For Wedding, Canon 5D2 or 7D?

<p>I have been pretty happy with canon 5D2 with 24-105mm f/4L. I want another body as workload has increased.<br>

Right now, I have 1 5D2 body with 24-105L and 580EX speedlite. 1 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, 1 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, 1 28-105mm lenses, 1 580EX sppedlite and an old 5D camera body.<br>

I am stuck with whether I should go for another 5DMarkII and use 24-105mm f/4L IS USM or buy 7D with EFS 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS or EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.<br>

Most of my wedding functions are indoor at night and I use pretty high ISOs to capture ambient light, where old 5D lags behind markII.<br>

Please help me decide.</p>

<p>What is wrong with the old 5D. To me it sounds like you got allot of overlapping lenses. Why so many tele-zooms ?</p>

<p>i normally use 24-105L with both the bodies. others are just 2nd option and they lie in my stock with old 35mm film cameras.<br>

5D is good but its performance at higher ISOs is not as good as I require. Wedding, thesedays, demands all the drama and emotions captured accurately and without adequate ambient light or higher ISO,its difficult to achieve. thts why i wanna go 4 another body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>For Wedding,</em></strong> Canon 5D2 or 7D?<br>

I have 1 5D2 body with <strong><em>24-105L</em></strong> and 580EX speedlite. 1 <strong><em>24-105mm f/4L</em></strong> IS USM, 1 <strong><em>28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS,</em></strong> 1 28-105mm lenses,<strong><em>[EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM]</em></strong> 1 580EX sppedlite and an old 5D camera body.<br />I am stuck with whether I should go for another <strong><em>5DMarkII and use 24-105mm f/4L</em></strong> IS USM or buy <strong><em>7D</em></strong> with <strong><em>EFS 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS</em></strong> or <strong><em>EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM</em></strong>.<br /><em>Most of my wedding functions are indoor at night and <strong>I use pretty high ISOs to capture ambient light</strong></em><strong>,</strong> where <strong><em>old 5D lags behind markII</em></strong>.<br>

Please help me decide.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>IMO you do not need a new camera, you need different lenses. </p>

<p>How much does the 5D lag behind the 5DMkII – you push the 5DMkII to what – ISO3200? And the 5D you push to ISO1600? That’s 1 stop difference – yet you have lenses with Maximum Apertures of F/4 and F/5.6 – and are considering buying more of those same very slow lenses.</p>

<p>If you are using high ISO to capture ambient light, then surely you will get much more leverage putting you money into four lenses like: 24/1.4LMkII; 50/1.4; 85/1.8 and 135/2L.</p>

<p>If you must buy a new camera the 5DMkII and use both cameras with a 24 to 105/4, is the better choice of all the options you list – but I really do think that is not the best path to follow – a 24 105 is not the best lens to use to address: “<em>Most of my wedding functions are indoor at night and <strong>I use pretty high ISOs to capture ambient light</strong></em><strong>,</strong> </p>

<p>Also, if you do buy a 7D, then buying any EF-S lenses with that camera is a poor decision in regard to system redundancy: as no EF-S lens swill mount onto you 5D or 5DMkII</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>Normally I would suggest a two sensor size kit for the added focal length combination's you get, but, if this is true "<em>Most of my wedding functions are indoor at night and I use pretty high ISOs to capture ambient light</em>," then another 5D MkII makes more sense, even the loudest 7D vs 5D MkII stalwarts admit that at higher iso the 5D MkII pulls well clear.</p>

<p>But, as always, William hits the nail on the head and actually understands the issue rather than just answering the question! No good wedding photographer should rely on one body though, two bodies is a minimum, but as you have that I'd think about faster lenses, f4 really is slow.</p>

<p>Don't buy anymore slow IS zooms. I too would buy some lenses before buying another 5D II. Your 5D is a perfectly good back up with better lenses. I highly recommend buying used lenses of previous versions so your budget goes much further. The first lens I would consider is the 85/1.2 L and then likely the 35/1.4 L.</p>

<p>Ditto here. Your bodies are fine. You need faster glass. You could pretty much sell all of your glass and replace it with this.<br>

24-70 2.8<br>

50 1.4<br>

85 1.8<br>

70-200 2.8 IS<br>

Some of these are the cheaper version, but will still give you a massive improvement over what you have at the lowest cost. If you sell the 28-135, and the 28-105, you could probably get all of this in excellent used condition for the same net investment as a 5DII.</p>

<p>Money and budget aside, a " typical " wedding lens lineup might be 16-35 2.8; 24-70 2.8; 85 1.8; 70-200 2.8; with the two 5D bodies you have, , equipment would not be your limiting factor.</p>

