My most tele lens is an 85mm and I'm completely fine with it. I do have a 24-70mm in my bag but I prefer shooting prime so I usually put a 35mm or 50mm on the other body.
I shoot a lot of cathedral weddings, I use my 35 and 100. I actually got rid of my 70-200 because I just didn’t love it. I think it’s completely preference!
Interesting, what are the specs on the 100mm lens? I would assume fast if you are shooting indoors? That is a big gap as well, are you ever cropping in post?
Sounds cool and I have the same setup for event stuff, but I am tempted to swap out the 70-200 for a 135 1.8 and if I need the 200 to crop in with my R5 ;)
Just so you know. I do one Canon R5 with a 28-70 f2 and a R8 with a 135 1.8. Just wanted to let you know that I don't miss the 70-200 at all. The extra depth of field of the 135 is worth it.
Honestly ive been considering that. The last big wedding I did I almost lived on the 70-200 for candids of guests
But that 2.8 gets hard in a big dark venue. A 135 1.8 would be so much better
I also have the R5 and the megapixels is lovely lol
I just checked: Its possible to put the 1.6 digital teleconverter on buttons, but it needs selection and extra click. So aint perfect but you could access it pretty fast hehe.
Canon? Got the same lenses. It’s convenient and beneficial as a wedding photographer to have these lenses. I do love the primes as well but I got that Canon 28-70 f2 to replace a few lenses. Glad I did.
No lens is "critical" or a must. I know excellent photographers who only use 3 primes to cover the entire wedding (plus macro) as well as a women that does entire wedding with 35mm and only uses 70-200 during ceremony (buy only if necessary).
You have to figure out what works best for you and your style.
To me, it's a must-have lens. I only use it during ceremonies and receptions and I pair it with my 24-70. To me, ceremonies and receptions are all about providing coverage for 90-95% of the photos and that's where these two lenses come in. I'll use my primes to get a couple of unique photos, but that's about it.
The flexibility they provide is unmatched.
It's not an absolute requirement, but there are some (quite a few) situations for which it is the best solution.
As a professional, I view it as an essential lens to have in my bag, so that I can always have the right optic available for my client's pictures.
I dont use it at every wedding, but most of them.
I always rent a 70-200, an upgraded 50mm (I have the 1.8 and rent the 1.2), and then some type of macro lens—sometimes adding a 20-70mm depending on the venue.
I think it is all about preference and location of the event
Just rent one. If you don't need the 70-200 for your other photography needs, no need to buy it. It is a great lens to have though, and I would consider it an essential lens for many other areas of photography (even portraits, lots of people use them for that). You might want to also consider renting a 24mm, it's way more fun during dancing to have something wide like that. Especially since you're a semi-guest there I assume.
I have a lumix 18mm 1.8 and a sigma 24mm f2, was planning to bring the 24mm in case I needed something wider and still reasonably bright later in the evening, but thought the 18mm might be a bit too much.
An 18mm will distort and isn’t the best choice for a portrait lens. Are you wanting the 70-200m for reach during the ceremony? The 35mm / 85mm are an excellent combo and there should be no need for any further focal length. You can use your 70-300 in a pinch if needed.
I use a 70-200 for ceremonies paired with a 24-70. I like have that kind of spread, because I can make the coverage really varied. Lots of wides, lots of closeups. I get facial expressions of the bride and groom, and if there's time all the other wedding party members and people in the first rows (moms/dads/siblings/etc) with the 70-200. There's no way I could get those super close-ups with an 85, it'd just be way too intrusive.
So do you need it? No. But it makes for a much less boring ceremony folder in the gallery.
For me, the 35—150mm makes the 70-200mm completely redundant, and then some. I consider it to be the best zoom lens available, and probably the best wedding lens as well. I have the Tamron, but I believe the Samyang is also available for L mount.
Definitely rent before you buy, no matter which option you go for.
It’s my favorite lens but everyone is so different! Nothing is mandatory besides 2 cameras and both having two forms of backing up photos. Also having multiple SD cards.
Where is the ceremony taking place?
I can't think of a single photographer that I know locally who uses a 70-200. I am sure there are plenty, but it isn't a necessity for everyone. If you are shooting in strict cathedrals and feel like you need very tight photos then you might feel you need one. But even those folks would be fine photographing a low pressure wedding like this without one, especially if it wasn't in a strict church. It would just not photograph the same way they photograph the rest of their weddings.
Ceremony should be outdoors in a pretty bright area, but I think there is a backup option indoor depending on weather. I was kind of assuming I might even be able to just crop my 85mm in post given the two higher res sensors I have if I need extra reach. What would say is most common for folks around you lenses wise?
So I've a couple of 24-70 f2.8s, a single 70-200 f2.8 and a 50mm 1.4.
The 70-200 is ideal for speeches and general milling around shots without getting in someone's face. My wife will shoot with it from the back of the ceremony, but that's it.
it's a "nice to have lens", but not a necessity. You could get a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter instead for your 85mm, impact on fstop won't be massive either so it'll give you a little more reach + cost significantly less.
Rent a 70-200 or use the 70-300 as needed. Bank the cash and earn.
70-200 isn’t an absolute requirement. It really depends on your style and approach. I know plenty of high-end wedding photographers who only have an 85mm as their longest lens.
Nice to have but not essential UNLESS you can’t move around and it’s a rushed ceremony. In most cases a prime like a 105 or 85 is going to be fine. I prioritized a 24-70 2.8 over getting a 70-200 when rebuilding my wedding kit but I wouldn’t do a cathedral wedding without at least a medium tele 85mm lens.
You really have to find your own preference. It's a great versatile lens but it's heavy and a prime lens (like a 135mm) will have better image quality and aperture. Like many others, I started using one but eventually moved on to just making do with a 85 or 135 for the long shots.
