# Help with event lens ( weddings, anniversary's, etc)



## brando72 (Apr 9, 2012)

camera: 5dM2
Flash: 580 EX2
lens: 70-200 f/4 L IS USM

Question: I need a wide zoom or possibly prime wide angle for indoor shots of interior, groups of people, etc. I can't afford the 24-70II and my hands are not the most still and IS really helps me out when the I stop down and in certain instances don't use my flash but was wondering if I should get the original 24-70L 2.8 or possibly a third party brand, a canon prime, etc? The function of this lens will be at events where generally depth of field will not be much of an issue and most likely shooting at f/8 or f11 for maximum clarity and sharpness. I have my 70-200 at f4 for more isolating shots and thinner dof portraits. Of course the 16-35L looks real attractive to hit every wide focal point and then keep my 70-200 for portraits? It's just, with the 24-70 I can get a wide and then not have to switch lens to possibly get off a portrait shot if need be at 70? (only carrying one body on me)

Many Thanks!

Any recommendations or suggestions greatly appreciated?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

The 24-105mm sounds ideal for the situations you describe...


----------



## brando72 (Apr 9, 2012)

Thanks! Not possibly the new Tamron 24-70 or Cannon 16-35?


----------



## NAshby (Apr 9, 2012)

If you are shooting indoors at weddings it's unlikely you will be shooting at f/8-f/11 even with a flash, these days the lights are always low and you can only compensate so far with a flash without starting to destroy the image. 

The 16-35 is a surprisingly amazing lens to use for most situations inside and out (family formals, wide wide album shots, reception etc) and you already have the 70-200 for portrait shots. The 24-105 is a great in between lens, but it's just that right in the middle of what you want and if you tend to be on the shaky side already having a faster lens than f/4 will help indoors. If you want to read some more information about the lens's we use for wedding photography and our experience with them check out http://www.brovadoweddings.com/blog/equipment/photography/

Hope this helps


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 10, 2012)

Based on your budget go with the 24-105. If you can spend a little more the 16-35 is also a great option. A little tricky for group shots though. I'd recommend 24-105 for versatility.


----------



## brando72 (Apr 11, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> Based on your budget go with the 24-105. If you can spend a little more the 16-35 is also a great option. A little tricky for group shots though. I'd recommend 24-105 for versatility.



thanks. why is it tricky for group shots?


----------



## chrisdeckard (Apr 11, 2012)

I used the 24-105 for two years before finally getting a 24-70. I wish I had just gotten the 24-70 right away. Indoors you won't need the extra reach and you can use a faster shutter with the f/2.8. It is my most versatile lens. Certainly primes knock it out in IQ, but at a wedding, birthday, or even family gathering, I love my 24-70.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 11, 2012)

my dream setup for a wedding would be a 5diii with a 16-35L, 50L, 85L and 70-200L. i think you would be golden if you had a few of those.

EDIT: didn't see that you wanted wide lenses, so i guess the 16-35 is the way to go. I have a 20mm 2.8 made by canon which i love. it is super sharp compared to others. it's not as wide as a 16 obviously, but its still really wide on a FF. also, i got mine for under 300 bucks used.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 11, 2012)

brando72 said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > Based on your budget go with the 24-105. If you can spend a little more the 16-35 is also a great option. A little tricky for group shots though. I'd recommend 24-105 for versatility.
> ...



Not sure, but my guess is that it distorts perspective, especially around the edges. this leads to a cool look, but not desirable when taking traditional groups shots.


----------



## JerryKnight (Apr 11, 2012)

brando72 said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > Based on your budget go with the 24-105. If you can spend a little more the 16-35 is also a great option. A little tricky for group shots though. I'd recommend 24-105 for versatility.
> ...



I can attest that at 16mm on a FF body, if you happen to put someone's head in the corner of the frame, they get serious "egg-head syndrome." You can start to see this at 24mm, and you have to be careful with your corners and peoples' heads, but at 16mm, it's really bad. Of course, you can correct it in PS, but then you loose some of the wide-ness, and it can be lots of work to get it to look right. So if you do group shots with the 16-35 at 16mm, be sure to keep their heads closer to the center of the frame.

