Lens Recommendation For Wedding (Please Help)

[07Vios]

I'll let Tyler and Robin settle this one, they have the experience.

Tyler, why the 35 over the 24-70?

The 35 is a 2.0 and the 24-70 is a 2.8. 35 is great in low light and a great prime would be nice, but there will be distortion.

Gonna go out on a limb and say the 35mm Tyler was referring to is the f1.4 version.

 

[kathyt]

I'll let Tyler and Robin settle this one, they have the experience.

Tyler, why the 35 over the 24-70?

The 35 is a 2.0 and the 24-70 is a 2.8. 35 is great in low light and a great prime would be nice, but there will be distortion.

Gonna go out on a limb and say the 35mm Tyler was referring to is the f1.4 version.

Sorry about that. I meant 1.4. I shot too much on the 135 today. I have 2.0 on the brain.

 

[07Vios]

The 35 is a 2.0 and the 24-70 is a 2.8. 35 is great in low light and a great prime would be nice, but there will be distortion.

Gonna go out on a limb and say the 35mm Tyler was referring to is the f1.4 version.

Sorry about that. I meant 1.4. I shot too much on the 135 today. I have 2.0 on the brain.

No worries, and mmmmmmmm 135L goodness.

 

[manaheim]

I've shot 12 or so weddings and the 24-70 is my all time workhorse. I use my 70-200 now and again, but the 24-70 is really the "can not live without" lens.

 

[kathyt]

I've shot 12 or so weddings and the 24-70 is my all time workhorse. I use my 70-200 now and again, but the 24-70 is really the "can not live without" lens.

I think I am just so fond of primes that it is hard for me to use a zooms very much except for the ceremony. I am sure if I was w/o primes that I would learn to love my 24-70.

 

[manaheim]

It's probably what you're used to. I like the flexibility of the zoom, though I've seen what the Nikkor 85mm 1.8 can do... suuuuuuuuuch a nice lens. However, where we're giving someone less experienced advice, I'd say the ability to zoom with the lens and not having to always rely on the feet would be a good thing. It's too easy to get backed into a wall or be too far away and not have enough time to react if you're using primes.

 

[Tony S]

OK here's my thought on this. Since you are "second" shooting you will most likely not be the one up front, up close and up personal like the primary photographer should be. So your shots are going to relegated to the out skirts of the action. For this reason I would suggest going to the 70-200 2.8. You will be sniping shots, mostly capturing the action on the sidelines of other family members and the little moments no one seems to notice. Don't tick off the main photographer by being a distraction, ask him what he would like you to get. You could be onto a good deal her with him for something later.

 

[kathyt]

OK here's my thought on this. Since you are "second" shooting you will most likely not be the one up front, up close and up personal like the primary photographer should be. So your shots are going to relegated to the out skirts of the action. For this reason I would suggest going to the 70-200 2.8. You will be sniping shots, mostly capturing the action on the sidelines of other family members and the little moments no one seems to notice. Don't tick off the main photographer by being a distraction, ask him what he would like you to get. You could be onto a good deal her with him for something later.

Those are very good points, and when I think about it my second shooter would use her 70-200 the most as well.

 

[rexbobcat]

14mm and 400mm.


Embrace the challenge!

 

[iOnDewMuch]

OK here's my thought on this. Since you are "second" shooting you will most likely not be the one up front, up close and up personal like the primary photographer should be. So your shots are going to relegated to the out skirts of the action. For this reason I would suggest going to the 70-200 2.8. You will be sniping shots, mostly capturing the action on the sidelines of other family members and the little moments no one seems to notice. Don't tick off the main photographer by being a distraction, ask him what he would like you to get. You could be onto a good deal her with him for something later.

This is exactly why I went with the 70-200mm. I didnt want to be in the way whatsoever. I appreciate all of the help!

 

[Robin_Usagani]

70-200 is too long for 7D. You will not tell a story.

 

[manaheim]

14mm and 400mm.

Embrace the challenge!

Lol

 

[kathyt]

70-200 is too long for 7D. You will not tell a story.

Oh Robin, come on now. I know you love your primes too, but you can never go wrong with a 70-200L unless you are in a really tight space. Like a box.

 

[Robin_Usagani]

70-200 is too long for 7D. You will not tell a story.

Oh Robin, come on now. I know you love your primes too, but you can never go wrong with a 70-200L unless you are in a really tight space. Like a box.

Come on... Shooting with one crop camera with 70-200 is not a good idea. Wayyyyy too long. I feel really strongly about this. Everthing will be tight and and the background will be super compressed and blurred.

 

[pixmedic]

70-200 is too long for 7D. You will not tell a story.

Oh Robin, come on now. I know you love your primes too, but you can never go wrong with a 70-200L unless you are in a really tight space. Like a box.

Come on... Shooting with one crop camera with 70-200 is not a good idea. Wayyyyy too long. I feel really strongly about this. Everthing will be tight and and the background will be super compressed and blurred.

^^agreed. for ONE lens on a crop frame i would get the 24-70L. i would recommend you get the 16-35L as well, just to have something a little wider.
unless you are shooting in a VERY large area, thats really all you should need. we shoot most of our weddings in churches, and pretty much just use a 17-50 and 28-75.
rarely do we need anything longer than that. even the last beach wedding didnt require 200mm.