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.
Like someone mentioned, that 50mm is way too tight for a park wedding on an R7. I have owned both for a couple years and honestly i have been pretty disappointed with the bokeh on the Canon RF 50mm f1.8 STM... it is just not as creamy as people lead you to believe, especially with busy backgrounds like trees. The 35 is better for space but i have had issues with the Canon RF 35mm f1.8 Macro IS STM when it comes to color fringing in high contrast shots. It was way worse than i expected for a lens at this price point and it just doesnt feel like a pro-level piece of gear to me anymore. I have a couple questions to see if there is a better route for you:
- Are you open to using an adapter for older EF lenses or does it have to be native RF?
- How much do you value having a quiet focus motor if you end up wanting to take some video clips too?
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?
Late to the party but this whole thread is 💯. Glad I found it.
> what do you guys think would work better for a mix of half-body shots and candid group stuff? omg i was literally in this exact same spot last month for my cousins birthday party!! it is such a struggle trying to pick just one when you are on a budget. i spent like three days straight obsessing over sample photos and i still couldnt decide lol. quick question tho... is the park near seattle gonna be like a wide open field or is it one of those heavily wooded ones with narrow trails? that makes a huge difference for how much space you actually have to back up! honestly you should just go to youtube and search for something like canon r7 35mm vs 50mm wedding test and watch the first few videos. i saw one amazing comparison video a while back that showed exactly how both look in a park setting and it was way more helpful than trying to visualize it from comments. basically just google it and check the image results too... seeing the actual frames side by side is a total game changer!!
