Lens for a wedding

[rlw]

Doing a favour for the family and being the unofficial photographer at a wedding in a few days time - there may be more of us but I am the official unofficial photographer.

I have a Canon 18-55mm F2.8 EF-S lens which is a quality piece of kit but bulky and heavy. Would a 50mm F1.8 offer much improvement, if any, in quality? It's the lightness which appeals to me but if there is a significant improvement to be had, for about £100, then it seems to be a sensible move.

Camera is a 7D and I will be shooting RAW and maximum megapixel setting for jpeg.

[DiscoColin]

It will probably have a slight benefit, but enough to justify another lens and possibly interrupting to switch...? Frankly you have a pretty decent piece of glass there and the versatility of the zoom will be worth more than the last few percent at 50mm IMHO. And it isn't as if you can save the weight of the other lens as you will need the wide end for group shots anyway.

[I have done much the same role a couple of times - my weapon of choice is the 7d/24-105L/580ex2 combination. I also carry the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8, but they don't get a huge amount of use when you are going for candid stuff.]

[rlw]

Thanks - thats what I thought really. £100 is a half decent meal or half a tyre (on the front anyway) so well worth not spending....

[RobDickinson]

I assume you mean the 17-55f2.8?

I find mine is sharp f2.8 and on and has great focus on the 7D. Its not realy prime sharp but then I dotn think the 50/1,8 is much sharper at 2.8, and I wouldnt use mine below 2.5 if I could help it.

I'd go with the 17-55 for convinience and not worry about shooting it at 2.8, make sure its MA adjusted to focus properly.

Take the 50/1.8 though for lower light indoor shots, even though its not super sharp at 1.8 it should be usable indoors without flash.

Make sure its MA'd too.

[rlw]

MA adjusted ?

[RobDickinson]

Yep you cn fine tune the focus of your lenses on the 7D.

Google the technique but the settins live under AF custom functions , you can register up to 20 lenses and adjust them for front/back focus.

My 50 and 17-55 needed very small adjustments but it makes quite a big difference.

[minky monkey]

Look in the manual under Micro adjustment.

Edited by minky monkey on Friday 6th August 08:26

[Simpo Two]

rlw said:

I have a Canon 18-55mm F2.8 EF-S lens which is a quality piece of kit but bulky and heavy. Would a 50mm F1.8 offer much improvement, if any, in quality? It's the lightness which appeals to me but if there is a significant improvement to be had, for about £100, then it seems to be a sensible move.

You won't be able to do much in the way of any groups or interiors with a 50mm. Hence you'll need the 17-55mm anyway, and then the 50mm is a spare part to be carried around unless you really need the faster aperture.

My main wedding lens is a 17-55mm f2.8 (Nikon); it's no problem at all, nor is the 70-200 and a Speedlight on top. You're judged by results not weight of kit so man up

[rlw]

Simpo Two said:

rlw said:

I have a Canon 18-55mm F2.8 EF-S lens which is a quality piece of kit but bulky and heavy. Would a 50mm F1.8 offer much improvement, if any, in quality? It's the lightness which appeals to me but if there is a significant improvement to be had, for about £100, then it seems to be a sensible move.

You won't be able to do much in the way of any groups or interiors with a 50mm. Hence you'll need the 17-55mm anyway, and then the 50mm is a spare part to be carried around unless you really need the faster aperture.

My main wedding lens is a 17-55mm f2.8 (Nikon); it's no problem at all, nor is the 70-200 and a Speedlight on top. You're judged by results not weight of kit so man up

I will be on duty all day, plus as my missus will not drive my car, I will not be drinking all day either. The weather forecast is predicting 31C for the wedding day and thats in the shade. Out in the sun it will be in the 40s and that is effing hot. I want to carry as little kit as possible so the lure of the 50mm is strong but I do take on board all the comments about groups etc so it will be the 17-55mm with a flashgun and bracket and a tripod. The rest of it can stay in the car out of the way - that being the 10-20mm and the 75-300mm and the other body.

Also, I will check out the fine adjustment thing which looks very interesting, if not another apology for not getting it right in the first place.

[pmanson]

I took some pictures at a friends wedding using a combination of 18-55 and 70-300 lenses.

Ideally I would have preferred to have had use of an 18-200 as I was constantly changing lenses with most pictures taken somewhere in the 18-250 range.

I have put the pictures in to a Photobook to give to the bride and groom as a wedding gift.

Edited by pmanson on Friday 6th August 12:04

[Elderly]

rlw said:

Also, I will check out the fine adjustment thing which looks very interesting,

I don't own a camera body that can calibrate a specific lens to a body, so I stand to be corrected
here, but my understanding is that if you are 'micro adjusting' for a zoom lens,
you can only optimize it for one specific focal length within its range.

If that's the case, should you optimize for the longest focal length, or the focal lengththat you use most frequently?

