3 primes for weddings

[athanasios_retzonis]

<p>Hi ! <br>

I want to by 2 prime lenses for my 1Ds II and 5D .<br>

I have Canon 85mm f1.8 USM and Canon 28-70 mm f2.8 L and i want 1 wide angle and 1 normal .<br>

My budget is 600 euros <br>

A) Canon 28mm 2.8 (200 euro) + Canon 50mm 1.4 USM (350 euro) <br>

B) Canon 28mm 1.8 USM ( 450 euro ) + Canon 50mm 1.8 II ( 100 euro)<br>

C) Canon 24mm 2.8 ( 450 euro) + Canon 50mm 1.8II ( 100euro)<br>

D) Canon 35mm 2 ( 270 euro) + Canon 50mm 1.4 USM ( 350 euro)</p>

<p> </p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Why do you want primes?</p>

<p>If you want something to use in low light, I would cross off any combination of f/2.8 lens since you have that covered with your 28-70.</p>

<p>That leaves B and D. I'm not a fan of the 50/1.4. I have one. I don't like it. So I'd cross off D.<br>

That leaves B. Without knowing what you want to accomplish, I'd be hard pressed to say that option B adds much to your existing setup.<br>

If I wanted to add a prime to that setup, I'd save for the 35/1.4, myself.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[martindomok]

<p>I do weddings with a wide angle 16-35 F2.8 and also have the same 85mm as U have.<br>

Sometimes I bring along 70-200 F2.8 and also use 24mm F1.4 II for low light and some close range detail..</p>

<p>From what U seuggested, I'd go for B, but Im not sure how the 28 F1.8 performs.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p>I agree 100% with Eric’s logic, though I do use and like the EF 50/1.4.</p>

<p>The only lenses you list with any significant aperture gain are the 28/1.8 and the two 50mm lenses.<br />I have used the 28/1.8 on 5D and I am not thrilled with the edges when the lens is used wide open, or close to wide open: in this regard I like the 35/2 better.</p>

<p>I can’t see much use for adding a 24mm AT F/2.8.<br />Yes 4mm wider – but that is not much gain, to the whole kit when you have 28/2.8. Maybe you want to use 24mm to 27mm often – I would not.<br>

The 28/1.8 makes little sense to me.</p>

<p>On the 50mm lenses I would choose the 50/1.4 and you will get others who will not like the lens – I like it a lot and I use it a lot.</p>

<p>However, if I were to choose TWO prime lenses to cover a Wedding (using 135 format cameras) I would choose a fast 35mm and a fast 85mm</p>

<p>So, by a different route, I come to the same conclusion as Eric – I would save and buy the 35/1.4.</p>

<p>I would then decide if you really NEED a fast 50, after you use the 35/1.4 with the 85/1.8.<br>

You probably will decide "yes" - but then you will have bought the 35/1.4 anyway - and very likely be happy that you did.</p>

<p>If you force me to choose from your list of 4 options, I would choose D.<br>

I have the 35/2, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and have used the 28/1.8 and 50/1.8MkII.<br>

If you want a 24mm lens (for weddings) then the save for the 24/1.4MkII - there is no Canon Lens Subtitute at FL=24mm, for Weddings. </p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<p>TYPO:<br>

. . . Maybe you want to use 24mm to 27mm often – I would not.<br /><em>The 28/1.8 makes little sense to me."</em></p>

<p>should read:</p>

<p>" . . . Maybe you want to use 24mm to 27mm often – I would not.<br /><em>The <strong>28/2.8</strong> makes little sense to me."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>WW</em></p>

[athanasios_retzonis]

<p>I want to thank you all for your answers .<br>

The 1DsII + 28-70mm + 580Ex than i use now is <strong>very heavy</strong> and i am thinking to use 2 cameras ( 1dsII + 5D) with 3 primes and let 28-70mm in my bag . </p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Ahh. If you're wanting to replace your 28-70, then what focal lengths do you use most often with it? Analyze your favorite photos. Do you use it more often at 28mm or at 35mm or 50mm?</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>50/1.4 is a great lens for the price and extremely useful for weddings.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>Size being the issue, I'd select the classic combo 35/85 and live with the fact that when wider is needed you'll have to suffer with the 24-70.</p>

<p><strong>OR</strong> ... if two additional small prime lenses + the 85 you already have, I'd go <strong>Canon 20/2.8 and the 35/2</strong> which adds up to just about your budget. The 20 will give you more dramatic sweeping church shots and outdoor panoramics, as well a creative options not currently available with what you have (20mm is quite a bit wider than 24mm because as you move toward the wide end of focal lengths the difference in FOV becomes more dramatic). </p>

