| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Which Lens would you pick?
Eric Jones, Photographer
 |
Greenville | NC | USA | Posted: 11:46 AM on 07.31.09 |
->> Just looking for some good advice on my path forward with my camera gear. I currently have a Canon 40D and I have on order a Canon 5D Mark II. A little bit of background first, I just started shooting portraits, families, babies, seniors and kids and have dabbled a bit in engagement and wedding shoots. I’ve been asked by several couples about doing weddings but not sure I was ready to jump on board as I was enjoying the families and kids portraits. I will continue to do more of those shots but would like to move into the weddings side slowly. I know that most wedding photographers have low light L lenses and of course this is where I don’t have the money to buy all those lenses at one time. This is what I have in glass.
10-22 (only fits the 40D)
28-135mm 4.5
70-200mm 2.8
I was thinking of selling my 40D and the 10-22 lens (since it will not work on the 5D) and purchasing one of the following lenses.
16-35mm 2.8
24-70mm 2.8
50mm 1.2
I do have access to a 20D as a backup. Which lens would make a good first choice for shooting weddings as well as using them in my other photography sessions? Thanks for any feedback.
EKJ |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:50 AM on 07.31.09 |
->> EKJ:
I'd sell the 20D instead of the 40D and buy the 16-35mm. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:55 AM on 07.31.09 |
| ->> A 24-70 paired with your 70-200 would be ideal IMO. Then go for the 50mm/1.4 since it's a very sharp lens and $1000 less than the 50mm/1.2. Next purchase? A good s/h 5d (Mk1) as your 2nd body. |
|
Jeff Stanton, Photographer
|
Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 11:59 AM on 07.31.09 |
->> Eric, read Craig Mitchelldyer's column that was posted recently. He has everything in there you ever wanted to know about weddings, but were afraid to ask.
www.sportsshooter.com/news/2251 |
|
Jason Joseph, Photographer
|
Dublin | OH | USA | Posted: 12:04 PM on 07.31.09 |
| ->> For portrait work with a 5D MarkII, I am using the Zeiss 85/1.4 and Zeiss 50/1.4 extensively. Their only drawback for still work is that they are manual focus only lenses. This is a perfectly fine feature for video work, which is why I got them. (the focus mechanism is buttery smooth with A LOT of travel, so they are great for rack focusing). Anyway, back to my point. As long as you are shooting subjects that stay rather still (until you get a good focus), they are great. I have had a bit of challenge shooting young kids that don't stay very still. For those instances, my 24-70L gets used. I will say that if "manual focus only" is too scary, know that the camera's focus confirmation light & beep still function when the focus point that is selected is in focus. So you don't have to rely totally on your eye and judgement. And as for sharpness and image quality, well, they are magnificent. I have heard comparisons of the 5D MrkII/Zeiss combos to many medium format setups with the Canon setup coming out on top. Personally I can't attest to it b/c I have never shot with anything medium format. |
|
Michael McNamara, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:31 PM on 07.31.09 |
->> I'd tell you to get the 5D Mk2 in the kit with the 24-105 f/4. It's significantly sharper than the 16-35 and the 24-70. I probably do 90% of my non-food work with that lens.
I'd then ditch the 10-22 and the 28-135 and go with the 50 f/1.4 that Jim suggested. |
|
Andrew Nelles, Photographer
 |
Chicago | Ill. | usa | Posted: 12:33 PM on 07.31.09 |
| ->> I'd second Jim, the 24-70 and 70-200 is a perfect pairing. I like the 16-35 on my crop bodies, but it rarely sees use on the 5D. |
|
Andrew Nelles, Photographer
|
Chicago | Ill. | usa | Posted: 12:34 PM on 07.31.09 |
| ->> Also +1 on the 50mm 1.4, I love that lens, use it a ton. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 12:35 PM on 07.31.09 |
| ->> +1 Jim Colburn |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 12:43 PM on 07.31.09 |
->> Ditto what Michael McNamara said. Keep the 40D and lose the 20D. The 5D II is good enough at higher ISO's to justify the 4.0 lens over a 2.8.
