70 - 200 f2.8 or 24 - 70f2.8

That's the issue. A Wedding full of head, or head and shoulder shots would be rather dull and as pointed out earlier they could be taken anywhere.

I'd disagree about a 70-200 not getting any better for candids, I don't understand why its thought that you need to be a distance away for a good candid, act like you're meant to be there and build a rapport and trust with the guests, they'll soon start behaving naturally without the need for 200mm.

70 mm is far to long for most group shots, and although you don't need to cover the entire building on every shot then the most interesting shots and the ones with a real wow factor will have context to them (for the most part).


Agreed - my earlier post said the same thing:

'I'm going to go against the grain - I don't like using a 70-200 for candids at a wedding. I find guests think they're being spied on and it's easy to lose trust. I use mine for some B&G shots when we're alone and that's it. Otherwise it's always a 50mm or 24-70. I get in close amongst the guests and work hard in there. I'm really not a fan of long distance head shots that don't show context.'

But then I don't consider myself a candid-shooter.
 
Agreed - my earlier post said the same thing:

'I'm going to go against the grain - I don't like using a 70-200 for candids at a wedding. I find guests think they're being spied on and it's easy to lose trust. I use mine for some B&G shots when we're alone and that's it. Otherwise it's always a 50mm or 24-70. I get in close amongst the guests and work hard in there. I'm really not a fan of long distance head shots that don't show context.'

But then I don't consider myself a candid-shooter.

'Candid shooter' always strikes me as one of those interesting terms. I expect Jeremy Beadle to appear at any moment :)
 
70 is not quite wide on FF its at the high end of 'normal' or the very low end of telephoto. I'm not sure crop sensors are better at events than full frame and I wonder why you think that?

The 24-105 is a great lens and very useful but f/4 is just to slow for it to be used at a wedding

Hugh

Tell that to Mark Cleghorn who uses that very lens!

I have shot virtually entire weddings one one too depending on lighting.

(Though I do have a bag full of primes too :))
 
I agree it's a bit dodgy indoors, hence I have things like the 85mm f1.8 and a 35mm f2 at hand ;)
 
its going to be a range of shooting. Mainly reportage and candid stuff. For this i thought the 70 - 200 would come in great use. Any group shots can be done with the 17 - 40.?
 
its going to be a range of shooting. Mainly reportage and candid stuff. For this i thought the 70 - 200 would come in great use. Any group shots can be done with the 17 - 40.?

Easily, between 28-40mm the lens would be sharpest in the corners.

Just for the record I have done one group photo at 200mm on 40D. It was fun. I had to go back 100m, but the bokeh was stunning!:D
 
The 24-105 is a great lens and very useful but f/4 is just to slow for it to be used at a wedding

The guy I shoot with uses a 24-105 as his main lens for weddings, and I am sorely tempted by one myself to replace my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
 
The guy I shoot with uses a 24-105 as his main lens for weddings, and I am sorely tempted by one myself to replace my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8

It's 1 stop slower AND 2.8 gives nicer bokeh....

You might be able to compensate on the stop with higher ISO but you can't stop people moving with the IS nor can you create that bokeh.
 
really would like the 70 - 200 while the prices are low but 24 - 70 is far too tempting
 
Easily, between 28-40mm the lens would be sharpest in the corners.

Just for the record I have done one group photo at 200mm on 40D. It was fun. I had to go back 100m, but the bokeh was stunning!:D

Meh, just get a 24mm 1.4L and you are sorted :p

Also....100m !!! You would have to SHOUT at the guests to look at you.
 
ha not a prime man think i have made decision with 24 - 70 wise move?
 
Back
Top