wedding lens shake-up - Advice needed

[diane_stredicke]

<p>I just bought a 5D so it's making me rethink my lens lineup.</p>

<p>Right now I have a 40D and a 5D.</p>

<p>Lenses I own:</p>

<p>35L<br>

17-55 2.8<br>

50 1.4<br>

85 1.8<br>

Tamron 70-200 2.8</p>

<p>Would you sell anything, trade anything to add a different lens? For instance, I have given some thought to trading my 17-55 for a 16-35 (that way it would work on both cameras). I've thought about trading the 35L for a 24-70. </p>

<p>I don't really want to spend more money right now so it would simply be a case of trading etc.</p>

<p>Would love to hear you all weigh in....</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>A 24-70/2.8 would serve as a "normal" zoom on the 5d, much as the 17-55/2.8 is for a cropping camera. This would be a good logistical move, since the fewer the lens swaps, the less likely to miss a shot. With this one lens, you would be covered for all normal situations, including formal groups, except long shots from the back or the Sacristy or a few artsy wide-angle shots.</p>

<p>The 17-55 would continue to be the best overall lens for the 40D. If you want something wider, consider getting a 20mm prime for the 5D. A 16-35 would work on either camera, but is too short and would require more lens swapping than necessary on the 40D, and not used often on the 5D</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I do 95% of my stuff with the 24-70 and 35L. I wouldn't trade one for the other.</p>

[steve_hovland]

<p>For now, use your existing lenses and see what, if any, frustrations you encounter. <br>

Then invest to get rid of those frustrations.</p>

[er1]

<p>I myself do most (80%) of my event shooting with the 24-70/2.8. The 70-200/2.8 & 35L fall in line next. These are the only lenes I need at a wedding. If you have a minute. check out my wedding images <a href="http://www.ejr.smugmug.com">www.ejr.smugmug.com</a> which were nearly all taken with the 24-70. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>It depends which camera you use for general, 'all purpose' wedding photography. If you use the primes on the 5D for that, plus portraits, and the 40D for candids/reception work, seems to me you don't need to change anything. If you'd rather have a mid range zoom for the general work, then I'd just get a Tamron 28-75mm (not that expensive) and keep everything else. The 17-55mm cannot be 'replaced' by the 16-35mm--at least, it wouldn't work for me. I started out using a 20D and the 16-35mm, and I kept changing the lens for the longer end, when I wanted about an 80mm length. It isn't a big problem, and I'm used to changing lenses, but I also appreciate the Tamron 17-50mm lens I have specfically for the 20D, and when you want something wider than 35mm, you can use the 40D. I'd sit down and analyze what you use when in the wedding day and whether you use a lot of wide focal lengths. I don't, even though I still have the 16-35mm, which I can use on the 5D.</p>

[oistein]

<p>I'd suggest replace the 40D with another 5D and put 35L and 85 1.8 on each body. Very simple setup which should cover most of your work.<br>

Oistein</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I (purposely) have a dual format digital kit, for Weddings. I am cut-throat and impassionate with these decisions in business and you should read my answer in that context.</p>

<p>Using the 40D and 5D for coverage I would have a third camera as back-up, i.e. BOTH the 40D and 5D would be working cameras. IMO it would be unprofessional (in the business sense of the meaning), not to exploit the advantages of the dual formats, already having them at one’s disposal.</p>

<p>Thus:</p>

<p>1. The EF-S 17 to 55 is not 100% useful as it does not represent full redundancy because it cannot be used on the 5D.</p>

<p>2. It is (economically) pointless having the 50mmF1.4 at the expense of another fast prime, because one has the equivalent of a 35/F1.4 and 50/F1.4 (with simply a lens change), and one fewer lens to carry using only the 35L.</p>

<p>3. Arguably, beginning from scratch, the 24/F1.4L and 50/F1.4 would be a better combination than the 35F1.4L and the 85F1.8</p>

<p>4. From 3 (above) one would constructively add the 135/F2L and the x1.4MkII</p>

<p>5. Trade the Tamron for the EF70 to 200 F2.8LIS USM. </p>

<p>6. With a dual format kit and the 16 to 35L and the 70 to 200L . . . the 24 to 70L becomes redundant.</p>

<p>7. Definitely NOT the EF 16 to 35 F2.8L USM . . . But only the EF 16 to 35F2.8L MkII USM</p>

<p>8. I am not sure about point 7 above being applicable to the 24F1.4L MkII, as I have not used that lens, but on paper it seems worth obtaining over the original EF24L, but I have the latter now and I am not about to change. . . . </p>

<p>- "Upgrading" for technology's sake can be a cancer to unemotional business decisions. </p>

