The Last Lens - Purchase advice needed

[lindamccague]

I've got a pretty good set of gear together for photographing weddings and I'm planning to add one last lens... for a

while anyway!

 

I'm debating between the Canon 16-35mm, 100mm macro or 15mm fisheye. I am currently leaning towards the

fisheye to get some ocasional unusal shots, but just not 100% sure. I do like macro (for my own images) and the

wide 16-35 could be fun too.

 

I will add that I'm currently shooting with a 40D, but I will be purchasing the 5D II once it is out, so I was figuring that

the 24-70 that I have would be wide enough once I have full frame and may not need the 16-35. (I currently rent it for

weddings to get te wider angle in lower light s I've only got the crop sensor). I have also rented the 100mm macro,

but haven't rented the fisheye. I have used a fisheye before on a film SLR I used to have years ago - never for wedding

photography though.

 

Current lenses I own:

17-85mm

50mm 1.4

85mm 1.2

24-70mm 2.8

70-200mm 2.8 IS

 

I'm looking for something to add creativity and fun to my wedding photography coverage. What do you think would be

the best one? Consider that I will have a full frame and a crop sensor hopefully soon! I can't decide which would be

best. I've never used the 16-35 on a full frame. Would it be crazy wide (in a good/fun/creative way)? Would it be better

than the fisheye?

[joe_rych]

Get the fisheye for sure! That is something you dont have covered. I think its a great effect and if used correctly greatly enhances your capabilities.

[JosvanEekelen]

You don't mention a 2nd body, I'd give that priority over any lens before the next wedding. For a fishey you could think about a Peleng, it has the advantage of being inexpensive, reasonally built and quality.

[richard_thomas9]

You have some flashes? I would go with those. As for lenses, how about a Tokina 11-16 2.8?

[lindamccague]

I only mentioned the lenses I have as that I what I'm looking to buy. I have the 40D and a 10D as backup right now. I'll be purchasing the 5D II when it comes out in a few months. (I'm #8 on the list at the local photo shop). I also have 2 (two) 580EXII's and 1 (one) 430EX. I use off camera lighting when I get the chance.

 

Now... what lens do you think? ;-)

 

Rico: Is the Tokina as good as Canon? So far all I have purchased is Canon lenses.

[lindamccague]

Oooh, I also have the new radio poppers! I just got them and haven't tried them out yet. I've been using Canon's wireless system up until this point. However it misfires, so I got the radio poppers to have a better fire rate.

[richard_thomas9]

Well Linda, I don't have that lens nor have I tried it but I have read tons of good reviews. See a portion of photozone.de reviews below

 

"The Tokina AF 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX is currently the best ultra-wide angle zoom lens for Canon EOS APS-C DSLRs"

 

read more at

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon

 

Here's PN's review

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tokina/11-16/

 

Good luck w/ your decision!!!

[picturesque]

The 16-35mm on a full frame is nice, and the wide is really wide, but does not have that curved horizon look that a fisheye will give. I have one that I bought to go with my 20D and still use it on my 5D.

 

I don't know that you can get any kind of concensus on the most sensible, "shot in the arm" fun lens since it depends largely on you. The fisheye is nice but gets old if overused. Macro lens is nice but isn't used all the time (I use the Canon close focus accessory lens). The 16-35mm, as mentioned above, is quite useful on a full frame, and isn't so gimmicky. So...up to you.

[savagesax]

I think the 40D is not full frame. So I'm not sure how a 15mm and the 16-35mm will work on a 40D. On a full frame camera the 15mm fish eye is really a lot of fun, but for sure has it's limits. After about 10 shots or so I think the bride and groom may get tired of that look real fast.

 

The 16-35 is really a wonderful lens on a full frame camera. I feel it is a must for clean wide angle shots. At the church, temples, nature, whatever you wish to photograph the lens quality is pretty amazing. For receptions, often no room to shoot in, it a MUST lens to have. For example you can do a full length shot of the couple during the first dance, as well a a closeup shot, within about 5 feet or less.

 

The 100mm macro is another sharp lens. You can do really fun close up shots of the rings, flowers, anything you want. It's also an under rated decent portrait lens.

