Jump to content

Need Wide Lens for 5D


geraint_hughes

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi, ive just recived my canon 5d mark 2, i have the 70-200 2.8 IS , and a canon 50 1.8, and as a back up i have a canon 50d and a tamron 17-50 2.8. My question is that im shooting lots of weddings coming up and i need a wider lense for my 5d mark 2, but money is the issue at the moment! a few wedding photographers i know said to go with the canon 17-40 f4.........but they are still a little expensive for me at the moment.........PLEASE can anyone suggest a 3rd party good lense that will work for me as i need a lense simply for the group shots etc.....maybe tamron / sigma etc.......hope someone can advise me on this? id be really greatful.</p>

<p>Many thx</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>i need <strong><em>a wider lense for my 5d mark 2</em></strong>, but <em><strong>money is the issue</strong></em> at the moment! a few wedding photographers i know said to go with the canon 17-40 f4.........but they are still a little expensive for me at the moment.........PLEASE can anyone suggest a 3rd party good lense that will work for me as <em><strong>i need a lense simply for the group shots etc</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Consider: EF 35/2 or EF24/2.8 <em><strong>or Both</strong></em><br>

(and the 24/2.8, will be wider than the 17mm on the 50D)</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here's the thing you have a fantastic camera body but you're thinking of using a so-so wide angle.</p>

<p>I say, sell the 5D2 and get a used 5D1 and then buy a Canon 16-35 f/2.8 Mark 1</p>

<p>Or you can always rent, since you said you're already booked so you know the dates on when you need the lens. At least that way you can try out the different brands.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I want to echo Marius' thought - good glass is far more important than your camera body. If you buy a "not so expensive" lens, you will likely be disappointed in the results. You may end up with a great lens in strong light because its maximum aperture is still fairly small - and as long as you are shooting in lots of light, you *might* not have a problem. Then again, without a large aperture, your creative choices are limited somewhat.<br>

Or it will be a cheap lens because the quality of the optics isn't there. Then having the 5D Mark II is irrelevant - no camera will take a good picture with it.<br>

So, rent a high quality lens lens as needed until you can afford to purchase it. Buy that first and use your 50D as the backup body.<br>

With that said, I use a Sigma 24-70 2.8 and I've not had a problem with group shots.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I know very little very the Sigma, but my comment is: if you are suggesting the Sigma 12 to 24, then you specifically want <strong><em>a super wide zoom,</em></strong> and there aren’t many in that category, which extend to 12mm.</p>

<p>I find the EF16 to 35/2.8MkII an exceptional lens for what it can achieve at F/2.8: but it doesn’t extend to 12mm and it is more expensive than the Sigma I expect, but I guess it is not as expensive as another 5DMkII</p>

<p>WW</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Starting in weddings, a 12-24 on FF or crop is probably NOT a good utilization of resources. I can say that I've used both the Sig 24-70/2.8 and the Sig 24-70/2.8 HSM as backups for the 24-70/2.8L, and routinely when in situations that are a bit more...risky. Both worked effectively, and for the most part competetively. </p>

<p>The Sig 24-70/2.8 DX met it's end while I was on a bench, and the bench tipped over... snapped in half, but absorbed enough of the force to save the camera body from damage... considering I'd paid like ~$250 for it used, I was thrilled with both the consistency and quality of the imagery it produced. The biggest downside was a lack of USM/HSM drive, so focusing was slow, and manual overide required slide-unlocking on the barrel, an unfortunate engineering choice.<br>

The Sig 24-70/2.8 HSM has been it's replacement, and also produces lovely, high quality and consistent imagery... above f2.8 it's actual performance on FF is nearly identical to the L. I can literally mount the body on a tripod, and take the same picture w/ both lenses @ same settings and not be able to differentiate between the two... @ 2.8 OTOH, in challenging lighting, it has more flare/flood than the L, still quite manageable (as the 24-70/2.8L isn't stellar in that regard either @f2.8), and given that it's half the price, I'm more than willing to work with it, esp. as a back up. For someone starting out, I'd wholeheartedly recommend the HSM ver.</p>

<p>In fact, I think the only really good reason that the L (other than a ring of red paint of course... ;-) ) is better is due to the fact it contracts as it zooms, giving it a much deeper lens hood, and more protection from flare while zoomed...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...