Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 27, 2007, 11:09 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 49
Default

I have been asked/roped into assisting a wedding shoot. I WILL NOT be the primary photo taker. As I have just sold off some equipment I am left with about $1000 for a lens for my XTi.

There is a 17-55 IS 2.8 that will be mounted onto a 40D and I forget what the other XTi camera has (Either a 50mm prime or a 28-135 IS) so my XTi is the third/floating camera for the reception and possibly some church shots.

Looking at the choices before me I am seeing the 17-55 IS 2.8 and the 24-105 IS F/4 in the same price range. Pushing up to $1100 is the 24-70 2.8 but it is non IS.

While I can appreciate the 2.8 factor for low light I also have a very fond appreciation for the IS factor. I suppose the 17-55 2.8 IS would be the best compromise across the three choices.

But if I am missing something I would appreciate hearing from you fine folks.
Riktar is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 27, 2007, 12:30 PM   #2
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Riktar wrote:
Quote:
But if I am missing something I would appreciate hearing from you fine folks.
You're missing a flash (or flashes)
-> Fast lenses are excellent for low-light; However, not all shots are portraits soft-focus type... You'll want group shots and excellent background captures as well with larger DOF for the altar, wedding cake, and the likes!

After all the family members also want the pictures and not just the brides... Between IS and good control of the lighting, IS will loose out for sure if not only for the saturation or contrast alone afforded by the flash(es).
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2007, 3:45 PM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 49
Default

I will be using a 430EX flash. Since I will be the 3rd wheel I am assuming that the majority of my shots would be of the reception and afterwards. Or some limited ceremony shots of folks arriving and entering/leaving.

Along the lines of the flash I have been experimenting with the ABBC idea and the results have been encouraging. I was looking to see if getting up to a 550EX or 580EX would help. I would assume it would have added power for (somewhat) longer or wider shots.

Thanks for the response.
This is the kind of input I was hoping for.
Riktar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2007, 5:04 PM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Riktar wrote:
Quote:
Along the lines of the flash I have been experimenting with the ABBC idea and the results have been encouraging. I was looking to see if getting up to a 550EX or 580EX would help. I would assume it would have added power for (somewhat) longer or wider shots.
This is an excellent idea as I have never seen a professional photographer do a wedding without a flash. In some church I can understand, but usually there's always time after the ceremony for the wedding party and their families group shots... where flash(es) is(are) a must!

Wider shots is where the problem is even for a 580EX - What used to be powerful is no more at the wide or when bounced depending on ceiling height. This is where the Metz, Quantum, or higher end units come in. You can do a fill with lesser light but ambient light and flash do not mix well because of their colour temperature differences - Take your pick: yellow or blue with no amount of WB could fix, unless you use a colored filter (which BTW unlike Nikon is not included with the 580EX)

I tend to find the dual-head Metz work best for theses situations as the smaller head can aim forward while the larger head can be diffused or bounced against the ceiling - This is more compact and easier to move about than Master/Slave A/B setup with the 580/430EX when you have to mingle with the crowd during the reception. The pros tend to use a large Quantum aimed toward the ceiling triggered by a remote, and a smaller on-camera flash so he can move about... and do the front fill

-> You might want to check the new 18-55 IS for your kind of budget: http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=37
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2007, 4:22 AM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 49
Default

NHL wrote: I have read it is a vast improvement over the old kit lens. But I would find it hard to believe it would be in the same league as the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-105 F/4 lens.

My budget? I thought the lens was under $200. How does that compare with the $1000 I have from sale of other lens?
Riktar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2007, 6:04 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Riktar wrote:
Quote:
My budget? I thought the lens was under $200. How does that compare with the $1000 I have from sale of other lens?
-> It goes into the lighting... which is as critical as the lens if not more so
http://www.qtm.com/QFlash/?res_set=y...&resh=1200




Quote:
I have read it is a vast improvement over the old kit lens. But I would find it hard to believe it would be in the same league as the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-105 F/4 lens.
If you do looks at the test results on both Photozone and SLRgear, except for the built quality, you'll be hard press to tell its measured data agains the L's... Remember the L goes on a full-frame, but as far as digital go this cheap kit lens is hard to beat regardless of price! Actually can you find any number where this lens is deficient whether it's vignetting, CA, or sharpness where it's falling behind the much more expensive lenses?

-> Unless you require f/2.8 (which is less likely with flash, plus you'll need the smaller aperture to cover the group shots). A less powerful 430EX alone will not cut it because of its limited indirect diffused or bounce ability and you'll end with pictures which will have all the bad issues associated with direct flash: harsh highlight and telltale shadows...

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JdEN
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2007, 8:44 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 49
Default

Ok here is what I am going to do. I have ordered the fancy-schmancy, new and improved, better than ever, etc., etc., kit lens. For less than $200 bucks I don't have much to lose and I could always Ebay it or Craigslist the little bugger.

I will have a 17-55MM IS 2.8 to do a comparison with. And I have 6 weeks to experiment with before the end of January rolls around.

The reviews are VERY favorable to this lens. But I just gotta see this to believe it.

I realize that the 430EX isn't up to the 580EX and the Quantum, well the Quantum.

I'll post back with the "test" next week.

Thank for your advice NHL.
Riktar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2007, 12:44 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

You'll still need a better flash than the 430EX - I highly recommend the Metz 58 AF-1 over the 580EX + you get an extra head:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=268574

-> Some features available on the 580EX-II are incompatible with older Canon dSLRs and not the case with a Metz!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=25424375
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2007, 4:07 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 49
Default

Interesting unit. It is pretty much the same price as the 580EX and the 580EX II units I have looked at.

You only mentioned the 580EX in your recomendation. Or are you recomending the Metz over the 580EX II as well?

It seems like the reviews have a bit of a split on which flash to use.

Is your recomendation from personal experience?


Riktar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2007, 5:05 PM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I meant the 580EX-II as I have both... They are quite similar except for the waterproof capability and the Auto(non-TTL) feature of the II, which is also supported by the Metz, but not available to former Canon dSLRs owners with the II, unless you have a MrkIII onward.

-> I have several handle mount dual-head Metz, but not the 58AF-1. The reason I been looking at this unit is for my new D300 which I have no flash for yet...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:59 AM.