<p>I use a 21 prime all the time ... it's a blast to use but takes some practice to use the distortion favorably ... for example: forced perspective shots like this behind the scenes in a cramped space ... </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[athanasios_retzonis]

<p>Marc you think that the 50mm is not essential;</p>

[fotografz]

<p>On a crop frame camera I'd say yes it is more useful ... for portraits. On a full frame camera like the OP's 5D,` when he already has an 85, I'd personally say no ... I wouldn't make it a priority over a 35mm ... which is the classic photojournalist's focal length. IMO, 35 and 50 are too close when using 3 primes like the OP wanted to discuss. <br>

Nothing against 50mm ... I use one on a rangefinder fairly often ... but that is because it is the fastest aperture 50mm on the planet for shooting available light work. </p>

<p> </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>If you have the 28-70 2.8 already, I don't see the point to any of the lenses you're thinking about buying, or even your 85. What you are missing is a wide angle lens -- something along the lines of a 12-24, and a telephoto, most likely a 70-200 2.8. There are lots of people who like a 1.4 lens. That's great for the occasional effects shot with extreme "bokeh" but most of the time it's going to be stopped down to at least 2.8 if not further when you need the depth of field either just to have everything in focus or to make sure you don't miss the shot when the subject is moving quickly. I would make sure I was covered on the basic set of three zooms -- wide, mid and tele -- before I started adding specialty lenses.</p>

[athanasios_retzonis]

<p>Craig as i mentioned the combo 1DsII + 28-70mm + 580ex is very heavy .<br>

I intent to shoot with 2 cameras and the primes or is it easier to shoot with one camera and change lenses ; </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"or is it easier to shoot with one camera and change lenses"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I choose to use two cameras and three of four lenses which I also carry - typically one zoom and two (or three) Primes.<br>

But one of the great leverages of a digital system is the dual format; so I would rarely if ever have two digital cameras of the same format.<br>

Lens changes are somewhat predictive at a Wedding: as there is a general order of events / shooting situations.<br>

But practicing quick lens changes, is also a good idea. Practicing every manual technique is a good idea, IMO.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[eric merrill]

<p>If you're trying to trim weight, I'd buy a used 35/2 and use it with the 85/1.8 for a while. Save up. Look toward getting a 35/1.4 in the future, and there will be a lot of times when you can get away without flash, and that will help with the weight, too.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>WIlliam W is wise - </p>

<p>I prefer the 35/85 choice for two cameras...classic PJ combo.</p>

<p>If I were going with three lenses on 135mm format then I would choose 35/85/135 -or- 24/50/85. The problem here would be budget as I would not go this route without going f/1.4 on the 24/35/85 and f/2 on the 135.</p>

<p>If I were on a 600 euro budget, perhaps I'd go this route:</p>

<p>35mm f/2 +135mm f/2.8 not sure what the local cost is, but it would stretch just a tad out of your budget if you bought in the US.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[asharpe1]

<p>It all depends on the focal lengths you use most, and how you "see" your compositions. I tend to think in a 35/85 way, with either a 24 or 135. But several people I know prefer the 28/50/100 kit.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Richard - Thanks for the "wise" compliment . . . I know I got a lot of grey hair, but at least I had some "wisdom" as I still have thick hair . . .</p>

<p>Seriously - you mention the 135/2.8 - not to be sniggered and many people forget it. It is a very fine "budget" sleeper lens, in the Canon Cradle IMO. Useful. It takes a kenko x1.4 also, I understand. This lens was brought to my attention several years ago and I encouraged the purchase of a few for a School's Art Department, they are very happy with the purchase and the flexibility of the lens – they bought three 135/2.8SF rather than one 135/2L</p>

<p>I play with the 24 /50 /85 vs. 35 / 85 / 135 combinations often - and I can put my head into a single format kit.<br />One other combination of three lenses which I seem to now use more and more is: 24 / 50 /135 (on "Full Frame") - especially if there is to be lots of "indoors". And for me there is now as I do Functions, not Weddings.</p>

<p>I think it is fairly obvious that me playing with 24 /50 /135 for a 5D is born from that being a very slick and most used three prime set for my dual format bag of goodies.</p>

