Lens set question.

[david_thompson11]

I have used the search button and after 2 hours of looking, I can't find the

answer I'm looking for. If it's there, I'm sorry.

 

I use 1.6x Canon crop cameras and have no plans to change. I also don't want to

hear about backup equipment, because I have that covered. :)

 

I have sold all of my lenses and am wanting something new for wedding work.

These are the only 2 setups I'm looking at. I have to have IS to help with a

little shaky hands. I'm tired of slightly blurred pics because of my minor

physical shake. I'm either going with

 

#1 Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS on one body and a 70-200mm 2.8 IS on the other.

#2 Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 on one body and a 24-105mm f4 IS on the other.

 

Not a big fan of changing lenses at all. What are your thought on this? Like I

said, I have to have IS, not for the stop motion of moving subjects, just the

SLIGHT shake of my hands.

 

Again, sorry if this is a 100% repeat question, but I couldn't find the answer.

Oh ya, this is only for wedding work. I have my studio setup done and that setup

doesn't leave the studio.

 

*Bows in thanks*

[elnoralouisa]

I would go with #1, but you know what, only you know the answer. We each have different styles. I don't have any need for a 10 and only going up to 105 wouldn't do it for me, yet for many people they want the wide, and don't ever go past 105mm. Since you sold all your lenses, you must, from prior experience, know what you really need.

 

As far as IS, hey, I am with you all the way! I bought my Fuji camera, and the store sold me a 17 or 18-135, no VR. Oh, you don't need it for anything that short. The lens lasted about two weeks before I switched to VR, except for my 50mm, and no regrets. At 135, I did need it, so if you feel it's a requirement, do it and don't look back.

[ike k]

10-22 is too wide IMHO, you will only need really wide few times but the 17-55 is by far I

guess the most popular lens to cover a wedding (Canon shooter). The 70-200 is handy at

most of the time so definitely a must. Offcourse # 1 is more way expensive than #2 but if you

do have the money why not?

 

I'm a nikon shooter and these lenses are my current set up 20-35(2.8) and 80-200(2.8), I do

have 35-70 and swap between the 20-35. Another lens I find very useful is 50(1.8) this one

is one damn cheap lens but it works and helps a lot. Eventho the crop factor made it 75mm

but I still find it very helpful.

[conraderb]

I own or have used all the lenses you speak of, and I would definitely go with #1 instead of #2.

 

do you really need a superwide that badly? it's only a 3.5, and I always shoot it at 5.6 or 8 - it doesn't seem as sharp to me at 3.5.

 

plus there's no IS on your superwide.

 

I don't know about you, but I use my 10-22 for special effects and really big wide scenes. otherwise, the 17mm on my 17-55 is wide enough...

 

 

you can shoot w/ the 17-55 for a long, long time, but with the 24-105 on your 1.6 body, I bet you would be constantly switching back and forth. I know that when I had my 24-70 L (before the 17-55 was released), I was constantly switching between the 24-70 and the 16-35.

 

when the 17-55 came out, I realized that it was the lens I was always dreaming of. I sold the 16-35, kept the 24-70 as a backup, and now hte 17-55 lives on camera body #1.

[picturesque]

#1 plus a tripod. Normally I'd say #1 plus a couple of fast primes for low light, but with your tremors, you'd have to rely on a tripod (monopod) for the low light times.

[jimstrutz]

I really like wide lenses, and tend to use them more than long lenses, but I find they have a more limited use at weddings. Less than 5% of my wedding shots are with a lens wider than 17mm on a 20D/40D. It would be nice if the 17-55 started at 15mm though -- I might use that. Also for weddings, I do find use for lenses longer than 100mm quite a lot.

 

I do carry a wide zoom on my person at all times though, because I just hate to miss those wide opportunities when they come.

[grant g]

Tough call, as I use and love all 4 of those for crop camera use.

 

But sticking to the two choices, I would go for the 10-22 and 24-105 since you shoot 2

bodies like I do.

 

To me, it comes down to preferring 10mm over 200 on 1.6x crop cameras. I can crop a

105mm shot to close to 200 equivalent if need be, but I'd never stitch 17mm shots for

wider at weddings...

 

And I agree with Jim, that if the 17-55 were just a hair wider, I think the decision for me

would go the other way.

[buffdr_raz1]

Choice #2 for me. I love and use my 24-105 and 85/1.8 on MY camera's. I can tell you all the lens you mentioned are great but I find the 70-200 too long for most of my work. I do mount it when the wedding ceremony goes outside! Indoors and the reception is way too cramped for that long of a lens. I sympathize with you as I shake a little too. I'm finding out that wide lens in a wedding is a very nice thing to have when used properly. If you go with your #1 setup, you will find that 17/55 is not long enough and you will be swiching cameras like crazy! Good luck

v/r

Buffdr

[kari douma]

I have the Nikon's 17-55, and the 70-200VR. I love them! I use the 70-200 a LOT, not to long for me!

[surfidaho]

I shoot with configuration number 1. And a monopod. Because sometimes IS just ISn't enough.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

[William Michael]

Selection #1.

 

Rationale:

 

1. Superior Lens speed: ESSENTIAL for Wedding Work if No Flash is allowed.

 

2. IS throughout, and as indicated, is necessary.

 

3. The sacrifice of the wide end can be accommodated in most circumstances by judicious arrangement of groups: if it is a building or similar static object or background, then that is just tough, and a re composition will have to suffice.

 

In regards to this:

 

>>> Not a big fan of changing lenses at all. What are your thought on this? <<<

 

I would like you to have a 28F1.8 or 50mmF1.4 in your pocket, just to get those necessary shots if no flash is allowed, (and a monopod)

 

WW