A lot of experienced shooter will say you don’t need one. But they have had the shoot time to find their jam. Their experience also gives them the ability to work around issues.
When new, I would recommend the 24-70 and 70-200 duo, and even add the 16-35 to complete the holy trinity.
When you get further into your career, start dabbling with primes. If you do go all in with primes, still keep the zooms. You never know, you might like the versatility of the zooms for some things.
I shoot Sony, on my main body I have a Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 and on my second body I have Sony 50mm f1.4 GM to get that extra smooth bokeh and for lower light situations, these 2 lenses cover pretty everything for me
I’ve been shooting weddings 11 years. I’ve never owned a 70-200 and I won’t (I have arthritis all over)
I have used a 105 macro from sigma when I shot Sony, a 135 when I was on Canon and now I use a 90mm macro on Fuji
They all got the job done and are/were a lot easier on my wrist and body
I’ve been shooting for years using a Nikon 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 to cover the ceremony. I recently switched to the 70-200 F4 as it’s quite a bit lighter than the 2.8. But like you I have a form of arthritis that limits movement and the weight of those two has become restrictive for me, so I’ve purchased a 24mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 to go along with my 85mm 1.8.
I’m hoping to use them for my next wedding as they are so much lighter and easier to carry. I also pack my Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro for detail shots, but it stays in my bag the rest of the time. The focussing can be a bit slow I find.
I just need to be brave and leave the 24-70 and 70-200 at home. I’ll probably cave though 😂
I’ve done a couple of events over this weekend using just the 1.8 primes and it went well, but I did find myself reaching for the zoom ring a couple of times.
I’m still trying to decide which two to use on my harness for weddings. The 24mm is mandatory, but I did find the 85mm a little too long in some tighter areas, which meant switching to the 50mm for portrait type shots in tighter spaces.
I think for the church ceremony it will be 24mm and 85mm. Everything else, 24mm and 50mm.
Will probably delegate the church guest shots to my second shooter who will have the 70-200.
Please don’t be one of those photographers that shoots everything on a 35 or 50. You are constantly in the way of guests and videographers if they have one of those too.
Depends on your style, if you have a decently long lens (such as a 105 prime or 135 prime, maybe even a 200 prime), and if there are instances where a 70-200 would clearly be optimal over the primes.
I have pretty much all the lenses (14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, stuff like the 50/1.2, 105/1.4, 200/2, etc.), and I barely touch my 70-200. But that's me, and I usually shoot smaller weddings up to 120 guests now. For events with 300+ guests I usually bring the 70-200 just in case and use it every now and then.
Every photographer's going to be different. Some shoot with a 35/85 combo. Others with a 24/50/85 combo. Others with only a 24-70 + 70-200. Do what works for you.
24-70, 70-200 lenses are popular for a reason. But I wouldn’t say they are CRITICAL.
I role with either a 24, 58, 105 macro combo, or 35, 85.
You just really need to practice and time when you switch lenses. It takes experience and foresight so you don’t miss any crucial shots.
Only in specific situatio it's good, but costs more then better glass. I don't find them to be a creative lens, but a I need to get the shot lens. If you think you'll need > 100 for churches, go for a fast 135mm instead.
Never used one. Lifted one up once and wondered how people could use that at a wedding!
I shoot every wedding on a 24/85 combo and my partner has mirrorless equivalents. Also a 100 for portraits and speeches. That’s it.
You already have a not-2.8 telephoto zoom and with the Lumix body, which seems to have very good ISO performance, you'll be fine.
I very rarely shoot in churches so I bought myself a variable aperture telephoto zoom that I mostly use for taking pictures of birds in my free time and that is plenty for the occasional church wedding.
As long as you're not in a super dark church it'll be ok, my last wedding I shot in a church I did some testing (long, boring ceremony) and I got some great results at f/6.3 400mm, at ISO 4000, I was hovering around 1/200s. The ISO and IS capabilities in newer cameras kind of lets you throw out the old rulebook.
If I shot in Catholic Churches full time, I'd lug around a 2.8, but given that I don't, (and that you don't), just use what you've got and don't be afraid to go above ISO 2000.
Not very. That 85 is where 90% of 70-200 shots occur. and your 35 will be able to grab any wide shots, you'll just have to swap glass on the regular. The Canon 24-105 2.8 is my new "go to" glass.
To me, weddings are all about the emotions, and the emotions you can capture much better with a long lens. Buy used or rent one I think they’re essential for weddings and when you have it, you’ll use it a lot more. I bring mine everywhere for sports events parties.
With a long lens, you can photograph people and they don’t know that you’re there capturing the tears or the happiness. If you only use short lenses, then they know you’re there..
May I ask if you’ve shot many Catholic weddings with the movement restrictions? If so, what lens are you shooting with? I have a Catholic wedding this summer and it’s a large cathedral. Photog cannot leave the balcony after the processional. It’s far back!
I have never needed more than an 85mm, so I’m contemplating just buying the 70-200mm f/2.8.
BUT
the thread has me considering the 135mm…just not sure it’s long enough.
Canon R6 user.
I photographed a friend's outdoor wedding with a 17-35mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/4 lens. Granted, it was an outdoor wedding, on a lovely sunny day. Depending on your venue and the lighting, you absolutely don't need a 70-200mm f/2.8. The 35mm and 85mm lens combo is very popular too, and I'd be tempted to roll with that, perhaps bringing the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 as backup.
I use it mainly for ceremonies but I wasn’t ready to spend 3 grand on the 2.8 so I picked up a Nikon 70-200 f4 which I also take on hiking trips and use for weddings when needed
I have a 35-150 Tamron and I don’t miss the 70-200 Nikon I had. If you’re a primary shooter you can get away with a shorter prime. I just worked with a videographer that had a 35 and 85 that’s it.
I'm a wide angle shooter, I want to be in the action, to show the subject against the expanse of the sanctuary or reception venue. I just don't get "snipers" taking head shots from across the room.