<p>But since we are commenting on a "Full Frame" kit only:<br>

The logic is that the 24 can be the 35 if you frame well and crop later. <br />The 50 can still go into tight - if being close is your style - and I have no problem with that.<br />And the 135 gives more than adequate reach.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[frolickingbits]

<p>I have the 50mm f1.8 and a 35mm f2, both of which rarely come out of the bag at a wedding. I have the 24-70 f2.8, and since my style of shooting is usually in the f4+ range, I don't usually swap out in favor of primes. I also have the 85 f1.8, which is also a great lens, but doesn't usually win out over the 70-200 f2.8<br>

What I would recommend is either the 135 f2.8 as others have mentioned, or the exceptional 100mm f2.8 Macro. <br>

I also have a Sigma 20mm f1.8 that doesn't come out much, but that's because my style doesn't have a whole lot of wide shots. It sounds like you gravitate more towards the wide end, so that could be a great lens to pick up. <br>

Okay, my final vote is for the Canon 20mm f2.8, and the 135mm f2.8</p>

[fotografz]

<p>LOL! The OP repeatedly stated that he doesn't want big zooms ... 24-70 and 70-200 probably fit that description ... but for sure a 70-200 does not fit the OPs budget.</p>

<p>His 85/1.8 is already pretty small/light weight ... a 20/2.8 and/or 35/2 are dinky lenses ... 85 left on one camera all the time, and a dinky 35/2 lens on the other, with a possible third dinky 20mm lens in a pocket or waist pack to swap out with the other dinky lens : -)</p>

<p>All with-in budget. </p>

[athanasios_retzonis]

<p>I want to thank you again all for the advices !<br>

I got today the 2 primes .<br>

Canon 35mm f2 and Canon 50mm f 1.4 USM .<br>

I also took Black Rapid Double Strap ( RS DR-1) to hold the two cameras.<br>

The question now is how to combine the cameras ( 1Ds II and 5D I) with the lenses .<br>

I intent to use mostly 35mm + 85mm and have the 50mm and 20mm or 24mm ( I think i will get one soon ) in a waist pack.<br>

1Ds II + 35mm and 5D + 85mm or the opposite;</p>

 

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I understand concerns about weight -- I've had friends who had to have surgery from carrying about bags with 3-4 bodies and a dozen primes. That's one of the reasons I like being able to do with three zooms what used to taken a bag full of primes. As for the camera/lens/flash combo being heavy, I wouldn't argue that it's a feather. I recall that when the Nikon D200 came out I read a bunch of user reviews on a web site. One, from an amateur shooter, complained about how big and heavy and bulky it was. Another, from a professional, praised it for being light and compact. Obviously a matter of opinion. :) Whether you use primes or zooms, two cameras definitely make life easier. You can have the lens you're using at the moment on one body and the lens you'll be using next on the other and avoid any lost time to lens changes. You also have an immediate backup ready in case the main camera decides to die just as the bride is walking down the aisle, being kissed by the groom, lighting a candle, cuting the cake, dancing with her father, etc.</p>

[athanasios_retzonis]

<p>The main reazon for my change is the weight.<br>

But .. another reazon is that i shoot weddings from film days and i admit i am a litle bored doing the same thing all these years .<br>

I want to change my shooting style and get exitment again for my work... i want to press my mind to think the picture before i shoot it ...to think the agle the high.....<br>

I dont know if you understand me because my English are not good enought to expres my thoughts ...</p>

 

[pete_s.]

<p>I'm with Marc! Two bodies, a 20mm, a 35mm and a 85mm. What more can you ask for :-)<br>

Actually that's the combo the late Al Kaplan used to recommend as well.</p>

<p>When thinking about primes it's good to remember that the focal length is directly proportional to object magnification.</p>

<p>So if you crop a 20mm enough you would get exactly the same image as a 35mm would produce. But you would loose a lot of pixels in the process.</p>

<p>In some cases it's not so bad though. For example, to go from 35mm to 50mm you would need to crop so you keep the center 70% (35/50). The 1Ds Mk II would go from 16.7 megapixels down to 12.3 megapixels (0.7*0.7*1.5*16.7).</p>

<p>So I wouldn't carry a 50mm when I had a 35mm unless the 50mm served a special purpose, for instance being a very fast lens or perhaps a macro.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_james8]

<p>Mmmmmm.</p>

<p>The 20 - 35 - 85 combo. I never considered that one.</p>

<p>I've read contrasting views regarding the Nikon 20mm 2.8 does anyone have any insight with this lens if coupled with a D700? Low-light work?</p>

<p>Sorry to go off on a tangent.</p>