<p>WW <br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Oh Gosh, if you don't have a 24-70 on a FF (or even a 1.3 crop 1D series) you should ask yourself "why?" If I had to photo a wedding with only one lens, the 24-70 would be it.</p>

[William Michael]

<p> <br>

:)<br>

<br>

. . . well I understand the sentiment . . . but I would cheat and take two lenses, secreting one in my pocket . . . a fast 35 and a fast 85.<br>

<br>

Merry New Year Christopher, I hope 2009 is a cracker, for you.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

 

[diane_stredicke]

<p>Well in my original post I wrote that I don't want to spend more money. I am looking at doing a shakeup trading the existing lenses I have.<br>

So the real question is... whether it makes sense trading in the 17-55 since it only works on one camera. All the other lenses work on both cameras.<br>

Should I have a zoom on the 5D. </p>

 

[picturesque]

<p>Well nobody can answer that question for you. As I said above, you need to analyze how you are going to use the two cameras together, if at all, and for what parts of the wedding. If, for instance, you intend to use the 20D for reception candids and the 5D otherwise, keeping the 17-55mm would make sense. If you intend to use the 20D and 5D interchangeably, getting a lens set that works on both and covers all the focal lengths you would need makes sense. If you intend to use the 20D (as I do mostly) for the tele shots, particularly during ceremonies, trading the 17-55mm for a 24-70 or Tamron 28-75mm would make sense. How are you going to use the cameras (keeping in mind you may change your mind as you use them)?</p>

[diane_stredicke]

<p>I think because of the way the 5D handles noise, I would use it for the majority of portraits, details, pj stuff - reception, the wedding. That said, I can also see using the 40D during a reception because of the low light AF ability. <br>

My thoughts are that I would keep the 70-200 on the 40D. A 24-70 on the 5D. Use primes on both depending on what I'm looking for.<br>

My preference is primes. Love them. Just too chicken to use only primes at a wedding.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>There you go--answered your own question based on your needs. Keep in mind that sometimes you think you'll do one thing and it turns out you don't. Happened to me with my 20D/5D. By the way, I wouldn't trade the 35L--nothing replaces the wide aperture/quality combo, not even a 24-70mm.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"Well in my original post I wrote that I don't want to spend more money."</strong></em><br /><br />Yes, I read that.<br /><br />***<br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>"So the real question is... whether it makes sense trading in the 17-55 since it only works on one camera etc. . .</strong><em><strong>My thoughts are that I would keep the 70-200 on the 40D. A 24-70 on the 5D. Use primes on both depending on what I'm looking for. My preference is primes. Love them. Just too chicken to use only primes at a wedding."</strong></em><strong><em><br /><em></em></em></strong><br />Well, as I mentioned above to Christopher, I completely understand that sentiment, and if you intend to use the 5D as the main working camera during a Wedding, the 24 to 70 makes very good logic.<br /><br />BUT:<br /><br />"<em><strong>My preference is primes. Love them. Just too chicken to use only primes at a wedding" </strong></em><br /><br />The rig I suggested above, or similar to it, is very attractive and logical to that sentiment, of wanting to use Primes. The idea of using equally, the dual formats, is not everyone's cup of tea - but I reiterate this particular point as you now mentioned your passion for primes.<br /><br />So, if you do trade the 17 to 55 for a 24 to 70, I suggest you remain flexible enough to keep in mind my thoughts about a 16 to 35 + 70 to 200 used with two formats, makes the 24 to 70 redundant – and also gives you wider FL range at F2.8.<br /><br />You state the 5D handles noise well, and that seems to be a major factor in your decision making . . . well the 40D is no slouch either - FWIW my 20D holds quite well to 7x5 prints at ISO1600 - the trick is: correct exposure; Correct PP, and a De Noise programme – In this regard perhaps analyze the real outputs and customer requirements – what I mean by that is how many times are you selling 24 x 20 from the 40D – as an extreme example<br /><br />So whilst you want to do a small re-gig now, I suggest also think about what the final outcome might be - obviously you could always trade the 24 - 70 later if you wish - we might think differently about that issue, as I do not particularly like dealing in camera gear. <br /><br />WW</p>

[diane_stredicke]

<p>Thanks for all your input everyone. </p>

<p>Thanks for your well thought out reasoning WW.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I am interested to know what you do decide, even if you come back after a long deliberation.</p>

<p>It is always nice to know the outcome, IMO.</p>

<p>Good luck,</p>

<p>WW</p>

[diane_stredicke]

<p>WW and others:</p>

<p>Thought about this overnight... and have a new thought.<br>

Sell my 5D for about $1200.<br>

Buy a used 40D for about $600.<br>

Sell my Tamron 70-200 for about $600<br>

Buy a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS for about $1200.</p>

<p>Then I would be shooting with:<br>

2 x 40D<br>

35L<br>

17-55 2.8 IS<br>

50 1.4<br>

85 1.8<br>

70-200 2.8 IS</p>

<p>I know there will be a lot of people who say don't sell the 5D. I'm new to wedding photography and am trying to stretch my budget as much as possible to have two really good kits to shoot with.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Diane</p>