In your case, I recommend either the 24-105/4L or the 24-70/2.8L (version 1, to keep within your budget). If you really are planning on shooting at f/11 indoors, you're going to need tons of flash batteries and maybe a fire extinguisher because your 580ex2 is going to thoroughly hate you.  

Remember, an Image Stabilizer can help with hand-shake, but it can't do anything about moving subjects, like at wedding receptions. You have to either shoot fast or use flash. 

If you're thinking of primes, I recommend getting a 50mm/1.4 or the 28mm/1.8. Both are excellent and affordable lenses, so it depends on how wide you're wanting to be for most shots. 

For particularly dark settings, like a wedding reception room, look into setting up a series of remote flashes on lightstands. Basic cross-lighting can be very effective and usually creates interesting lighting, shooting from any direction. It also takes much of the pressure off of your on-camera flash, especially if the ceiling is high or not a color you want to bounce flash off of. Maybe two lightstands with flashes (maybe some 430ex's on manual..), one on either corner of the dance floor, main table, etc., and your 580ex2 on your camera. Either get radio remotes or use the built-in optical remote on your 580 (radio remotes are typically more reliable). I've been experimenting with this and the results so far have been great.

EDIT: If you're good at recruiting slave labor assistants,  another person with a remote flash attached to a monopod can do wonders for your lighting.


----------



## vuilang (Apr 11, 2012)

if that's is your style (f8-f11 indoor), you can buy a kit lens such as 18-135IS and save alot money. Since from f8-f11, most lens aren't show a significiant difference in sharpness.


----------



## CowGummy (Apr 11, 2012)

I also think pulling off f/8 - f/11 indoors without a flash is going to be non-starter with the 5Dii. And why would you want to? Shallow dof is great for wedding/event photography.
From what you've told us about the sort of things you'd be shooting with this lens, I too would go for either the 24-105 or the 24-70, depending on what is more important to you: Having IS or being able to go to f/2.8. My personal suggestion would be to go with the 24-105L (it's a great all-rounder) and then also invest in a fast prime, like the 50 1.4. Shooting fast indoors is pretty much a must if you don't want to go with a flash.


----------



## Act444 (Apr 11, 2012)

My choice for similar events has always been the 17-55 2.8 - I suppose for full-frame cameras that would correspond most closely to the 24-70.


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 11, 2012)

24-70 f2.8 L i love mines its a workhorse of a lens built to last.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 11, 2012)

If you really are going to stop down that far, its not going to matter what lens you get. Just get the cheapest lens with the focal length you want. However, I really doubt shooting your indoor event at f11 is going to turn out well. I shoot my weddings at 1.4-2.0. It is very rare that I go slower than 2.8, unless im shooting a large group not aligned in a straight line. Even then, you'll usually be using a wide lens and stepping back far enough that 2.8 will give you just enough dof to get everyone sharp.


----------



## JR (Apr 12, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 24-105mm sounds ideal for the situations you describe...



+1


----------



## brando72 (Apr 12, 2012)

Thanks for all the advice. I'm just interested in very clear and in focus shots. With the 2.8 and say a focal length of 24mm of a FF camera, will people in group shots be completely in focus? I thought more a 4.0 situation. I understand using thin DOF in many situations at events or wedding for the individuals or 2 people but what about for getting the sweet-spot of then lens and most clarity for group shots?


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 12, 2012)

brando72 said:


> Thanks for all the advice. I'm just interested in very clear and in focus shots. With the 2.8 and say a focal length of 24mm of a FF camera, will people in group shots be completely in focus? I thought more a 4.0 situation. I understand using thin DOF in many situations at events or wedding for the individuals or 2 people but what about for getting the sweet-spot of then lens and most clarity for group shots?



A group at F4 would be good, depending on the group. Just please don't shoot at F11  

Seriously, it just all depends on the situation. Generally, dont worry about lens "sweet spots" or lens sharpness or whatever. Just get the shot to the best of your ability and everyone will be happy!


----------



## Bosman (Apr 20, 2012)

brando72 said:


> Thanks for all the advice. I'm just interested in very clear and in focus shots. With the 2.8 and say a focal length of 24mm of a FF camera, will people in group shots be completely in focus? I thought more a 4.0 situation. I understand using thin DOF in many situations at events or wedding for the individuals or 2 people but what about for getting the sweet-spot of then lens and most clarity for group shots?