 

So I'm afraid it's your choice to decide. I think you will get the most use out of the 16-35mm. As for fun I think my favorite "Fun," lens has to be the fisheye for weddings and then the 100mm macro.

[jimstrutz]

I have, and use for weddings, a Tokina 10-17 fisheye zoom. It provides a full rectangular fisheye view with both a 40D (at 10mm) and with a 5D (at 15-17mm). I think that is a far better fisheye option for someone using a combination of both crop and full frame bodies. Costs less than Canon's 15mm too. Image quality is excellent, and build quality very good. That said, I take 5-6 shots with it at a wedding, and usually show the bride half of those. I think it's great to have, but... It seems to me that you could make better use of a real wide lens like the 16-35. I don't think 24mm is wide enough on a full frame, nor 17mm on a crop frame camera, but this is mostly just my preference.

 

Also, like Nadine, I use a Canon closeup adapter lens (250D), or a close focusing tube, on other lenses for the little bit of semi-macro work at a wedding. If you want a real macro lens for other things they are a great lens to have, but really aren't needed for weddings.

[William Michael]

Hello Linda.

 

My vote is for the 16 to 35F2.8MkII.

 

My rationale:

 

[i assume the 17 to 85 is the EF-S 17 to 85?]

 

1. You at present have nothing wider than 27mm (135 format equivalent FoV).

 

2. When you get the 5D MkII you will increase that marginally to 24 mm.

 

Whilst 24mm might be wide enough, most of the time for weddings, sometimes 20mm might be handy? and most likely is more handy, than a fisheye for the occasional fun shot, IMO.

 

And yes at 16mm on a 5D, there can be great creativity: perhaps more scope for creative work than the CONSTRAINTS of a fisheye. what I mean by that is, the Fisheye view itself is mostly the dominant creative element.

 

3. When you get a 5DMkII, what are your intensions for the 17 to 85? It cannot mount to the 10D nor the 5D and that goes against my passion for complete system redundancy.

 

4. If you do have the 16 to 35F2.8 and the 70 to 200F2.8 and a dual format system (40D + 5DMkII + 10D spare), then the 24 to 70F2.8L, IMO, becomes redundant, if you do not mind a few more lens changes.

 

5. From points 3. & 4. you can see that my thinking is SYSTEM based, and I would be to sell the 17 to 85 upon purchasing the 16 to 35, even before I got the 5DMkII.

 

OK, thinking seriously, if I ALREADY owned a 24 to 70F2.8L, I most likely would NOT sell it, but I have been very careful NOT to buy one, but rather exploit having a dual format system to get an F2.8 zoom coverage from 16 to 200 and carrying only two zooms . . . (I also have a 50mm and an 85mm).

 

Just some more food for thought.

 

I think the 100F2.8Macro is a good addition to the kit and intentions you have.

 

I think a Fast, Wide Angle Prime lens, would also be a good investment for creativity: I prefer the 24F1.4L. (I would wait for the MkII version to be available). But I can see merit in the 35 F1.4L also, but, IMO, the 35 is just not wide enough, on the 5D, in most indoor situations. Also the 24mm sits better as a pair with the 50F1.4, when using a dual format kit.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[lightsmith1]

I would get the 16-35mm f2.8. I found it very useful on the 1.3 crop Mark III and cannot imagine trying to shoot a wedding with 24mm as my shortest focal length. On the 5D the 16-35mm is a great wide angle lens and useful for overall venue shots of the bride getting ready with her bridesmaids, the ceremony location, and the reception dancing.

 

I went to Nikon's D3 to be able to use their excellent 14-24mm f2.8 lens as the 16-35mm on a 1.3 crop Mark III camera was not wide enough at times.

 

I use at most 2 fisheye images in a wedding album and often none. You will get a lot more use out of a wide angle lens in terms of images that you will actually use.

 

For wedding macro a screw on closeup lens for the 16-35mm or 24-70mm lens works fine for the 3-4 images where you might want it. Hardly worth the expense or effort to lug around a 100mm lens to accomplish this. The 16-35mm lens even without the closeup lens attached will focus to a distance of 11" from the "film plane" or sensor position in the camera.