What lens to buy?

[Elemobe]

I am going to a wedding next weekend. Of course I am taking my Canon EOS 350D (Rebel). I have the kit lens and a Canon EF70-200mm F4L.

I was thinking about getting another lens and would like some recommendations/guidance as to what lens to get that would be suitable/useful for this event.

I am in the UK and whilst we have had some wonderful bright sunny days recently, the chances are it will be wet and gray on the day (hope not, but a strong possibility). It's a big frothy wedding and they will have a professional photographer but I am looking forward to the opportunity of getting some shots to play with.

I have just spent a small fortune on an outfit to wear to this "do" so funds are presently limited, so I was thinking of a Tamron or Sigma lens.

I don't have a tripod at the moment and probably wouldn't take it with me anyway as it wouldn't match my new funky clothes:D (A tripod is on my Santa list).

Thanks for any advice.

[lexcell]

Hi Elemobe,

It depedns on what you are looking for in an additional lens. You basically cover 18-200mm with the lenses you already have. If you want something wider, the I'd look at something like the Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG or the Canon EF-S 10-22mm 3.5-4.5

If you want something that can shoot in lower light while handholding I'd look at something like the Sigma AF 24-60mm 2.8 EX DG or the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 XR DI for their wider aperture.

My first preference is sticking with Canon but, if your budget does not allow the expense, the lenses I listed above are excellent options.

[deedeeO]

Hi Linda....good luck with the wedding shots. My recommendation is to try and rent a low aperature lens....f/2.8 or lower. #1....flash is maybe not acceptable for the church wedding so having a lower f-stop will help take photos in low light conditions. But for starters to two lenses mentioned are good too. The Tamaron will give you wider range.... out of the two. But I've always stuck with Canon.

PS. If you use flash, diffuse it.....here's trick...wrap tissue paper around your flash....just as good as diffusing it....

[Elemobe]

Laurie, thank you, that is exactly what I needed to know. My gut feel is to wait and get a Canon lens, but the Sigma and Tamron prices are so tempting, but I know I will regret it in the long run.

I will do some more research and probably stick with Canon.

Thanks again

[Elemobe]

Thanks Denise. Lower aperture lens, that makes sense. This is pushing the limit of my knowledge, which is great, love to learn.

Really like the tissue idea, will definitely be trying that one - nice.

Again, a vote for sticking with Canon.

[Chuck S.]

Linda:

Another really nice lens for moderate wide angle to normal range is Canon's 17-40 mm f4L. Really fine quality.

And then, if you want to use available light only and are willing to move yourself instead of zooming, the very inexpensive Canon 50mm f1.8 II will give you nice portraits.

[deedeeO]

If you want to start out affordable, the 50mm f/1.8 is only $80.... and it makes a great portrait lens.....

[Chuck S.]

If you want to start out affordable, the 50mm f/1.8 is only $80.... and it makes a great portrait lens.....

Denise, I do believe we have convergence on this issue!:D

[Elemobe]

The reviews of the 50mm f1.8 look good and certainly at an affordable price. Seems like a very good compromise. Amazon and a couple of other places have it in stock for next day delivery as well.

[Elemobe]

No time like the present and no easier to buy than Amazon "1 click" - In other words the deed is done, I bought the 50mm f1.8. It is such an inexpensive lens and with the ability to take photos in low light, seems ideal.

Of course I will post the results here in a couple of weeks, once I am back from the wedding.

[Rusty]

Wise choice, Linda,

My #1 Xmas List item for DW is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 :)
(would love the f/1.4 but, in my opinion, not worth the $ difference)

A good quality standard lens ("good" = Canon) is probably a sharper lens than anything you get from a zoom. I think it has to do with the # of internal elements - a gearhead like lexcell can explain why I am either correct or all wet :rolleyes:

OK, you can't zoom in close. So what, do what we all did prior to the 1980s - move in closer. Hey, this gives you an excuse to act like obnoxious paparazzi -- stick your camera in peoples faces.

Rusty

PS - too bad Canon lenses are not like some laptop PCs, you could get it with a "skin" to match your dress !

[Chuck S.]

PS - too bad Canon lenses are not like some laptop PCs, you could get it with a "skin" to match your dress !

Rusty, we need to pass this along to Gary.....:D

[GaryK]

Hey.. yo... you makin' fun of my dresses??:mad::D



Linda

I had a Tamron lens that I rally liked for my Rebel.. sorry can't recall the model number .. it was an f2.8, 28-75 (or something close to that zoom range). Same one Sherry uses for her Jazz shots.
I really liked it until my camera with lens fell out of my camera bag as I slung it over my shoulder.:(
Camera survived.. lens filter mount cracked, but I still used it that day. All seemed fine.
I have stopped using it and plan to send it for repairs, but I have a feeling it will cost almost as much to repair it as replace it.. so I sit procrastinating.

