I guess. 

[kvbarkley]

Or all his lenses were smeared with Vaseline!

[ScottyP]

I don't know your budget, nor whether this is a one time favor or something you will do repeatedly. In any event you have a zoom lens, albeit not a fast/bright one. You would benefit from having a larger aperture lens for indoor shots no matter what you do.  

1.). Look for an EF-s 17-55 f/2.8. Try used if your budget is tight. Yes, you already have the focal length covered with your other zoom, but f/2.8 lets FOUR TIMES more light in than the f/5.6 end of your existing lens. That means 4x the shutter speed is possible at any given ISO.  This will keep you from having to shoot at ISO levels that look like garbage.  It is also a very sharp lens. 

Or.....

2.). Try an even brighter prime lens as a supplement to your existing lenses.  For just $125 you could get the new improved STM version of the EF 50mm f/1.8.  Either that lens or a 35mm lens or some other 50mm would be useful lengths and would give you between 2x and 4x the light you get from the bright 17-55 above.  

I always hate to see someone who already has one, or even two, broad range all-in-one consumer zoom lenses buy yet another one when they have no large aperture bright/fast lenses in their bag.  Especially if you have no fast lenses at all, buying your first one will make a dramatic difference in what you are able to shoot and in the quality of your results.  Not only in the low light shots, but also in the ability to use narrow depth of field to isolate subjects and blur out distracting backgrounds.