24mm on a 5d FF at
10ft & F1.4 = 4.5 ft DOF (1.8ft in front of focus target and 2.7 behind the focus target) *TCAPP Zone 
10ft & F2.8 = 10.4 ft DOF (3ft in front of the focus target and 7.4ft behind the focus target)
10ft & F4 = 19.4 ft DOF (3.8ft in front of the focus target and 15.6ft behind the focus target) *Overkill Zone

Really you could get away with F1.4 for group shots pretty nicely. F2.8 is def going to work, F4 is overkill at 24mm The reason i know this is i just got a 24 f1.4 and wanted to know just what to expect before real world wedding situations. 

Lets compare the 50 F1.2 on FF
10ft & F1.4 = 1 ft DOF (0.5ft in front of focus target and 0.5 behind the focus target) *TCAPP Zone 
10ft & F2.8 = 2 ft DOF (0.9ft in front of the focus target and 1.1ft behind the focus target)
10ft & F4 = 2.8 ft DOF (1.2ft in front of the focus target and 1.6ft behind the focus target) *Everyone should be close to the same row.

Tcapp do you use 24mm F1.4 for group shots? Do you use 24mm for group shots often? What is your experience?


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 20, 2012)

Bosman said:


> brando72 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for all the advice. I'm just interested in very clear and in focus shots. With the 2.8 and say a focal length of 24mm of a FF camera, will people in group shots be completely in focus? I thought more a 4.0 situation. I understand using thin DOF in many situations at events or wedding for the individuals or 2 people but what about for getting the sweet-spot of then lens and most clarity for group shots?
> ...



Sweet, I have my own zone! 

I actually just got my 24 1.4 and have only used it on one wedding, but I did some group shots with it. Because I had to stand far enough back, 1.4 actually did work, and the shallower Dof made the photo pop. But to be safe I kinda of bracketed my aperture, so I took the same photo at 1.4, 2.0, and 4.0. For some reason, there were some that were just plain oof, so i don't know what exactly happened there... But they came out pretty good overall. If you are doing a group at 1.4, they HAVE to be in one single line, no layers. And the have to be straight. I only shot at 1.4 as an experiment to see what would happen, hence the bracketing. Usually, at dark receptions, I'll be shooting at F2.0 for a lot of shots, even groups, because preserving the ambient light is more important to me than if someone is just a tiny bit fuzzy in a group. You just have to make sure to flatten the group out, as people always have a tendency to come forwards and make a half circle when posing. 

But yea, like i said, i just got my 24 prime, i had been using a the 24-70 zoom if i needed that length, and I don't think i ever stopped that lens down past 2.8... ever. But thats just me. I value the brighter light and subject isolation higher than maximum sharpness. I think everyone gets way too concerned about sharpness. There is more to an image than sharpness. As long as its in focus, it's fine. Its all about _relative_ sharpness. 

But anyway, since im doing all primes now (except my 70-200 2.8 is L), ill be using my 24 for large groups, my 50 for mid sized groups, and the 85 for 1-2 person shots. All my apertures will be between 2.0 and 2.8, unless its a multi layered group.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 20, 2012)

Here is a group shot at 24mm and 1.4. I know, its a boring shot and totally unedited, but its just for demonstration purposes so


----------



## Bosman (Apr 20, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Here is a group shot at 24mm and 1.4. I know, its a boring shot and totally unedited, but its just for demonstration purposes so


I think thats a good shot adding in the negative space. F1.4 looks to have handled it nicely. I like negative space and total close up shots. When i do portraits i often do both styles.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 20, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a group shot at 24mm and 1.4. I know, its a boring shot and totally unedited, but its just for demonstration purposes so
> ...



Plus, doing it like that allows for an 8x10 crop without cutting anyone's parts off. (I hate 8x10 as a size. I much prefer to keep my 2:3 ratio)


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 22, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Here is a group shot at 24mm and 1.4. I know, its a boring shot and totally unedited, but its just for demonstration purposes so



It would be interesting how much difference it would have made if you'd have taken a step back and shot with 35/1.4... it's a very interesting shot because the distortion supports the group being together, do you do these shots often or only seldom because the clients aren't ready for distorted shots?