[Grant]

My #1 Xmas List item for DW is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 :)
(would love the f/1.4 but, in my opinion, not worth the $ difference)


Rusty I am one of those few that own both the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and the Nikkor 50mm D f/1.4.

I purchased the faster lens for the D rating not for the increase in speed. Optically you will get the regular "Bla ... bla ... bas!" from the propeller heads but in practical shooting experience I dare you to tell the difference in the results.

--

[lexcell]

Excellent choice for low light shooting. Another use for a fast lens is when you want shallow depth of field...selective focus.
While not as versatile as a zoom, a prime lens will make you think more about your composittion.
We are all looking forward to seeing your results.

[deedeeO]

Rusty I am one of those few that own both the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and the Nikkor 50mm D f/1.4.

I purchased the faster lens for the D rating not for the increase in speed. Optically you will get the regular "Bla ... bla ... bas!" from the propeller heads but in practical shooting experience I dare you to tell the difference in the results.

--

Grant,
I'll admit....I have both the 50mm f/1.4 and the f/1.8 and I'm eyeing the f/1.2...when will this obsession stop???

[Rusty]

Grant,

I was not aware that "D" had any "rating" significance. I should probably poke around on the Nikon website more to get educated :)

The lens I want is inscribed: AF NIKKOR 50mm 1:1.8 D and B&H has it grouped in their section of lenses for film and digital cameras described as: Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens.

I am easily confused by all the cryptic code letters used so I went into my local camera store (a real store with salesclerks that know the products they are selling) and specifically confirmed that lens was suitable for use on a D50.

Laurie, I agree with your comment. It's going to be fun to use a lens like that again.

Rusty

POS - Denise, just saw your post. The obsession ends when you can find an f/1.0 :)

[lexcell]

The D in the lens name stands for Distance...it was first introduced to give the camera distance information to use in the calculation of exposures. It has gone way beyond that now and D lenses work the best with the newest cameras.

Really, any AF lens with work with your D50 but the D lenses will help you to achieve the very best results in overall exposure.

[Grant]

...when will this obsession stop???


Ah What obsession? I have three zooms that span 17mm to 200mm and all are f/2.8. I have six prim lenses, three bodies and a truck load of gear and am not sure what you mean by obsession.

--

[Grant]

Grant,

I was not aware that "D" had any "rating" significance.



As Laurie pointed out the D stands for distance.

It is the new kid on the block so to speak but carrying the D doesn't necessaraly mean it is better. The Nikkor 50D f1.8 while a great lens is slighly softer than the Nikkor 50 f1.8.

For my shooting habits the only advantages the D over a conventional lens is that it transmits distance back and up to a flash unit. This becomes invaluable if you are shooting someone further than a prominent foreground object. The flash know what the distance is therefore not fooled by the bounced light by a foreground object. Now that I think of it I am not sure how much advantage it is as I tend to use bounced flash.



POS - Denise, just saw your post. The obsession ends when you can find an f/1.0 :)



In the 1960 Canon sold rangefinder in three flavors. Canon 7, Canon 7s, and Canon 7s Type III and as an option they sold a 50mm f/0.95

--

[Elemobe]

PS - too bad Canon lenses are not like some laptop PCs, you could get it with a "skin" to match your dress !

Now there's an idea!!! :D

One of the best things I learnt at night school was not to rely on zoom, in fact we had to spend the first week not using it all, to get used to physically moving and recomposing the shot. I am now beginning to realise what a good habit this is.

Told hubby that I had bought a lens, I heard him hold his breath. I explained how I arrived at the decision to buy this particular lens........and then I told him the price, his relief was palpable;)

[Chuck S.]

Linda, you'll also be pleased at how lightweight the 50 mm lens is. Your neck will thank you.....:)

[Grant]

One of the best things I learnt at night school was not to rely on zoom, in fact we had to spend the first week not using it all, to get used to physically moving and recomposing the shot. I am now beginning to realise what a good habit this is.




The group I hangout with call it zooming with your feet.

--

[jazzfisher]

Gary,
Our Tamron is SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

But I've been searching for something faster--(Laurie-I have Pentax K10D) and need something for action in low light--that I may not necessarily be really close to. (concerts). The 2.8 isn't doing it for me--I've been looking at the Pentax limited 77mm 1.8--There aren't many lenses out there for Pentax that are 1. something, it seems. I also am considering a 50mm but then I believe I would have to do more cropping. Anybody have suggestions?

[Chuck S.]

Sherry, I think physics is starting to work against you. The longest lens made by Nikon (for instance) that has a 'one-something' f-stop is an 85 mm f/1.4. They do have a 135 mm f/2 that's obviously longer but one stop slower. Everything else as you go longer is f/2.8 or higher. Canon's line-up is remarkably similar. Oh, by the way, that Nikon 135 mm f/2 is $1075 and the 85 mm f/1.4 is $1025.

