Wedding Lenses

Z

z101

Suspended / Banned
Messages
195
Edit My Images
No
Hello everyone,

Just looking for a bit of advise. Just before I start Im not new to photography just breaking into the wedding market (semi-pro). I have done a handful all ready and I and the party were very pleased. The only thing I wasn't really happy with with the equipment I was using, namely the lens. I was using the kit lens 18-55mm f4.5.-5.6.

Using this was fine for outdoor shots etc but inside the church and at the dancing part when the light wasn't on my side I needed something with a lower aperture maybe f2.8. Which would save lots of editing time afterwards brightening the photos.

Im looking for your opinions on my best option buy/rent, I would have use for the lens after as I do nightclub photos from time to time etc. But I don't have an unlimited budget, unfortunately. I am only starting off. I would really only be willing to spend around the £250 mark max.

I'd like to know your thoughts :)
Thanks
 
If thats your max budget its only one good option lens wise and thats the tamron 17-50 f2.8. If you buy used you might have enough for a £50 yongnuo yn-465 flashgun too. Thats all i used for a wedding in the summer.
 
Last edited:
+1 for the tamron 17-50 on DX. It's about the best lens you'll get for that money. It was on my old D200 and D90 bodies 99% of the time. I shot a wedding with it, numerous gigs and portrait sessions. Never let me down.
 
If you're serious about doing it and doing it right then you'll need more than £250:-/ Is a loan an option?

Have you got 2 camera bodies? Have you enough memory cards? Have you got all the processing software you'll need?
 
rjbell said:
If thats your max budget its only one good option lens wise and thats the tamron 17-50 f2.8. If you buy used you might have enough for a £50 yongnuo yn-465 flashgun too. Thats all i used for a wedding in the summer.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the recommendation, that lens looks great, I have a 50mm f1.8 prime lens which annoys me because its stuck on the 50mm. So that seems like a good solution. Those shots look great, especially 2 & 3, love the black and white ones. :) But see No.1 mine were a little darker than that in the church which is the reason for the upgrade. Oh I have a flashgun, its a Canon 430Ex. So I am sorted on the flash front :) And for the day I can borrow a 580EX too.

Cagey75 said:
+1 for the tamron 17-50 on DX. It's about the best lens you'll get for that money. It was on my old D200 and D90 bodies 99% of the time. I shot a wedding with it, numerous gigs and portrait sessions. Never let me down.
Click to expand...

Yeah from both yourself and rjbell's reviews on it, it seems great and just what I'd want. :) Thanks :)

decigallen said:
If you're serious about doing it and doing it right then you'll need more than £250:-/ Is a loan an option?

Have you got 2 camera bodies? Have you enough memory cards? Have you got all the processing software you'll need?
Click to expand...

Yeah of course long term a £250 lens wouldn't do and shooting a high volume of weddings one could afford this but I'm just starting off. I won't be doing many weddings anytime soon. At the moment I am not advertising myself, just doing weddings I am asked to d by people I know. Its a way of building experience and a portfolio before really starting up. So I am not willing to spend more than my budget, wouldn't be practical for the few I'm doing in the next year or so. :)

Ya, I'm sorted for the rest, 2 bodies, plenty memory and photoshop, light-room and so on. :)
 
Cool! You should really look into hiring gear if you're not doing many weddings. That's how I started out doing them. Hiring great gear, getting used to it, then committing to buy stuff I really wanted. I'd never have thought 4 years ago that I'd be shooting weddings using nothing but primes but that's what I do now cos I found that it worked for me:)
 
decigallen said:
Cool! You should really look into hiring gear if you're not doing many weddings. That's how I started out doing them. Hiring great gear, getting used to it, then committing to buy stuff I really wanted. I'd never have thought 4 years ago that I'd be shooting weddings using nothing but primes but that's what I do now cos I found that it worked for me:)
Click to expand...

Yes there's nothing wrong with primes but I only have 1 50mm one so its no good for group shots, I'd need something much lower. As a matter of interest, does changing lenses ever become a problem? Im guessing you have 2 camera's with a different prime on each but after that is it not awkward?
 
If you get the Tamron, get the non VC. Not to save money, but the non VC is better. Less front/rear focussing issues and comparatively sharper...
Another body is highly recommended, as its risky with one...
 
sultanofswing said:
If you get the Tamron, get the non VC. Not to save money, but the non VC is better. Less front/rear focussing issues and comparatively sharper...
Another body is highly recommended, as its risky with one...
Click to expand...