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 22, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a group shot at 24mm and 1.4. I know, its a boring shot and totally unedited, but its just for demonstration purposes so
> ...



If I had the 35 1.4 i would have used it! Actually, I would have used the 50 1.4 if I could have, but it was in the shop sadly. Anyway, as I said, that photo was totally unedited. I always correct for distortion and whatnot before I deliver, if it needs it. 

I may get myself a 35 f2 if i feel it would benefit me, and if the wife doesn't find out!


----------



## Jettatore (Apr 22, 2012)

You only have 1 body, although it's a very nice one. Your 70-200 f/4 IS is very nice for your intended purposes, and it's lighter weight vs. 2.8 versions should be appreciated on a long days shoot so long as you get the shots you need out of it, which you should be able to. What I would do is rent. Rent a 2nd body, and 1 or 2 lenses and perhaps a second flash. You will need two CF cards for this. Keeps costs down, + you can figure in the price of renting in your event contract pricing. I wouldn't rent 2 lenses in the same focal range as to worry about which is better during an event. Just rent the 24-70 2.8 and a second body/flash and try that. Next event rent something slightly different. Rental prices are crazy good. My estimates put that for any one piece of equipment you rent, that if you were to rent it between 20 and 30 times, you could have owned it. But that is not bad at all. If you are really good with the flash I think you can get away with pretty much any good lens and wouldn't stress about it too much.


----------



## brando72 (Apr 25, 2012)

Thanks for the great suggestion!


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 25, 2012)

Go with cheap lenses like the 55-250 or the 50mm 1.8. Your shooting at tiny apertures and they will produce sharp pictures at those apertures. Do not stop down too small either or diffraction will rob your sharpness also.


----------



## Chris Burch (Apr 25, 2012)

I have a 5D2 and most of the lenses you mention -- mostly shoot events and weddings. I rarely pull out my 16-35mm unless I have a very wide group to shoot. You'll get significant distortion on the edges as someone mentioned. You'll also get some distortion at wide end of the 28-70mm. I would venture to guess that the 16-35 is probably better at controlling distortion at 24mm than then 28-70mm is since it's right in the middle of the range on one lens and at the widest end on the other. If you were shooting with a crop sensor it might make more sense to use the 16-35, but it's quite wide on a full frame. My 28-70 is what I use about 90% of the time when I shoot events. It's also my least favorite lens quality wise, so I cannot wait for the version II to come out.

Then there's the 24-105mm. I LOVE the zoom range of this lens, but alas there are issues. I just got one with my 5D3 kit and have only used it for video so far. The image stabilization has never had much appeal for me in still photos since I always shoot faster than 1/60 anyway when people are involved. It's very useful in video shooting, though. If you shoot a lot of natural light photos, you'll miss the wider apertures with this lens. One really disappointing feature that I didn't know about before I got it...it's a varifocal zoom, which means the focus will shift as you zoom -- my other L series lens are all parfocal and retain focus across the zoom range. In stills...not a big deal since you can just adjust your shooting method to lock focus after zoom. On video however, it's really hard to zoom and pull focus at the same time, unless of course you happen to have a 3rd hand. I was very psyched about the IS on this lens for use with video, but the varifocal discovery was a big letdown. There aren't really any better options in that zoom range with IS though unless I go to a non-Canon lens.

So I guess my advice would be to either get the 24-70 f/2.8L for best all around, or get the 24-105 + a fast prime (50 or 35mm).


----------



## AJ (Apr 25, 2012)

The 16-35 is an ultrawide. It's a specialty lens when shooting weddings and events. You should remove that one from your list.

The two main options are 24-105/4 IS and 24-70/2.8. These lenses have the range of focal lengths that you need for weddings, where you need to work quickly and compose quickly. Which one of these to choose is one of the most debated questions on photography forums. If you're not sure, rent them both, go out shooting for a day, and choose the one you like the best.