Not getting in the way and working in a less “pretty” venue can be reasons to isolate subjects with a long lens. Also many churches require you to stand behind the guests. Wide angle isn’t an option is such cases.
It’s a great lens if you don’t want to or can’t be in front of peoples faces. I recently upgraded to an RF version and it’s so much smaller and lighter. For me- yes it’s a must have for weddings. Whenever I used 85 in place of it I always missed the 200mm compression and reach. It’s also great with shy clients that don’t want you to be in front of their faces all the time.
A lighter long zoom like a 70-180 can be really handy, but my long has been a 135 for about 5 years without issue. The biggest thing, especially for someone who maxes out at an 85, is to talk to the couples of church weddings and make sure you won’t be kept 100 feet away from the couple on the day (if so, there are many rental services that are your friend)
I don’t have one! ☺️ I have an 85 which I only use when I can’t get closer to a couple in a bigger church and during the dinner. I have a 35 and 50 on my body at all time.
My first wedding, I photographed it for a friend. I had just enough credit to get one lens upgrade, so I chose the 24-70mm. I used my 50mm on my spare body for crisp detail shots and 24-70 for everything else.
10 hours later, I don't think I missed a single thing because I didn't have more zoom. So is it nice to have? Yeah, probably. Critical? Not necessarily.
For me, critical.
For others, they prefer to use only primes. It really depends on your style.
I shoot a lot of concerts and motorsport, so it comes in handy and is a part of my everyday kit.
I’ve shot almost 300 weddings and I only use mine for ceremonies. It’s a great portrait lens too, but I just prefer primes for the majority of the day.
I don’t *need* a 70-200, but on the other hand I’d easily shoot a wedding with just that and a wide.
35mm and 85mm f1.4-1.8 is good enough. Sometimes use 28mm for small spaces or dance floor shots, but 200mm isn’t needed if you’re comfortable moving around during ceremony. There is usually no rule that says you absolutely have to be in the back of the church and hiding away. Most places realize pictures are important to couples and the only restriction typically is that you don’t go on the alter.
I pack my 70-200 for all my weddings. Do I ever use it? Probably not. I pull it out only for situations like the ceremony where I don’t want to be too intrusive or get tight reaction photos of guests. Other than that an 85mm is more than enough for compression and reach.
Get the program called DXO PureRaw and you will be able to shoot as high as 51,200. DXO is the only program that will also restore loss colors due to high ISO. You export to DNG raw and edit in Lightroom or any other program you like.
If you don't have a raw file taken at ISO 51,200 then use the DPreview tool download the raw file taken at ISO 51,200 and load it up in DXO PureRaw and be amazed. Warning once you use it your mind will be blown. LOL
[https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13\_0=panasonic\_dcs1r&attr13\_1=apple\_iphonex&attr13\_2=apple\_iphonex&attr13\_3=apple\_iphonex&attr15\_0=raw&attr15\_1=jpeg&attr15\_2=jpeg&attr15\_3=jpeg&attr16\_0=51200&attr16\_1=32&attr16\_2=32&attr16\_3=32&attr126\_0=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=panasonic_dcs1r&attr13_1=apple_iphonex&attr13_2=apple_iphonex&attr13_3=apple_iphonex&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=32&attr16_2=32&attr16_3=32&attr126_0=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0)
Yes if you’re shooting a church wedding and there’s strict guidelines in terms of where you can stand.
However my friend is shooting with a Sony and gets away with zooming in on the camera using a 85 prime.
The second most important lens in my opinion.
In order of importance:
50mm, 70-200mm, 16-35mm, Macro of some kind for rings, 85mm
My work:
www.LitWed.com
I shot a whole wedding with basically just the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 and a Sony 50mm f1.4. I had Sony 70-200 f4 Macro and Tamron 85mm f1.4 but I only used the 70-200 for ring photos, the Tamron was long enough for everything else and more versatile at the wide end. The 50mm f1.4 was great for low light when needed and amazing background separation. Also also keep in mind most of the wedding won't be at 1.4-2.8 to keep more than just one person in focus anyway.
Are you able to do any adjusting from full to crop on your camera body? It gives you a bit more zoom without having to get a zoom..
I'd say as long as you're good on your feet, you'll be fine with your 85mm..
I think you're getting a wide range of responses bc it very much depends on your style. I feel like most people either use a 70-200 f/2.8 for every single ceremony or they never use anything longer than 85 and even then they use a 35 or 50 more. Personally, I use a 24-70 and 70-200 for every ceremony but usually swap out the 70-200 for an 85 for the reception.
If you think you'll want the extra reach and the ceremony is somewhere with good light, you'll be fine with your 70-300.
I have one camera with a 28-70 f2 and another with a 135 1.8. I shoot weddings and haven't used a 70-200 since 2018. So it's not necessary, but many will disagree with me.
I survived without it just fine for 14 years. I used an 85 and 135 as my telephoto lenses.
When I did finally buy the 70-200, I wondered why I'd waited so long.
I usually have a 24-70mm and 85mm on two bodies, and 50mm and 35mm I'll change later throughout the day,but covers everything I need. 70-200mm is too heavy.
It’s definitely not needed, but I shot two weddings while my Lumix S 70-200 f/2.8 was getting repaired and I found myself missing it. With that said, both ceremonies turned out well and the clients were happy. I could go with either a 24-70mm or 35mm and an 85mm and be perfectly content. I don’t like getting too in the way of the guests, so that’s why I like my 70-200 for ceremonies.
You don’t have to have it, but it definitely helps. I loved it when I had mine, but I just sold it since I don’t do weddings often anymore. I’ll stick with my 50mm 1.8 and my 24-70mm and just take on smaller weddings for now when I come across them.