<p> </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Again--this is basically up to you. Nobody can tell you what is best for you. If you've used the 5D and know what it is capable of, and yet still want to sell it, that is your decision. If it were me, I would not do anything at the moment but use what you have in any way that I could to find out whether any and all of it fit my image goals. I'd give it some time. Since you already have the 5D. In my opinion, the more you jockey around with gear, the more $$ you lose. And as I said above, you may start out thinking one thing and end up not liking it. Besides, I personally don't have much use for IS or a tele zoom. It would be nice sometimes, but I get along just fine with my wide aperture primes. This may not be the case for you, but my point is--don't get caught up in someone else's recommendations. It is good to get advise, but always go with what YOU do. You may end up doing just what you describe, but do it knowing it fits YOU to a T.</p>

[diane_stredicke]

<p>Thanks Nadine. Sound advice.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"don't get caught up in someone else's recommendations" </strong></em><br>

I agree. I have given my opinions, thus based upon what I would do – please read them as such.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p><strong><em>“I'm new to wedding photography and am trying to stretch my budget as much as possible to have two really good kits to shoot with.”</em></strong></p>

<p>I too have had some thought overnight. To be frank I read a few of you previous posts, you do enjoy buying and trying . . . ? Now, IMO that serves a purpose – to test things out first hand – but only to a point.</p>

<p>It seems to me when I read your comment I quoted above, you are wanting to grow your business and in that regard you might be errant as to where your main effort is primarily focused.</p>

<p>What I mean by that is – ask yourself this: “Can I make more than adequate and good quality Wedding Photos with my present kit? Am I satisfactorily covered for system redundancy and breakdown?”</p>

<p>If the answers are “yes”, then I suggest you keep building your business, get more jobs, analyse what improvements / extensions / options / services / you wish to add to your business and your portfolio and let the clients pay for the extra equipment. At the moment I see you treading water (i.e. wasting marketing time) shuffling your deck. [How is that for a complex mixed metaphor!]</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Directly to your ideas, and again in my OPINION, and if I had your kit:</p>

<p>I would not sell the 5D - many reasons – the FL leverage of a dual format - the bright viewfinder – the additional ISO capacity . . .</p>

<p>Also with your lenses and with 2 x 40D . . . the widest fast prime will be the 35 / 1.4, that would not be “safe” for me – I would think: “short aisle, large Wedding Party, No Flash Allowed – I am stuffed”</p>

<p>On the second point of trading – I rarely use my 70 to 200 F2.8 at a wedding. If I do, it is (almost always) on my 5D – so whilst I in theory agree with trading the Tamron 70-200 for the Canon 70-200 – it would be a low priority, for me.</p>

<p>Have you analysed how often you at present use the Tamron 70 to 200 on the 40D at a Wedding?</p>

<p>I hope my off topic comments, help.<br>

<br />WW</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>WW's advice is right on. To a large extent, your lens arsenal IS your style. It's always sage advice to have lenses follow style, not vice-versa.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>BTW: I just re-read my first answer. <br>

<br>

The "converted list" I gave in that answer, resulted in a kit very similar to the 4 kits we bought for the studio, I used to own. But in those kits, there was only ONE EF 70 to 200F2.8L IS - it is presently shared between up to five Photographers, over any one weekend. <br>

<br>

Personally, I do own a 70 to 200F2.8L, and it is NOT the IS version.<br>

<br>

This might better explain my priorities and how it might have seemed I was contradicting myself. <br>

<br>

To be clear: IMO the EF70 to 200F2.8 (either version) is a great lens - Personally I use this lens very infrequently at a Wedding - and if I do it is on my 5D - but then again, I have recently used a 300/F2.8 at a Cathedral Wedding – but I do not own the 300/F2.8 – far too much capital invested for the return it would give me (as a Wedding Photographer) for an odd shot here and there.<br>

<br>

When I bought the studio kits I did buy the 70 200F2.8 IS version, because for a Wedding Kit, it is better to have the IS than not, but this lens would likely be the last lens I would buy for my personal Wedding Kit, if I were starting out. <br>

<br>

WW </p>

 

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"To a large extent, your lens arsenal IS your style. It's always sage advice to have lenses follow style, not vice-versa</strong></em>."<br /><br />Compact said.<br /><br />Thanks for that, - I wish I could have stated it in fewer words - I talk too much !<br /><br />WW</p>

 

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Ah WW, few people say it so well as you.. :-)</p>