<p>Absolutely agree about the lenses needing an upgrade over the body.</p>

<p>Another vote here to change the lenses instead of the body. Sell all of your lenses and buy a 24-70 f/2.8, and use the money for the new 5D Mark II you were planning to buy to get a 70-200 f/2.8 IS. You might still have some money left to buy some primes with f/1.8 or less.</p>

<p>I disagree with most answers here. 24-105 on the 5D2 with 580 EX is a perfect wedding setup.</p>

<p>As for the other lenses, 28-105 and 28-135. They'll don fine for backup. However if you're looking for a second rig that you use all the time (rather than emergency only) then I suggest bolting something like 85/1.8 or 100/2 onto that 5D of yours.</p>

<p>In the same vein, I wouldn't get a slow consumer zoom for a 7D. If you're gonna go 7D then 17-55/2.8 IS and/or primes is the answer.</p>

<p>Most of the bases are covered in the other answers. One important adder:</p>

<p>If you do opt for a 7D, or any other cropped body; don't buy EF-S lenses that won't work on the full frame cameras! That's just silly!</p>

<p>If you already have two bodies; then I agree with the other posters that your lens lineup could use some sprucing up; either with a 2.8 zoom or some fast primes.</p>

 

<p>And for something completely different ....<br>

How often are wedding shots taken at 1.8, or even 2.8? Pretty shallow depth of field. The really large apertures are for specialty shots, but for receptions, especially, f/4 is about the maximum. I think a second 5D is in order if you need to bring make the most of poor lighting conditions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“I disagree with most answers here. 24-105 on the 5D2 <strong>with 580 EX</strong> is a perfect wedding setup.”<br>

and<br>

"How often are wedding shots taken at <strong>1.8, or even 2.8</strong>?”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quite often, when shooting:<br>

<em>“Most [. . .] wedding functions are indoor at night and I use pretty high ISOs <strong>to capture ambient light</strong>”</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

This is as I understand the question: and is what the question is directly asking.<br>

The OP is <strong>having problems shooting</strong> <strong>sans flash at the Reception </strong>– so whether or not the 580 combined with the 24 to 104 is a good rig or not, is not in that equation.</p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>“<strong><em>Pretty shallow depth of field</em></strong> The really large apertures are for specialty shots, but for receptions, especially, f/4 is about the maximum.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not so, generalizations about DoF are dangerous.<br>

DoF has many factors.<br>

Using a 5D or 5DMkII: To pull a Full Length shot (Horizontal Format) there is more than 5ft DoF at F/2.8; Vertical Format Full Length Shot gives a DoF about 2’6” – compact but certainly fine for two people close together.</p>

<p>For an half shot (Horizontal format) using F/2.8 for of a group of two or three people you are working at just under 2ft DoF and certainly good framing is required, but is quite doable.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12474013-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="680" /></p>

<p>The whole point is if it is ambient light capture you need the Tv (Shutter Speed) to capture the moment and typical room lighting at a reception more often than not often renders shooting specs requiring apertures larger then F/4 to hold around 1/125s – 1/60s @ around ISO1600 or ISO3200 as the example above indicates.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I concur with everyone who is suggesting new lenses instead of a new body. Put those variable aperture (x.x-5.6) lenses back in your bag and use them ONLY as backups in case you drop one of your faster lenses, i.e. in cases of dire necessity.</p>

<p> </p>

If High ISO is a factor, why then do you use slow zooms. Get the lenses right first.

<p>I shoot weddings and I used both the 5D and the 5D Mark II and I find it to be a fine combo The lenses I use are 24-70 2.8, 85 1.2, 70-200 f4, 17-40 f4 and 100 macro 2.8.</p>

<p>I agree with WW (as usual :)) A cache of faster glass will gain the OP a lot more mileage than a second body. I don't think the 70-200 2.8 or otherwise is a necessity in a wedding kit. I think it is quite a specialized lens that should only be bought if absolutely necessary. I would get a 50mm (f/1.4 should be more than enough) and a 135 f/2L (assuming 5D1+5D2). I've skipped the 85 as I think that its FOV is a bit too close to the 50 (if you zoom with your feet) but a 135 would give a more versatile setup.</p>

<p>For zooms, I'd look at Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L but also at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 I own one and have found it a very useful lens indeed. I miss the reach of my 24-105L, but it affords me macro and enough FL for 75% of situations. On the wide end, I use my 17-40L and have not needed faster glass (when using my 5D2) as I can push the ISO pretty high if I need to.</p>

<p>WW, what works for you may not work for all. In your shot, while the colors and contrast are nice, the second woman is, to my eye, hopelessly out of focus. I would rather have an extra foot of DoF and have her sharp. <br>