[Rusty]

Sherry,

Chuck is sure right to remind us of physics. Take it a step farther and consider what the required diameters of optical glass does to to weight as well as price...

...these are all Nikon lenses, not sure if all are still available...

300mm f/4.5 -- 2lb 3oz
300mm f/2.8 -- 5lb 8oz
300mm f/2.0 -- fifteen pounds !

Rusty

[jazzfisher]

Ok guys--no more physics--I flunked every math class I ever had.........
You have to remember I'm only 5 ft & barely 100 lbs-and I have to hand hold my camera.:rolleyes:
And I know all you Canon & Nikon people have all kinds of choices..............

[lexcell]

Sherry,
Unfortunately, there aren't alot of "fast tele" options for your Pentax. If you can't get close you want a longer lens. As Chuck has pointed out, there aren't many options in a faster than 2.8 tele that don't weigh a ton and cost the national debt to purchase.

All I could find is the 77mm 1.8 you mentioned which will give you the extra speed but not the reach.

I'm sure flash is not an option plus, it ruins the effect of concert lighting.

So, that leaves you with bumping up your ISO a bit. I would be careful not to go too high or you will have too much noise.

[jazzfisher]

Laurie,
Thank you for your reply. That's pretty much what I thought too. Flash is usually not allowed and I have bumped the iso up -but have experienced the noise factor. I guess I will just keep on with what I'm doing now.

[Chuck S.]

Sherry, are you using one of the noise reduction plug-ins like Noise Ninja or Neat Image? I haven't acquired one (can't decide which one...:o), but there are several regulars here who swear by one or the other. They're not panaceas, but they do have a significant impact on the visible noise.

[jazzfisher]

Chuck,
I use Neat Image & I like it alot --the plug in version. I didn't care for the noise ninja--but I don't remember why.............:o

[Chuck S.]

Chuck,
I use Neat Image & I like it alot --the plug in version. I didn't care for the noise ninja--but I don't remember why.............:o

Sherry, thanks for the tip. That settles it - Neat Image it is! :)

[lexcell]

I use NIK Dfine 2.0. It's awesome!!!
You can download this and the others in the previous posts for a 30 day trial before buying.

[Chuck S.]

Thank you, Laurie! So many choices......:confused:

[Elemobe]

Hi All

My new 50mm F1.8 lens arrived from Amazon 1/2 hour before I left to attend the wedding I had bought it for.

The best piece of advice I can pass on, and most of you probably already know this, do not practice with new lens "at event":o

I really like the lens, when I got the settings right, the results were good - well OK at least, but I really messed up and the majority of my pictures are not good:(

Thank goodness for Photoshop, I will be able to produce some images that I think the bridal couple will like.

With hindsight, I also realised I did in fact learn a lot. I really need to move around more to get the good shots and really consider what is in the shot. I am amazed at how many photos have something in the foreground, or side that I hadn't noticed was there.

Thank goodness they had a real photographer there;)

[Grant]

Thank goodness they had a real photographer there



As the president I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to The Club of Mitsake Making.

Years ago, in the days of film, I shot a whole wedding using ASA 125 film and had both my metering and flash set at ASA 400. What should have been a pleasant day in the darkroom turned out to a drudging 5 days of hard work. The bride never knew! Oh, I was the real photographer,

My heart does go out to you as I have been there.

--

[nkeevers]

Sherry,

Chuck is sure right to remind us of physics. Take it a step farther and consider what the required diameters of optical glass does to to weight as well as price...

...these are all Nikon lenses, not sure if all are still available...

300mm f/4.5 -- 2lb 3oz
300mm f/2.8 -- 5lb 8oz
300mm f/2.0 -- fifteen pounds !

Rusty

There is a lens that is 15 lbs!!!??? That wouldn't work for me...:eek:

[jazzfisher]

Norma,
Me neither!!! Wow! My cat (11 lbs) weights less than that & I can't hold him up for very long!:D

[Chuck S.]

I really messed up and the majority of my pictures are not good:(


With hindsight, I also realised I did in fact learn a lot. I really need to move around more to get the good shots and really consider what is in the shot. I am amazed at how many photos have something in the foreground, or side that I hadn't noticed was there.



Linda, did you shoot with available light or did you mix in flash pictures? Besides the issue which we all have, i.e., selective seeing when staring through the viewfinder, what other issues did you have with your photos that were 'not good'?

[Elemobe]

Grant, thank you, very reassuring. I have really realised the only way to learn is to take loads of pictures and make mistakes. I tend to be a bit of a perfectionist, so it has been a hard lesson. I don't think I will ever want the responsibility of being "the real photographer":)

[Elemobe]

Chuck, I tried to use natural light as much as possible and as I said before, when they worked, they worked quite well.