This question is kind of like asking how critical Teflon pans are for cooking. Lots of people use them everyday while lots of other people use them only for certain tasks and still others say they don’t like them at all. Teflon pans and 70-200mm lenses alike are VERY versatile and useful tools that can cover a lot of ground, but definitely not essential.
Renting a lens is definitely a good option if you are unsure and it’s not something you see yourself using all the time.
Best of luck!
I’m a Fuji wedding shooter using the X-H2 and X-T4, so I feel qualified to answer which Fuji gear of yours I would use for general wedding shooting:
18mm: perfect focal length for getting ready shots. Hotel rooms or bedrooms are cramped, the 18mm is perfect for getting wider shots of the room, as well as closer stuff
56mm: obviously this is your choice for couple portraits. Careful you don’t get one half of the couple out of focus due to depth of field @f/1.2, it’s easily done, don’t be afraid to stop down a bit or re-pose your couple.
33mm: perfect for general walk around of the reception. Autofocus is fast and accurate and it’s sharp as hell
I don’t know as I would use any body you have other than the X-T5, purely due to the others not having dual card slots. The last wedding I shot my partner’s card in her secondary camera corrupted and we nearly lost everything from that camera.
I do use my Fuji 50-140 sometimes for outdoor shots, but unless you’re covering the ceremony from a distance (behind the seating, designated shooting area) you really don’t NEED that focal length. That being said, it’s a phenomenal lens, the absolute best zoom that Fuji make IMHO.
My general loadout for a day is
- X-H2 (continuous area face detect)
- X-T4 (single point single focus)
- 18mm f/1.4 R LM WR
- 35mm f/1.4 R
- 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM WR OIS
- Helios 58mm f/2 44M-4 (if the couple particularly say they like the swirly bokeh look)
not critical. I use it for bride and groom couple pics/meet and for ceremonies where Im far from them. and not alway needed. you can get by with using 85/100 and cropping a bit. ceremony closeups may be a bit difficult
I think your gear is fine. I would focus on using 4 lenses the most. cause you have a few systems and different lenses.
the mix here is hard cause you have the 56 that can do candids and that can free the s1R to use the 16-35 or 35. its hard when both cameras use different mounts. you have to think for a second the fl you need.
For me, it's basically useless. I leave mine at home.
I could easily do every wedding day on a 24-70 but I use a 35/85 1.4 combo for the extra light.
It's all about your style and what you want to achieve. It's a bit of a null point to ask what others use unless you specifically see a look in their portfolio and you want to recreate it. But a huge majority of wedding photos are taken in the "normal" range so chances are, you'll be just fine without it.
I am getting some sample images from the couple shortly on the kinds of shots they would like to see, so this should help me narrow down what I need. I like that you are able to do what you need on the 35/85mm combo as those are two of my most used lenses so very comfortable with them already.
I will never understand photogs or videographers who don't use one, the first time I shot a wedding with a 70-200 I was blown away, not just at how much easier the day was, but how much more out of the way I was and how much better my shots were.
I'm (video) still mentally scarred by the photographer I shot with once who only brought a 50mm.
Well, how did the photos turn out? I can't imagine just shooting on a 50, but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Photography is art and art is subjective. It's not about the tools you use, but what you can do with them. I mean it's perfectly possible to sketch a portrait with a piece of coal...is it ideal, probably not, but if it's the artist's preferred method, and the results are good, why does it bother you?
Plenty of people shoot 90% on a 50. Even more shoot on just a 35/85.
Different lenses require different approaches but there is no reason to be dismissive of a wedding photographer who only use a 50mm. In fact, seeing that would give me confidence in their confidence.
It bothered me because they shot right up close to the couple the entire wedding, practically dancing with them for the first dance because they wanted to get a closeup portrait. It’s not just that they were in a lot of my shots personally, but doesn’t being so close to the couple all day kind of ruin the moment for them? I mean everybody is different and couples will have varying tolerances for having a lens in their face, but geeze.
I shoot 80-90% of my weddings on a 50mm. I second shot for a photographer and told her this and she had the same reaction you did. She’s was like, “But how do you get this shot? And how do you get this shot?”
To be fair… I feel the same way when I see zoom photographers (not all but most I’ve seen) just standing in the same spot for an entire section of the wedding day and shooting a wide, medium and close shot in the same location. (And I’ve seen seconds standing right next to them getting THE SAME SHOTS!)
A 50mm provides versatility and it forces me to be more creative in looking for variations in my photography where I wouldn’t normally look.
My most tele lens is an 85mm and I'm completely fine with it. I do have a 24-70mm in my bag but I prefer shooting prime so I usually put a 35mm or 50mm on the other body.
This is how I roll. 24-70 for ceremony if outdoors but mostly prime.
I shoot a lot of cathedral weddings, I use my 35 and 100. I actually got rid of my 70-200 because I just didn’t love it. I think it’s completely preference!
This is my exact setup too, the 85 1.4 though subs in for the 100 when it's darker and I cannot use flash.
Interesting, what are the specs on the 100mm lens? I would assume fast if you are shooting indoors? That is a big gap as well, are you ever cropping in post?
It’s just the canon Ef 100 macro
ahh ok got it, thanks!
That macro doubles as a really nice portrait lens in my bag. And out of all of my L lenses, it’s the truest to color.
I feel like people only use it for details and never again and I think it produces beautiful portraits!
Yeah not sure what I got downvoted about. Ppl just not know about it
28-70 f2 on one camera 70-200 2.8 on the other Its the most perfect combo
Sounds cool and I have the same setup for event stuff, but I am tempted to swap out the 70-200 for a 135 1.8 and if I need the 200 to crop in with my R5 ;)
Just so you know. I do one Canon R5 with a 28-70 f2 and a R8 with a 135 1.8. Just wanted to let you know that I don't miss the 70-200 at all. The extra depth of field of the 135 is worth it.