My assumption in my post was that photographers demand that the subject of the photograph must be relatively sharp. There's a trade off, obviously. Which is why another body that can go high on the ISO w/out much noise will allow the use of ambient light and adequate sharpness.<br>

Your photograph, in fact, is one that I would use to support my own point. It's wonderfully composed, etc, and yet if only you could have used a smaller aperture. <br>

SOS</p>

<p>Stephen, thanks for the critique and also the compliments: but your commentary on my image totally misses the point of me posting it, in this thread. <br />The point of the example image was to support the text I wrote (and also show one example where F/1.8 <strong><em>might</em></strong> be used with a 5D or 5DMkII) . . .<br />It is not a matter of what works for me or not.<br />But the point is: the Photographer WILL eventually we will run out of ISO when working AMBIENT LIGHT at the RECEPTION; it is about having a tool (a lens) capable to use (with a 5D or 5D MkII) if it is necessary to use at large apertures: that is what the question is asking - even though the OP does not state it that way. And in this regard F/4 and F/5.6 do not cut the mustard – it is as simple as that.<br />The other reason for my response to your post was to point out that using large apertures does not necessarily mean shallow DoF. <em>DoF is all about The Shot.</em><br />BTW: the second woman is OoF – if was composed that way: as per the text on the image – but again that is not relevant to the thread or the question being asked.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>I'm confused, why would a pro even consider buying a 7D w/ 18-135 for ambient light night work? not only is the lens as slow as Yugo, but you don't even have USM to override the AF (which is bound to get lost @f5.6 in a dark room).... I hope they kissed slowly.</p>

<p>The 24-105mm/4 is almost as bad (not quite, and at least you've got USM), where's the 24-70/2.8 (if you need a zoom)!? where are the primes? Do yourself a (huge!) favor, and drop the f4 lenses and get some glass that can actually see at night... WW has hit the nail on the head, heck, even a nifty fifty would open up broad expanses of photography to the OP. the 50 @ 1.8 lets in <strong>4.93 times</strong> as much light in as the 24-105/4 @50mm WO does that matter? ... maybe just a smidge... (then you could shoot as fast at ISO200/400 instead of ISO1600/3200).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The only reason for prefering 24-105/4 over 24-70/2.8 and fast prime lenses is its range. I avoid carrying multiple lenses and stuff as weddings here are very haphazard and very overpopulated and nobody except the couple is co-operative. I cover receptions, ceremonies, groups and couples and all with the same lens. So, its always easy to use what's necessary and convenient.<br>

I am very grateful to all for their valuable suggestions and contributions. Now, Im not going for 7D with EFS lenses, rather I'll use my 5D with 24-105/4 and would buy 5D2 if necessary.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only reason for <strong><em>prefering 24-105/4</em></strong> over 24-70/2.8 and fast prime lenses<strong><em> is its range.</em></strong> I <strong><em>avoid carrying multiple lenses</em></strong> and stuff as weddings <strong><em>here</em></strong> are very <strong><em>haphazard and very overpopulated and nobody except the couple is co-operative.</em></strong> I cover receptions, ceremonies, groups and couples and<strong><em> all with the same lens.</em></strong> So, its always <strong><em>easy to use what's necessary and convenient.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong><em> </em></strong><br>

I believe I understand the culture, the general location and the type of Weddings and Occasions you shoot.</p>

<p><em>As I understand your situation although you travel lightweight <strong>you do carry TWO cameras</strong>. I travel light weight also, so I understand that too.</em></p>

<p>In consideration that you already have a 5D and a 5DMkII and that your original problem was shooting at high ISO in ambient light I personally am still at a loss understanding why you choose to carry TWO cameras with the SAME lenses.</p>

<p>Surely there would be more leverage in Camera + 24 -70/2.8 and Camera +70 to 200/2.8 (or+ 135/2)<br>

That kit is still two cameras and two lenses, but you get MORE range and FASTER lens speed.</p>

<p>I post this last comment not to be argumentative – I don’t mind what you kit yourself with – it is just I don’t understand the logic which is being used to address the issues you are presenting.</p>

<p>Good luck with it.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>@William, I dont carry two cameras. just one camera with one lens and a speedlight. I'll surely try your suugestion of using 24-70/2.8 with 70-200/2.8 as it appears to be the best in terms of quality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I dont carry two cameras. just one camera with one lens and a speedlight."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My misunderstanding of your orignal post.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"try . . . suggestion of using 24-70/2.8 with 70-200/2.8 as it appears to be the best in terms of quality."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Good oh! - let's know how it works out.</p>

<p>WW</p>