[RobDickinson]

Elderly said:

rlw said:

Also, I will check out the fine adjustment thing which looks very interesting,

I don't own a camera body that can calibrate a specific lens to a body, so I stand to be corrected
here, but my understanding is that if you are 'micro adjusting' for a zoom lens,
you can only optimize it for one specific focal length within its range.

If that's the case, should you optimize for the longest focal length, or the focal lengththat you use most frequently?

I optimise for the longer focal length usualy as thats where the DOF is thinest but I guess if you use another, one hopes that it would be consistent over the whole focal range, this is not true of my 70-200 tho.

[Simpo Two]

rlw said:

I will be on duty all day, plus as my missus will not drive my car, I will not be drinking all day either. The weather forecast is predicting 31C for the wedding day and thats in the shade. Out in the sun it will be in the 40s and that is effing hot.

Yep, that's wedding photography (I've only seen one guest faint and fall into a flowerbed though).

rlw said:

I want to carry as little kit as possible so the lure of the 50mm is strong but I do take on board all the comments about groups etc so it will be the 17-55mm with a flashgun and bracket and a tripod. The rest of it can stay in the car out of the way - that being the 10-20mm and the 75-300mm and the other body.

Good idea. But what's the tripod for? I rarely use mine; it slows me down and it's just another thing to forget and have to go back for. Oh yes, one tip - keep everything with you and be careful not to leave lens caps, batteries etc behind. I've just emptied my bag and also found a scattering of brightly-coloured metallic foil bits and the chocs from the table

[RobDickinson]

If its sunny and bright then forget the tripod!

Your problem will be with flash synch speeds not hand shake.

Indoors in the church you probably wont be able to use the tripod anyhow?

At the night time do rely on ISO and flash, balance the background normal exposure with the flash and all wil be good. Try some 2nd curtain stuff too.

[Simpo Two]

RobDickinson said:

Indoors in the church you probably wont be able to use the tripod anyhow?

It may not be church; about 2/3rds of my weddings are civil ceremonies.

If it is a church, most vicars/priests/archbishops will let you up to front at one side but not to use flash. In that case I'll have the tripod with me but much of the time I can either handhold or brace against a handy column or piece of furniture. I've got as low as 1/30th at 200mm this way (no VR). Sometimes a tripod is essential, particularly if you've been relegated to the back by a grumpy vicar and need to use 200mm from the middle of the aisle, but generally it hinders manoeverability.

Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 6th August 23:02

[rlw]

It is, I believe, a civil ceremony in the middle of nowhere in France, about halfway between Angouleme and Limoges. The village has no hotel or restaurant but it does have a bar apparently. Most of the guest are camping or staying in gites locally. The reception is going to be held in the garden of the property owned by the bride (although this gives completely the wrong impression of the event as it will be very boho and low key - not a lot of money involved).

I have taken all your tips on board - thanks very much indeed - and I have already dug out the biggest bag I have into which everything fits. Tripod is for a few formal group shots only where maximum freedom from shake is essential so everyone can be identified.

Suggest me an ISO for the 7D and why please.

[Elderly]

Simpo Two said:

RobDickinson said:

Indoors in the church you probably wont be able to use the tripod anyhow?

...... I'll have the tripod with me but much of the time I can either handhold or brace against a handy column or piece of furniture. ...........Sometimes a tripod is essential, ......... but generally it hinders manoeverability.

Get a monopod with a ball head. Do NOT tighten up the ball head. Adjust the monopod length so that its foot wedges
into your belt and/or the waistband of your trousers.
In that way, you have total mobility to make changes to the position of your point of view quickly and quietly, and with the ability (this is where not tightening your head is important) to maintain the required axis.
If you do need more stability, you can use your monopod in the conventional manner; its foot on something solid and with the head tightened up.

[Simpo Two]

Elderly said:

Get a monopod with a ball head. Do NOT tighten up the ball head. Adjust the monopod length so that its foot wedges into your belt and/or the waistband of your trousers.

Thanks for the idea but I'll stick with the current methods. They have the added benefit of saving me from looking like a dork with a big pole sticking out of my trousers in front of 100 people...

(If it was a significant/regular problem I'd get the VR version of the 70-200mm f2.8, but it isn't)

Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 7th August 11:25

[Elderly]

Simpo Two said:

Elderly said:

Get a monopod with a ball head. Do NOT tighten up the ball head. Adjust the monopod length so that its foot wedges into your belt and/or the waistband of your trousers.

Thank you but I really don't think that's going to be much use with a 70-200mm f2.8 flapping about. A stone column is much preferred and has the added benefit of saving me from looking like a dork.

Sorry Simpo - I shouldn't have used your quote; the suggestion was actually aimed at the OP who wanted a significant improvement for about £100 (and there may not be many stone columns in a French bar or garden).

If you can get over thinking you look like a dork (I think it was you who said that you should judged by your results ), have you tried it?
It used to work for me (back in the olden days ) using a 180mm 2.8, with both lens and camera body enclosed in a rather large blimp.

[Simpo Two]

Well indeed, we all have our own ways of getting the result