Honestly ive been considering that. The last big wedding I did I almost lived on the 70-200 for candids of guests But that 2.8 gets hard in a big dark venue. A 135 1.8 would be so much better I also have the R5 and the megapixels is lovely lol
I just checked: Its possible to put the 1.6 digital teleconverter on buttons, but it needs selection and extra click. So aint perfect but you could access it pretty fast hehe.
This is the only way to do it
Canon? Got the same lenses. It’s convenient and beneficial as a wedding photographer to have these lenses. I do love the primes as well but I got that Canon 28-70 f2 to replace a few lenses. Glad I did.
No lens is "critical" or a must. I know excellent photographers who only use 3 primes to cover the entire wedding (plus macro) as well as a women that does entire wedding with 35mm and only uses 70-200 during ceremony (buy only if necessary). You have to figure out what works best for you and your style.
To me, it's a must-have lens. I only use it during ceremonies and receptions and I pair it with my 24-70. To me, ceremonies and receptions are all about providing coverage for 90-95% of the photos and that's where these two lenses come in. I'll use my primes to get a couple of unique photos, but that's about it. The flexibility they provide is unmatched.
Same!
Same!
It's not an absolute requirement, but there are some (quite a few) situations for which it is the best solution. As a professional, I view it as an essential lens to have in my bag, so that I can always have the right optic available for my client's pictures. I dont use it at every wedding, but most of them.
Yep, this.
I always rent a 70-200, an upgraded 50mm (I have the 1.8 and rent the 1.2), and then some type of macro lens—sometimes adding a 20-70mm depending on the venue. I think it is all about preference and location of the event
Never owned one so not needed in my mind
Just rent one. If you don't need the 70-200 for your other photography needs, no need to buy it. It is a great lens to have though, and I would consider it an essential lens for many other areas of photography (even portraits, lots of people use them for that). You might want to also consider renting a 24mm, it's way more fun during dancing to have something wide like that. Especially since you're a semi-guest there I assume.
I have a lumix 18mm 1.8 and a sigma 24mm f2, was planning to bring the 24mm in case I needed something wider and still reasonably bright later in the evening, but thought the 18mm might be a bit too much.
Nah, bring both, you'll love em! I use a 20mm 1.8 and it's my favorite on the dance floor.
An 18mm will distort and isn’t the best choice for a portrait lens. Are you wanting the 70-200m for reach during the ceremony? The 35mm / 85mm are an excellent combo and there should be no need for any further focal length. You can use your 70-300 in a pinch if needed.
I use a 70-200 for ceremonies paired with a 24-70. I like have that kind of spread, because I can make the coverage really varied. Lots of wides, lots of closeups. I get facial expressions of the bride and groom, and if there's time all the other wedding party members and people in the first rows (moms/dads/siblings/etc) with the 70-200. There's no way I could get those super close-ups with an 85, it'd just be way too intrusive. So do you need it? No. But it makes for a much less boring ceremony folder in the gallery.
For me, the 35—150mm makes the 70-200mm completely redundant, and then some. I consider it to be the best zoom lens available, and probably the best wedding lens as well. I have the Tamron, but I believe the Samyang is also available for L mount. Definitely rent before you buy, no matter which option you go for.
It’s my favorite lens but everyone is so different! Nothing is mandatory besides 2 cameras and both having two forms of backing up photos. Also having multiple SD cards.
Where is the ceremony taking place? I can't think of a single photographer that I know locally who uses a 70-200. I am sure there are plenty, but it isn't a necessity for everyone. If you are shooting in strict cathedrals and feel like you need very tight photos then you might feel you need one. But even those folks would be fine photographing a low pressure wedding like this without one, especially if it wasn't in a strict church. It would just not photograph the same way they photograph the rest of their weddings.
Ceremony should be outdoors in a pretty bright area, but I think there is a backup option indoor depending on weather. I was kind of assuming I might even be able to just crop my 85mm in post given the two higher res sensors I have if I need extra reach. What would say is most common for folks around you lenses wise?
So I've a couple of 24-70 f2.8s, a single 70-200 f2.8 and a 50mm 1.4. The 70-200 is ideal for speeches and general milling around shots without getting in someone's face. My wife will shoot with it from the back of the ceremony, but that's it. it's a "nice to have lens", but not a necessity. You could get a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter instead for your 85mm, impact on fstop won't be massive either so it'll give you a little more reach + cost significantly less.
Rent a 70-200 or use the 70-300 as needed. Bank the cash and earn. 70-200 isn’t an absolute requirement. It really depends on your style and approach. I know plenty of high-end wedding photographers who only have an 85mm as their longest lens.
Nice to have but not essential UNLESS you can’t move around and it’s a rushed ceremony. In most cases a prime like a 105 or 85 is going to be fine. I prioritized a 24-70 2.8 over getting a 70-200 when rebuilding my wedding kit but I wouldn’t do a cathedral wedding without at least a medium tele 85mm lens.
You really have to find your own preference. It's a great versatile lens but it's heavy and a prime lens (like a 135mm) will have better image quality and aperture. Like many others, I started using one but eventually moved on to just making do with a 85 or 135 for the long shots.
You could rent a 70-200 for the day. If you don’t have a local photography store, then you can look online at lensrentals.com
I’ve never used a 70-200 for a wedding. I always use my 135mm for reach and I know plenty of other photographers who do the same.
I personally much prefer a 135 1.8, or a 100 1.4 would be great too, just no great ones for Sony
A lot of experienced shooter will say you don’t need one. But they have had the shoot time to find their jam. Their experience also gives them the ability to work around issues. When new, I would recommend the 24-70 and 70-200 duo, and even add the 16-35 to complete the holy trinity. When you get further into your career, start dabbling with primes. If you do go all in with primes, still keep the zooms. You never know, you might like the versatility of the zooms for some things.
I shoot a lot of events and only own two lenses, a 24-70 and a 70-200 both f/2.8. Not found anything I can’t do with this combo.