I did use flash, but I didn't like the effect, it tended to wash people out and gave a sort of startled appearance.

All of the shots were indoors and the pictures were either too dark, too soft or completely out of focus (hand shake?). There is one shot that when I first saw it I was embarrassed I could have taken such a bad photo. There are a bunch of glasses and bottles in the foreground, beautifully in focus and very sparkly and my subject(s) were out of focus - great example of DOF:D. However, having looked at this photo since a couple of times, I quite like it - drink, bottles and glasses sharp and sparkly with the party going on in the background - it kind of shows what it was all about.

It was slightly reassuring when the photographer asked me if I was struggling as much as he was with focusing in the light!!!!!

[jazzfisher]

Linda,
I would never want to be THE wedding photographer either--but I did it for our best friends. Just remember you only have to show them the good ones---don't show the bad ones to them-they'll never know!
I made a hard backbook for our friends & they keep it on their coffee table.

[JulieM]

There is one shot that when I first saw it I was embarrassed I could have taken such a bad photo. There are a bunch of glasses and bottles in the foreground, beautifully in focus and very sparkly and my subject(s) were out of focus - great example of DOF:D. However, having looked at this photo since a couple of times, I quite like it - drink, bottles and glasses sharp and sparkly with the party going on in the background - it kind of shows what it was all about.

Linda, you've got to post that one in the Understanding Exposure, Chapter 2 thread!

[Elemobe]

Julie, great idea!!

[lexcell]

While a fast (1.8/1.4) lens does a great job in low light, you definitely have to be aware of how shallow your DOF will be. I have a 28mm 1.4 that I use more for selective focus than I do for low light. It does a great job for low light but, I was attracted to the ability to have a single element sharp and throw the rest of the image out of focus.

It is a trade off...fast lens for low light, less DOF.

Flash...different look but allows you to use a smaller aperture.

If you can learn to balance flash with ambient light, you can control the light and have the option of more DOF. It takes some practice but, can result in great results.

Putting a flash on a bracket gives you the ability to have the flash in a more pleasing position and eliminating the direct, flat flash look.

[Grant]

Flash...different look but allows you to use a smaller aperture.

If you can learn to balance flash with ambient light, you can control the light and have the option of more DOF. It takes some practice but, can result in great results.

Putting a flash on a bracket gives you the ability to have the flash in a more pleasing position and eliminating the direct, flat flash look.

I would like to add to comments made by Laurie about the use of flash. Flash at the worst can get you that very flat "10 most wanted head" shot, but it can also be a very creative too.

1) Built in flashes tends to gives a very flat light and runs the risk of creating red eye.
2) A flash camera mounted on the camera is generally more powerful, gives a slightly more modelled effect and lessens the risk of red eye.
3) Flashes hand held take all the effects of a camera mounted flash and strengthen them as well as virtually eliminating red eye.
4) Putting a diffuser on a flash will tend to soften the the shadows.
5) Bouncing a flash can create some very realistic lighting effect and is a wonderful way to go if you have a strong enough flash and suitable walls. But be aware that coloured walls can tone you images.
6) While there is a maximum shutter speeds you are forced to go above playing with the minimum speeds can create a may creative effects.

The list can go on and on but this is just a start.

Many years ago when I did weddings I used off camera flash, Doreen would wear a white blouse and stand on the opposite side of the bride that my flash, just outside the picture. In essence she became a very unobtrusive light reflector for those dark shadows.

Remember flash units are a great creative tool and you don't have to accept the pop-up camera flash as the leading edge of creativity.

--

[Elemobe]

More things to buy!!! I will put flash bits on the list after tripod but maybe before buying anymore lenses. After all, I am in the UK and we don't always have good light (understatement!)

The wedding photographer's flash was covered in what looked like the stuff one puts on plants to protect them from frost in the winter - very technical description;)

I have gone through my pictures again, and actually I have quite a few that are OK, not great, or even good, but certainly OK. In fact, I am really going to like this lens once I have got used to it - and thanks for the comments here, it has helped.

Here is a really quick montage just to show some of the results of this lens. All these photos are straight out of the camera with absolutely no Photoshop.

The first picture is my husband, I think this is good and shows how the lens can work. The light was very soft and this was about the 3rd photo I took with this lens.

I think this baby shot is also good, nice and sharp and the background dark and completely out of focus.

The man in the hat is such a character, I think with a bit of work, will be OK. I know it is a bit out of focus.

The guy through the french doors is the groom before he got married having a quick ciggie and a pint. Nice candid shot, in focus and OK.

Hope these shots aren't too boring but thought they may have some academic interest:o

Sorry, being lazy and crammed them all onto one image, so may be a bit small, they do look a little better full size.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1sX8uOTkL7zujQ2x86HlxZO9kDR1y_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1sX8uOTkL7zujQ2x86HlxZO9kDR1y)