Thanks, that will really save me money and thanks for the heads up re the sharpness. Agreed! I have a back up myself and I will be borrowing a back up flash for the day :)

This Tamron seems quite popular for those on a budget, so far there has been no opposition lenses.


Thanks for the help so far everyone! :)
 
z101 said:
Yes there's nothing wrong with primes but I only have 1 50mm one so its no good for group shots, I'd need something much lower. As a matter of interest, does changing lenses ever become a problem? Im guessing you have 2 camera's with a different prime on each but after that is it not awkward?
Click to expand...

Yup you guessed right! One camera carries a 85mm all day. The other has a 35mm or 24mm depending on location. If i'm changing over a lens its generally when i've changed scenes. I rarely use anything other than those 3 lenses at a wedding.

I'm not a prime snob though. They just work better for me, and its not just because of the wider apertures as I spend as much time at F8 as I do at F1.4. I like being limited to the fixed focal length. Makes me move about more to find my shot.

I've never felt like i've missed anything having only those two lenses on. But yeah, as you say, a 50mm on its own simply wouldn't do...
 
z101 said:
Thanks, that will really save me money and thanks for the heads up re the sharpness. Agreed! I have a back up myself and I will be borrowing a back up flash for the day :)

This Tamron seems quite popular for those on a budget, so far there has been no opposition lenses.


Thanks for the help so far everyone! :)
Click to expand...

On your budget there is nothing else as fast and as good.
 
rjbell said:
On your budget there is nothing else as fast and as good.
Click to expand...

That would explain it!

decigallen said:
Yup you guessed right! One camera carries a 85mm all day. The other has a 35mm or 24mm depending on location. If i'm changing over a lens its generally when i've changed scenes. I rarely use anything other than those 3 lenses at a wedding.

I'm not a prime snob though. They just work better for me, and its not just because of the wider apertures as I spend as much time at F8 as I do at F1.4. I like being limited to the fixed focal length. Makes me move about more to find my shot.

I've never felt like i've missed anything having only those two lenses on. But yeah, as you say, a 50mm on its own simply wouldn't do...
Click to expand...

Interesting, never heard anyone else doing it. :)
 
If you are on DX then you should swap your 50mm for a 35mm. At the moment your 50mm is effectively 75mm which is fine for portraits but the 35mm (50mm effective) will give you much more flexibility.

Agree with what others have said, get the 17-50 f/2.8
 
I should've said, my cams are FX. A 35 and 85 combo wouldn't work for me if I shot DX.
 
gadgeteer said:
If you are on DX then you should swap your 50mm for a 35mm. At the moment your 50mm is effectively 75mm which is fine for portraits but the 35mm (50mm effective) will give you much more flexibility.

Agree with what others have said, get the 17-50 f/2.8
Click to expand...

I have a 60d so it's dx, ya that's a good point. But really I think the 17-50 is a better option, it's more flexible and I think I'd get more use out of it. I'm hoping to get one second hand but they are not too plenty full on eBay.

decigallen said:
I should've said, my cams are FX. A 35 and 85 combo wouldn't work for me if I shot DX.
Click to expand...

Of course, that makes more sense.




Just want to ask all ye Tamron 17-50 f2.8, if you think the quality is good. And also to zoom in do you twist anti clockwise, like Canon or clockwise like a sigma?
I'm so used to Canon lenses.
Thanks
 
As far as I can remember, mine was clockwise, on Nikon.

I used it at a gig once, and another photographer swapped her Nikon 17-55 with me for a few shots. I had to check the data on the images when I got home to see which was which. If that's anything to go by. The Nikon 17-55 is considered to be one of the best short zooms money can buy for DX.
 
When you are used to one way its hard to change! :P Ah well, I'll get used to it! :) Thanks guys!
 
Hello again, just an update for you all, I bit the bullet and purchased the lens new. I found that the difference between new vs second hand was too little and with all things considered I bought the new one. With out stabilization that is. So I want to take this opportunity to thank you all so much for your help, I really appreciate it. You each put so much effort into your highly informative posts so again, thank you for this. I will let you know what I think of the lens once it arrives, I'm sure I will love it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top