Then consider also the 28/1.8 and 135/2.0, both are exceptional lenses, and their wide apertures will allow you to do interesting things with limited depth of field. |
|
Eric Jones, Photographer
|
Greenville | NC | USA | Posted: 1:13 PM on 07.31.09 |
| ->> The 20D is not mine, I have access to it if I need a second body. That is why I was going to sell the 40D and the 10-22 which would hopefully give me enough to go back and purchase the 24-70mm 2.8 and the 50mm 1.4 with a little extra of my money thrown in. |
|
Scott Fong, Student/Intern
|
Pacifica | CA | USA | Posted: 1:19 PM on 07.31.09 |
| ->> I'd second the 24-70, it's a great lens most photographers consider it their bread and butter. Plus with the 5D2 being able to go to 6400 iso very cleanly 2.8s are more than useful for everything now. The 50 1.2 is massively over rated and over priced, i just traded mine for an 85 1.2 II best decision of the year thus far! |
|
Alan Herzberg, Photographer
|
Elm Grove | WI | USA | Posted: 7:34 PM on 07.31.09 |
| ->> I agree with Jim. 50mm 1.4 and a 24-70. |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 8:27 PM on 07.31.09 |
->> Do not sell the 40D! You must own 2 bodies. Do not buy anything. You might need the money. Shoot for a while. The gear you have will take wonderful photos if you shoot wonderful photos.
I always say this one way or another... Why is it that photographers always think the best lens for the job is the one they don't own? |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 2:18 AM on 08.01.09 |
->> I second Ian. You cannot ever go to shoot a wedding/portrait/concert...anything without a backup body. How do you explain to the bride that your camera died right before the first kiss? Not too good for business...
Ditch the 10-22 and the 28-135 and get yourself a 24-70 or the 24-105. Shooting manual exposure or shutter priority with a variable aperture lens is very frustrating...
Good luck! |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:39 PM on 08.01.09 |
| ->> Eric, I would like to emphasize what Ian said above. I cannot even fathom going to shoot a wedding (or for that matter any important assignment) without at LEAST one back-up camera. If you want to sink your fledgling business that is a great way to do it. Things can go wrong on film cameras and there was usually a way to get around most problems, but these digital cameras are evil. One little thing and they die. One of our shooters was at a concert the other night and his camera was working fine as he was shooting features of the crowd, five minutes later he was in the pit just before Willie Nelson came on and his camera refused to work. Just stopped. Battery fine, just wouldn't work. Luckily he had carried in his other body because he knew he needed both a long lens and the wide....if not though he would have been totally screwed. Now this was just a regular photo assignment. What in the world do you think is going to happen if your only camera dies at the beginning of your wedding shoot? |
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 8:40 PM on 08.02.09 |
| ->> If you're really on a tight budget, consider the Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens. It's actually sharper than the Canon 24-70 2.8L, especially from f/2.8 to f/4, and very affordable but with slower AF and the loss of 4mm on the wide end. If you're OK with f/4, the 17-40 f4L is also very decent and actually sharper than the original 16-35L. |
|
Brian Blanco, Photographer
|
Tampa / Sarasota | FL | USA | Posted: 9:07 PM on 08.02.09 |
->> Eric,
Since you're on a budget, why not buy a 50mm f/1.8 instead of a f/1.4? You can pick them up all day long on the used market for around $50.00 and they're wonderful lenses. I use one all the time. Do they have the build quality of the f1.4? Heck no, not even close, but it's only $50.00. I often spend that on gas to get to a shoot. It's a "disposable" lens that works great.
Also, why not buy a used 17-35mm f/2.8 instead of a 16-35mm f2.8? You can pick one up for around $500.00 on eBay if you look hard enough.
With the money you save buying the two lenses above instead of what you're considering you'll have enough money left over to buy a backup body like a 20D, 30D or a EOS-1D MKII. I've seen 20D bodies go for $250.00 at KEH.
In fact, while the 5d MKII is a WONDERFUL camera and worth every penny - since you're on a budget, why not cancel the order and buy the original 5D on the used market? They pop up all the time for $1,000.00 with a few batteries and the vert grip. The original 5D is a TERRIFIC camera that renders beautiful frames. This way you'd have even more money to spend on strobes, rain gear, laptop, software, Pocket Wizards (or generic transmitter and receivers) or promotional material. |
|
Philip Johnson, Photographer
|
Garland | TX | USA | Posted: 11:50 PM on 08.02.09 |
| ->> Eric, another option is a used 28-70 f/2.8. I found one for $600 and I use it with my 1DsMKII for the weddings I shoot along with a 70-200 and 20-35 f/2.8. There are good quality used lens out there. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|