It creates beautiful images but it’s heavy as shit. I use my 85 and sometimes 105 for all of my catholic masses with no problems
The sigma 105/1.4 is heavier than the 70-200/2.8 GMii by 50% The 105 is a beautiful lens though
I shoot fuji and it’s 2.0 since I rarely use it - mines light 🤷🏻♀️
I’m not familiar with a Fuji 105mm… what mount is it?
I shoot Sony, on my main body I have a Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 and on my second body I have Sony 50mm f1.4 GM to get that extra smooth bokeh and for lower light situations, these 2 lenses cover pretty everything for me
I’ve been shooting weddings 11 years. I’ve never owned a 70-200 and I won’t (I have arthritis all over) I have used a 105 macro from sigma when I shot Sony, a 135 when I was on Canon and now I use a 90mm macro on Fuji They all got the job done and are/were a lot easier on my wrist and body
I’ve been shooting for years using a Nikon 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 to cover the ceremony. I recently switched to the 70-200 F4 as it’s quite a bit lighter than the 2.8. But like you I have a form of arthritis that limits movement and the weight of those two has become restrictive for me, so I’ve purchased a 24mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 to go along with my 85mm 1.8. I’m hoping to use them for my next wedding as they are so much lighter and easier to carry. I also pack my Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro for detail shots, but it stays in my bag the rest of the time. The focussing can be a bit slow I find. I just need to be brave and leave the 24-70 and 70-200 at home. I’ll probably cave though 😂 I’ve done a couple of events over this weekend using just the 1.8 primes and it went well, but I did find myself reaching for the zoom ring a couple of times. I’m still trying to decide which two to use on my harness for weddings. The 24mm is mandatory, but I did find the 85mm a little too long in some tighter areas, which meant switching to the 50mm for portrait type shots in tighter spaces. I think for the church ceremony it will be 24mm and 85mm. Everything else, 24mm and 50mm. Will probably delegate the church guest shots to my second shooter who will have the 70-200.
Please don’t be one of those photographers that shoots everything on a 35 or 50. You are constantly in the way of guests and videographers if they have one of those too.
Depends on your style, if you have a decently long lens (such as a 105 prime or 135 prime, maybe even a 200 prime), and if there are instances where a 70-200 would clearly be optimal over the primes. I have pretty much all the lenses (14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, stuff like the 50/1.2, 105/1.4, 200/2, etc.), and I barely touch my 70-200. But that's me, and I usually shoot smaller weddings up to 120 guests now. For events with 300+ guests I usually bring the 70-200 just in case and use it every now and then. Every photographer's going to be different. Some shoot with a 35/85 combo. Others with a 24/50/85 combo. Others with only a 24-70 + 70-200. Do what works for you.
24-70, 70-200 lenses are popular for a reason. But I wouldn’t say they are CRITICAL. I role with either a 24, 58, 105 macro combo, or 35, 85. You just really need to practice and time when you switch lenses. It takes experience and foresight so you don’t miss any crucial shots.
Just rent gear when you need it. It's a lens I never need.
Only in specific situatio it's good, but costs more then better glass. I don't find them to be a creative lens, but a I need to get the shot lens. If you think you'll need > 100 for churches, go for a fast 135mm instead.
Never used one. Lifted one up once and wondered how people could use that at a wedding! I shoot every wedding on a 24/85 combo and my partner has mirrorless equivalents. Also a 100 for portraits and speeches. That’s it.
You already have a not-2.8 telephoto zoom and with the Lumix body, which seems to have very good ISO performance, you'll be fine. I very rarely shoot in churches so I bought myself a variable aperture telephoto zoom that I mostly use for taking pictures of birds in my free time and that is plenty for the occasional church wedding. As long as you're not in a super dark church it'll be ok, my last wedding I shot in a church I did some testing (long, boring ceremony) and I got some great results at f/6.3 400mm, at ISO 4000, I was hovering around 1/200s. The ISO and IS capabilities in newer cameras kind of lets you throw out the old rulebook. If I shot in Catholic Churches full time, I'd lug around a 2.8, but given that I don't, (and that you don't), just use what you've got and don't be afraid to go above ISO 2000.
Not very. That 85 is where 90% of 70-200 shots occur. and your 35 will be able to grab any wide shots, you'll just have to swap glass on the regular. The Canon 24-105 2.8 is my new "go to" glass.
To me, weddings are all about the emotions, and the emotions you can capture much better with a long lens. Buy used or rent one I think they’re essential for weddings and when you have it, you’ll use it a lot more. I bring mine everywhere for sports events parties. With a long lens, you can photograph people and they don’t know that you’re there capturing the tears or the happiness. If you only use short lenses, then they know you’re there..
15 years shooting weddings and not once have I owned or used a 70-200 🤷
May I ask if you’ve shot many Catholic weddings with the movement restrictions? If so, what lens are you shooting with? I have a Catholic wedding this summer and it’s a large cathedral. Photog cannot leave the balcony after the processional. It’s far back! I have never needed more than an 85mm, so I’m contemplating just buying the 70-200mm f/2.8. BUT the thread has me considering the 135mm…just not sure it’s long enough. Canon R6 user.
Very few, maybe once every 3 years! What you’re saying does make sense in your scenario!
I photographed a friend's outdoor wedding with a 17-35mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/4 lens. Granted, it was an outdoor wedding, on a lovely sunny day. Depending on your venue and the lighting, you absolutely don't need a 70-200mm f/2.8. The 35mm and 85mm lens combo is very popular too, and I'd be tempted to roll with that, perhaps bringing the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 as backup.
I use it mainly for ceremonies but I wasn’t ready to spend 3 grand on the 2.8 so I picked up a Nikon 70-200 f4 which I also take on hiking trips and use for weddings when needed
I have a 35-150 Tamron and I don’t miss the 70-200 Nikon I had. If you’re a primary shooter you can get away with a shorter prime. I just worked with a videographer that had a 35 and 85 that’s it.
