Ques for Wedding Photographers

[shachr6]

Ok I am going to buy a lens. Either the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS or the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR DI II (IF). Which one would you reccomed??? Will the IS help that much more in a Wedding?? The main reason I am thinking about the Tamron is because that the Canon has been know for getting dust in the lens and I am worried about that. I mean to spend $1200 on a lens that gets dust in it, or is it worth it????
Please help!!!!

 

[Big Mike]

I haven't read about dust being a problem for that lens...but I guess it's possible. My guess is that a few photographers may have had a problem and are complaining very loudly. A lot of people compare everything to the top of the line, Canon L lenses...and anything that isn't up to par, is considered crap.

Typically, wedding photography isn't as dirty or gritty as say, photojournalism...so you could probably get by with a lens that isn't sealed up like a drum.

I'm not sure that the Tamron is any better than the Canon, in terms of build quality etc. If you really are concerned about that, get the Canon 16-35mm F2.8 L or the 17-40 F4 L.

 

[shachr6]

Here is the dust problem I am talking about
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=220527&highlight=canon+17-55mm+dust

 

[Big Mike]

I must have missed that thread, it looks like a fair number of people are having problems with dust but I didn't see that it was affecting image quality...granted, I only read the first few pages.

That is a rather expensive lens and I can see why you would be hesitant to drop the cash for it.

Maybe the Tamron is a better option, it's less than half the price and it's a great lens in it's own right.

IS is a great feature but it's most useful when shooting with longer focal lengths. On a short lens like this, it's more of a bonus than a necessity.

Nobody can make the decision for you. All I can say is that I went with the Tamron because of the price and I'm very happy with it.

You could also consider, the lenses I mentioned above or the Sigma 18-50 F2.8

 

[darich]

Any lens that has to be removed from the camera must surely be prone to picking up some dust. In that respect i can't see how any one lens could be better than another.

I've got 2 L lenses and never had an undue amount of dust on them. Of course I've had some but it's nothing i'd consider excessive or more than any other lens.

You don't say what camera you have but if your budget is $1200 then i'd recommend the 24-70 f2.8 L from Canon. Fast aperture for low light and a good focal range. You may consider 24-70 too long if you have a DSLR with a crop factor having shot a wedding with a Canon 20D and that lens i never found myself wishing for anything wider.
In fact my mate who shot it with me actually used my 70-200 for a few shots. He owns a 17-40 f4 and that was used for a few but i never found myself wishing i could go wider.

 

[Big Mike]

Any lens that has to be removed from the camera must surely be prone to picking up some dust. In that respect i can't see how any one lens could be better than another.

It's not an issue of dust in the camera or on the rear element of the lens...it's dust inside the lens...where it can't be cleaned without dis-assembly.

The 24-70 F2.8 L is certainly a fantastic lens, and is/was the workhorse of the wedding industry...but the O.P. is working with a 1.6 crop camera.

 

[shachr6]

Yeah I do have a 1.6 crop camera, so I thought that wouldent be wide enough?

 

[EOS_JD]

Canon all the way....... IS is wonderful.

The dust, IF you get any, and that's a big IF, will not affect your images.

 

[thebeginning]

IMO that IS would be very helpful. if you have the extra money to spend, i'd get the canon...faster AF, slightly sharper (that 17-55 is EXTREMELY sharp), slightly better build quality, and of course IS.

however, the tammy is still fantastic.

 

[newrmdmike]

i agree with big mike about the l series . . . and with dan about the is, there are a lot of shots i could take alot quicker at locations with low light, while during the wedding i would prolly use my speedlight if needed, while doing portraits etc i would much rather use available light.

wow that got off topic maybe a little, the point i was trying to make is that is can save your butt from a would be blurred image, and allow you to shoot where you previously couldn't without a high iso or tripod

 

[RVsForFun]

...without an IS lens will mess up far more photos than having a little dust in the lens.

 

[JIP]

If you can afford it buy the Canon. Aftermarket lenses, Sigma, Tamron, etc... are a way to save money when buying a lens the brand name is always going to be a better choice.

 

[Big Mike]

If you can afford it buy the Canon. Aftermarket lenses, Sigma, Tamron, etc... are a way to save money when buying a lens the brand name is always going to be a better choice.

Well, the top-of-the-line lens of the brand name is probably the best but the T.O.T.L. aftermarket lenses are probably better than most of the mid-level stuff from the manufacturer.

For example, my Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is better than any of the Canon lenses I own...but I don't have any T.O.T.L. Canon lenses.