The newly announced Tamron 24-70/2.8 USD VC adds yet another option. From the samples published on the net so far, it looks like it'll be a good lens.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 30, 2012)

AJ said:


> The 16-35 is an ultrawide. It's a specialty lens when shooting weddings and events. You should remove that one from your list.



I disagree completely. I've shot 200 weddings, and I use the 16-35 II more than any other lens!!! Its absolutely perfect for weddings. The 24-105 you recommended is too slow at f/4 for most wedding stuff. If I had only two lenses to shoot an entire wedding with, it would be the 16-35, and 70-200 2.8 IS USM II. These two lenses make up the majority of my wedding photos. The 16-35 is one of the first lenses I would recommend.


----------



## Tcapp (Apr 30, 2012)

prestonpalmer said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > The 16-35 is an ultrawide. It's a specialty lens when shooting weddings and events. You should remove that one from your list.
> ...


+1 million


----------



## helpful (Apr 30, 2012)

I agree that the 16-35mm f/2.8 II is a great option. At first the wide end of it is too tempting, and the shots one tends to take are not as good as someone with more maturity using a super wide angle 16mm focal length (just speaking from my own mistakes). Now I tend not to use the 16mm end of it as much, but for close spaces and uses for which wide angle is appropriate, it's a life-saver. An important group of people might happen to line up where there is no space and then 16mm is needed. But I prefer the range from 24-35mm.

For that matter I have been finding tremendous success with the 24mm f/1.4L II. I believe that using prime lenses helps me correlate the photo's perspective better with the human experience at the event. Humans don't have zoom lenses for their eyes; rather, they make small adjustments in position or distance to perceive things. A prime lens leads the photographer's style to make the same adjustments unconsciously, while a zoom lens does not.

So if I have the ability to set up the shots, like the pre-wedding photos, then I like the 24mm f/1.4L II, and I am beginning to be completely comfortable leaving it on for the entire wedding.

Note that I would never risk taking a critical shot at f/1.4 as mentioned earlier in this thread, unless I had time to carefully use contrast detection autofocus. At f/1.4 and as soon as a picture is cropped or enlarged, it does matter exactly whose face is being focused on, and it's hard to tell which face the camera chose at the instant the picture is snapped.


----------



## dppaskewitz (Apr 30, 2012)

At least one observer thinks the 24-105 is parfocal:

Quote from The Digital Picture review: "The 24-105 L is deemed a parfocal lens - "There's a cam inside the 24-105mm lens that is designed to maintain an accurate focus when the lens is zoomed from tele towards wide." [Chuck Westfall, Canon USA] Though the image remains mostly in focus during focal length change, it is best to focus at the desired focal length."

But I'm not sure whether being "deemed" parfocal is the same as actually being parfocal?


----------



## Dylan777 (May 1, 2012)

JerryKnight said:


> brando72 said:
> 
> 
> > prestonpalmer said:
> ...



100% agreed with 16-35 II...I recently pickup a 16-35 II mainly for landscape. Not a right lens for protrait at 16mm.

For prime- 50 f1.4 is great or 35L tack sharp.


----------



## Chris Burch (May 3, 2012)

dppaskewitz said:


> At least one observer thinks the 24-105 is parfocal:
> 
> Quote from The Digital Picture review: "The 24-105 L is deemed a parfocal lens - "There's a cam inside the 24-105mm lens that is designed to maintain an accurate focus when the lens is zoomed from tele towards wide." [Chuck Westfall, Canon USA] Though the image remains mostly in focus during focal length change, it is best to focus at the desired focal length."
> 
> But I'm not sure whether being "deemed" parfocal is the same as actually being parfocal?



Well when I got my 24-105, I locked focus at the wide end, zoomed in and it was significantly off focus...like unusably off. Took me about 3 seconds to verify. From my digging around on the internet, I came across an article that said there are only a few lenses that Canon actually admits to being parfocal. Here is a link, but I can also vouch for the 24-70 as maintaining focus over the zoom range. 

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/photo-lenses-for-video/4


----------



## Tcapp (May 3, 2012)

Chris Burch said:


> dppaskewitz said:
> 
> 
> > At least one observer thinks the 24-105 is parfocal:
> ...



I used to use the 24-70 as if it were parfocal. I never had issues.


----------