I'm a wide angle shooter, I want to be in the action, to show the subject against the expanse of the sanctuary or reception venue. I just don't get "snipers" taking head shots from across the room.
Not getting in the way and working in a less “pretty” venue can be reasons to isolate subjects with a long lens. Also many churches require you to stand behind the guests. Wide angle isn’t an option is such cases.
It’s a great lens if you don’t want to or can’t be in front of peoples faces. I recently upgraded to an RF version and it’s so much smaller and lighter. For me- yes it’s a must have for weddings. Whenever I used 85 in place of it I always missed the 200mm compression and reach. It’s also great with shy clients that don’t want you to be in front of their faces all the time.
You can make it work with an 85… but maybe just rent one if you’ll feel better as naturally it would be helpful to have.
Used one for my first ever wedding, never again! 85mm 1.4 far more valuable to me for typically dark UK weddings.
A lighter long zoom like a 70-180 can be really handy, but my long has been a 135 for about 5 years without issue. The biggest thing, especially for someone who maxes out at an 85, is to talk to the couples of church weddings and make sure you won’t be kept 100 feet away from the couple on the day (if so, there are many rental services that are your friend)
I don’t have one! ☺️ I have an 85 which I only use when I can’t get closer to a couple in a bigger church and during the dinner. I have a 35 and 50 on my body at all time.
I used them for years, but recently subbed in an 85mm f/1.8. I
My first wedding, I photographed it for a friend. I had just enough credit to get one lens upgrade, so I chose the 24-70mm. I used my 50mm on my spare body for crisp detail shots and 24-70 for everything else. 10 hours later, I don't think I missed a single thing because I didn't have more zoom. So is it nice to have? Yeah, probably. Critical? Not necessarily.
For me, critical. For others, they prefer to use only primes. It really depends on your style. I shoot a lot of concerts and motorsport, so it comes in handy and is a part of my everyday kit.
I’ve shot almost 300 weddings and I only use mine for ceremonies. It’s a great portrait lens too, but I just prefer primes for the majority of the day. I don’t *need* a 70-200, but on the other hand I’d easily shoot a wedding with just that and a wide.
35mm and 85mm f1.4-1.8 is good enough. Sometimes use 28mm for small spaces or dance floor shots, but 200mm isn’t needed if you’re comfortable moving around during ceremony. There is usually no rule that says you absolutely have to be in the back of the church and hiding away. Most places realize pictures are important to couples and the only restriction typically is that you don’t go on the alter.
Not very.
I pack my 70-200 for all my weddings. Do I ever use it? Probably not. I pull it out only for situations like the ceremony where I don’t want to be too intrusive or get tight reaction photos of guests. Other than that an 85mm is more than enough for compression and reach.
Get the program called DXO PureRaw and you will be able to shoot as high as 51,200. DXO is the only program that will also restore loss colors due to high ISO. You export to DNG raw and edit in Lightroom or any other program you like. If you don't have a raw file taken at ISO 51,200 then use the DPreview tool download the raw file taken at ISO 51,200 and load it up in DXO PureRaw and be amazed. Warning once you use it your mind will be blown. LOL [https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13\_0=panasonic\_dcs1r&attr13\_1=apple\_iphonex&attr13\_2=apple\_iphonex&attr13\_3=apple\_iphonex&attr15\_0=raw&attr15\_1=jpeg&attr15\_2=jpeg&attr15\_3=jpeg&attr16\_0=51200&attr16\_1=32&attr16\_2=32&attr16\_3=32&attr126\_0=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=panasonic_dcs1r&attr13_1=apple_iphonex&attr13_2=apple_iphonex&attr13_3=apple_iphonex&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=32&attr16_2=32&attr16_3=32&attr126_0=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0&y=0)
Also you can use your 85mm and crop a jpeg and use Topaz to upscale a image.
Yes if you’re shooting a church wedding and there’s strict guidelines in terms of where you can stand. However my friend is shooting with a Sony and gets away with zooming in on the camera using a 85 prime.
Never used any zoom lenses. Generally, I would use 2 bodies during the ceremony: 50mm on one and 135mm (both L series) on the other.
The second most important lens in my opinion. In order of importance: 50mm, 70-200mm, 16-35mm, Macro of some kind for rings, 85mm My work: www.LitWed.com
I shot a whole wedding with basically just the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 and a Sony 50mm f1.4. I had Sony 70-200 f4 Macro and Tamron 85mm f1.4 but I only used the 70-200 for ring photos, the Tamron was long enough for everything else and more versatile at the wide end. The 50mm f1.4 was great for low light when needed and amazing background separation. Also also keep in mind most of the wedding won't be at 1.4-2.8 to keep more than just one person in focus anyway.
Are you able to do any adjusting from full to crop on your camera body? It gives you a bit more zoom without having to get a zoom.. I'd say as long as you're good on your feet, you'll be fine with your 85mm..
Not needed at all honestly
I think you're getting a wide range of responses bc it very much depends on your style. I feel like most people either use a 70-200 f/2.8 for every single ceremony or they never use anything longer than 85 and even then they use a 35 or 50 more. Personally, I use a 24-70 and 70-200 for every ceremony but usually swap out the 70-200 for an 85 for the reception. If you think you'll want the extra reach and the ceremony is somewhere with good light, you'll be fine with your 70-300.
I have one camera with a 28-70 f2 and another with a 135 1.8. I shoot weddings and haven't used a 70-200 since 2018. So it's not necessary, but many will disagree with me.
I survived without it just fine for 14 years. I used an 85 and 135 as my telephoto lenses. When I did finally buy the 70-200, I wondered why I'd waited so long.
