For low light situations you are best to get a 2.8 lens which will usually cost you a nice chunk of change. I shoot with the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and it does ok in low light. I have been having problems with focus, but I think it is my camera and not the lens. I've also shot with the Canon 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L (thanks, Wendi! LOL) and I love them. The 24-70 is a nice walkaround lens, but the 70-200 2.8 would probably be the best for your situation. It runs about $1700-ouch, I know. There is also a Sigma version of that lens. Maybe you could look into that. 

You could rent the glass, and build that into your pricing until you can afford to own it.

Dave

Yes, true I could do this but I would rather just invest the money I could be spending on renting in buying a nice lens that I will continually use. I do weddings so frequently I would rather just buy.

Shygrl1387:

Checked it out Tamron and Sigma wise and its about 700 for the 70-200 f/2.8.

So you think this would be more ideal than going with the $400 Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer?

I have the 40D, and this 28-135 lens.... it's not ideal for what you want.  It's a good "all around" lens, but when I started doing indoor weddings, I had to go to L glass to get any kind of decent shots.  I have the 24-70 L but reallllllly need the 70-200 L b/c the 70 isn't nearly long enough.  I don't know how the Sigma lens fits into the mix though, never used it...

I have the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and it will work very well for what you are doing.  I also have the 24-70mm sigma.  Both are very good lenses compairable to Canon "L" glass.  The Sigma 24-70 is not quite as sharp wide open as the Canon but other than that pretty darn close match.  The 70-200 you would be hard pressed to tell any difference between it and the Canon other than one is white and the other is black. 

If you can afford the "L" glass go for it you can't beat it.  If you can't afford the "L" glass go with Sigma, it will at least tie with the "L" glass. 

yah, I know I definatly do not have the budget to go with "L" glass as of right now, but really need to consider something like this for low light. So you would definatly saw the 70-200 over the 28-138?

I think Dave W gives good advice above about renting.  While I certainly understand preferring to purchase the lens you want, while you are trying to decide renting would give you a chance to try out several different ones.  You can then make your purchase based on which lens produced the best results for you.

 I use the 70-200mm F4.0 lens.  It is L glass, but does not have image stabilization.  It cost about $400-$500.00.  I use it in the back of the churches and from balconies and it takes great pictures.

Yea but I would much rather spend the money to get a lens with IS they are so much nicer I dont want to have to worry about blurry images.

If you are standing in the back you can buy a REALLY nice tripod setup for MUCH less than adding the IS ability to the lense.  And remember, faster glass is better than image stabilization because even image stabilization can't take the blur out of a MOVING person or target.  Faster glass CAN...

Thats a good point but if I am in very low light of the reception say.. would that lens the L4 be fast enough you think?

You need to raise your rates by $100 a wedding to get the 2.8 in 17 weddings.

or $200 and pay for it in 9!

Dave

 I don't use the 70-200mm lens during receptions.  I use my 24-70mm L F2.8 lens.  I use the 24-70 most of the time during weddings.  The 70-200 lens isn't wide enough so isn't good for groups or for the reception. 

Neither one of my lenses has IS and I don't miss it because I've never used it.  My images aren't blurry unless I shoot incorrectly.  I have also shot sports with my 70-200 lens and gotten some great shots!  

 The 50mm 1.8 will be fine in low light, but not from the back of the church.  Does your 50mm do well for groups?

Only if its a small group limited to distance non zoom
50 is better for portrait type shots. But I really need to get a good telephoto. Decisions decisions...

 Yeah, if you are going to be doing weddings, I'd purchase the 24-70mm L Lens.  That was the best money I ever spent.  I use it for everything including portraits in my home studio.  I love that lens!  Mine doesn't have IS though cuz IS wasn't out yet. 

Hello Shygirl, I was looking for a lens for the same reason you were. I'm checking with you to see what lens you decide to go with. I shoot with a 400D canon SLR.  Thank you!

Greetings Dave, I was reading some comments you gave a young lady on getting a good lens for lowlight/ weddings. You advise her of the 70-200mm L lens will this lens work good for close up group shots, group of about 24 people? and should i go with canon or sigma? Thank you in advance for your help. I shot with a 400D canon.

For group shots you're going to want to go to a wider lens, like the 24-70. There are calculators online that will tell you the field of view for a lens at different distances from the subject. Up close, the 70-200 is going to be for taking pics of 1 person, and maybe only a headshot at that.

Dave

 I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 and use it on my 40D.  I've been pretty happy with it.  Last Catholic wedding I shot was in a pretty large church and I had to sit up in the choir loft.