So i finally decided to upgrade from the basic kit lens that came with my Canon R7 because honestly the shots just look a bit flat lately. My sister is getting married this June out in a park near Seattle and i really want to get those nice blurry background shots of the guests and stuff without spending a fortune.
I've been doing a ton of reading online and basically everyone says get the 50mm f/1.8 because its cheap and sharp but then i saw some youtube videos saying that since the R7 is a crop sensor the 50mm actually acts more like an 80mm? That sounds kinda tight if i'm trying to catch people talking at a table or something. Then i looked at the RF 35mm f/1.8 which seems better for wide shots but some people say it distorts faces if you get too close for a portrait.
My budget is capped at about $550 max since i gotta pay for my flight too. I just cant figure out which one is gonna be more versatile for a wedding setting where i might be stuck in one spot. Does the extra reach of the 50mm make it useless indoors or should i just stick with the 35mm even if the bokeh isnt as creamy... what do you guys think would work better for a mix of half-body shots and candid group stuff?
> Does the extra reach of the 50mm make it useless indoors In my experience the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM is way more reliable. 50mm on crop is just too tight for candid groups at a wedding, honestly.
Jumping in... be careful with the 50mm on that R7. It hits like an 80mm which is basically a dedicated portrait lens, so you might find yourself literally running out of room at a park wedding. I would suggest the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM because it is way more forgiving for group shots. Canon really nailed the versatility on this one compared to the basic Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM. The 35mm has Image Stabilization which is a huge safety net for handheld shots when the sun goes down. Stick with the 35mm for reliability... you dont want to miss a candid moment because you couldnt back up far enough to fit everyone in.
> what do you guys think would work better for a mix of half-body shots and candid group stuff? tbh im dealing with this exact same dilemma for a gallery opening in july. its such a headache trying to decide between reach and width when you only have one camera body. i remember taking just a 50mm to a garden party once and i felt so trapped... ended up with a lot of headshots but missed all the atmosphere because i couldnt step back far enough without hitting a hedge. you definitely might want to consider the stabilization factor tho. i noticed the Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM can be a bit jittery on the r7 if your hands arent rock steady since it lacks internal IS. for a wedding where things move fast, i usually tell people to be careful with non-stabilized primes. ive been leaning towards the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM myself just for the peace of mind. the autofocus feels a bit more reliable in low light to me. just make sure to keep your subjects centered so you dont get that weird wide-angle face stretching... it can happen if you get too close for portraits. good luck man, the struggle is real.
To add to the point above: > what do you guys think would work better for a mix of half-body shots and candid group stuff? Honestly the wider option is the way to go for indoor stuff, i have always been satisfied with how it handles groups without feeling cramped. It is a much safer bet for a wedding when you dont know how much room you will have. Actually, since you mentioned flying to Seattle, i just went through a whole ordeal booking a trip there myself. The prices for car rentals at SeaTac are absolutely nuts right now. I spent half my weekend just trying to find a reliable shuttle service because i didnt want to risk a sketchy rental company. I am usually pretty satisfied once the logistics are sorted but man, travel planning is a headache. Anyway lol sorry kinda went off topic there.
it really comes down to two things:
- Will you be sniping shots from a distance or standing right in the action?
- Is background blur more important than fitting everyone in?