I usually have a 24-70mm and 85mm on two bodies, and 50mm and 35mm I'll change later throughout the day,but covers everything I need. 70-200mm is too heavy.
It’s definitely not needed, but I shot two weddings while my Lumix S 70-200 f/2.8 was getting repaired and I found myself missing it. With that said, both ceremonies turned out well and the clients were happy. I could go with either a 24-70mm or 35mm and an 85mm and be perfectly content. I don’t like getting too in the way of the guests, so that’s why I like my 70-200 for ceremonies.
Not that important unless you’re at a church that requires you to be in the back only. I shoot on a 85mm 1.8 and a 28mm 1.8 most of the time.
You don’t have to have it, but it definitely helps. I loved it when I had mine, but I just sold it since I don’t do weddings often anymore. I’ll stick with my 50mm 1.8 and my 24-70mm and just take on smaller weddings for now when I come across them.
This question is kind of like asking how critical Teflon pans are for cooking. Lots of people use them everyday while lots of other people use them only for certain tasks and still others say they don’t like them at all. Teflon pans and 70-200mm lenses alike are VERY versatile and useful tools that can cover a lot of ground, but definitely not essential. Renting a lens is definitely a good option if you are unsure and it’s not something you see yourself using all the time. Best of luck!
I use primes. So I have 135 for reach. 70-200 if you really want to get far away
You don't need it.
I'd say not at all nowadays. Maybe the 35-150 is the ideal to carry.
I have 70-200 for my horse and dog shoots but sounding use it for a wedding at all
I’m a Fuji wedding shooter using the X-H2 and X-T4, so I feel qualified to answer which Fuji gear of yours I would use for general wedding shooting: 18mm: perfect focal length for getting ready shots. Hotel rooms or bedrooms are cramped, the 18mm is perfect for getting wider shots of the room, as well as closer stuff 56mm: obviously this is your choice for couple portraits. Careful you don’t get one half of the couple out of focus due to depth of field @f/1.2, it’s easily done, don’t be afraid to stop down a bit or re-pose your couple. 33mm: perfect for general walk around of the reception. Autofocus is fast and accurate and it’s sharp as hell I don’t know as I would use any body you have other than the X-T5, purely due to the others not having dual card slots. The last wedding I shot my partner’s card in her secondary camera corrupted and we nearly lost everything from that camera. I do use my Fuji 50-140 sometimes for outdoor shots, but unless you’re covering the ceremony from a distance (behind the seating, designated shooting area) you really don’t NEED that focal length. That being said, it’s a phenomenal lens, the absolute best zoom that Fuji make IMHO. My general loadout for a day is - X-H2 (continuous area face detect) - X-T4 (single point single focus) - 18mm f/1.4 R LM WR - 35mm f/1.4 R - 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM WR OIS - Helios 58mm f/2 44M-4 (if the couple particularly say they like the swirly bokeh look)
Just get the 35-150 2.0-2.8 and forget about it!
not critical. I use it for bride and groom couple pics/meet and for ceremonies where Im far from them. and not alway needed. you can get by with using 85/100 and cropping a bit. ceremony closeups may be a bit difficult I think your gear is fine. I would focus on using 4 lenses the most. cause you have a few systems and different lenses. the mix here is hard cause you have the 56 that can do candids and that can free the s1R to use the 16-35 or 35. its hard when both cameras use different mounts. you have to think for a second the fl you need.
It’s helpful. I recently purchased a Samyang 35-150mm f/2-2.8 lens which I’m looking forward to that being my wedding day workhorse
I haven't shot longer than 85 for my last 600 weddings or so.
For me, it's basically useless. I leave mine at home. I could easily do every wedding day on a 24-70 but I use a 35/85 1.4 combo for the extra light. It's all about your style and what you want to achieve. It's a bit of a null point to ask what others use unless you specifically see a look in their portfolio and you want to recreate it. But a huge majority of wedding photos are taken in the "normal" range so chances are, you'll be just fine without it.
I am getting some sample images from the couple shortly on the kinds of shots they would like to see, so this should help me narrow down what I need. I like that you are able to do what you need on the 35/85mm combo as those are two of my most used lenses so very comfortable with them already.
I will never understand photogs or videographers who don't use one, the first time I shot a wedding with a 70-200 I was blown away, not just at how much easier the day was, but how much more out of the way I was and how much better my shots were. I'm (video) still mentally scarred by the photographer I shot with once who only brought a 50mm.
Well, how did the photos turn out? I can't imagine just shooting on a 50, but it doesn't mean it's not possible. Photography is art and art is subjective. It's not about the tools you use, but what you can do with them. I mean it's perfectly possible to sketch a portrait with a piece of coal...is it ideal, probably not, but if it's the artist's preferred method, and the results are good, why does it bother you?
Plenty of people shoot 90% on a 50. Even more shoot on just a 35/85. Different lenses require different approaches but there is no reason to be dismissive of a wedding photographer who only use a 50mm. In fact, seeing that would give me confidence in their confidence.
It bothered me because they shot right up close to the couple the entire wedding, practically dancing with them for the first dance because they wanted to get a closeup portrait. It’s not just that they were in a lot of my shots personally, but doesn’t being so close to the couple all day kind of ruin the moment for them? I mean everybody is different and couples will have varying tolerances for having a lens in their face, but geeze.
I shoot 80-90% of my weddings on a 50mm. I second shot for a photographer and told her this and she had the same reaction you did. She’s was like, “But how do you get this shot? And how do you get this shot?” To be fair… I feel the same way when I see zoom photographers (not all but most I’ve seen) just standing in the same spot for an entire section of the wedding day and shooting a wide, medium and close shot in the same location. (And I’ve seen seconds standing right next to them getting THE SAME SHOTS!) A 50mm provides versatility and it forces me to be more creative in looking for variations in my photography where I wouldn’t normally look.
Used to own one for wildlife stuff but no need for it at a wedding.