Weddings: 5D II + 24-105: 70-200 2.8 IS vs. 600D+ 135L +Tokina 11-16

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>THANK YOU for helping me to choose 5D II + 24-105 For weddings (on previous topic). On photo.net I found great suggestions written by very insightful photographers!</p>

<p>NOW I have 5DII+24-105; 600D + Tokina 11-16 + 50mm 1.8; (I sold the 50mm 1.4). I'm second photographer and on the last one I used 5DII+24-105 & 600D+ 70-300 IS non L . I felt comfortable with the two bodies, the results were very good as a whole! I and the first shooter were only not satisfied with the lowlight candid shots 600d + 70-300 IS at ISO 1600/3200. I caught some great moments, but still after post processing, there is more noise than we want. Also, when I go to CONCERTS I feel the absence of fast tele lens.<br>

I and the main shooter discussed a lot the topic today ( he has 5D2+24-105+100macro+70-300non L+ 50 1.4 + a lot of lighting equipment+ Rebel back up body). We went to that conclusion with two options:</p>

<p><em><strong>1) Buy 70-200 2.8 IS II (or Mark I, if i find excellent deal) and sell: 600D and Tokina 11-16 </strong></em><strong></strong><br>

<strong>2) Buy 135L and keep 600D + Tokina</strong> <strong>11-16</strong>;</p>

<p><strong><em> Which one you will suggest me, or what you personally will do?</em></strong></p>

<p>For 1) In that case I'll follow the motto "KEEP IT SIMPLE" 5d2+24-105 + 70-200 2.8 IS; I read carefully your suggestions, I agree that it's easier to have XXD AP-C back up body, because of the similar interface and buttons with 5D2. Later, if I'm first shooter, I can buy another back-up body like 60D,7D, or new model which will be aviable;</p>

<p>For 2) I enjoy using wide angle-lenses. For FF 16-35 II is the most desired option. But it's much more expensive than my Tokina 11-16. I may use the Tokina on 600D without changing lenses. On the other hand it's more practical to have lenses which may be used both by FF and on crop body.</p>

<p><strong><em>That are my main arguments, please feel free to share your opinion if you agree/are'nt agree with them :)<br /></em></strong><br>

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

Thank you!<br>

Nick</p>

<p> </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Maybe this post should be moved to the wedding/event forum?</p>

<p>At any rate...<br>

I would buy a 70-200/2.8, and use it on the 600D. Of course given the range of the budget you seem to have in mind, I'd say forget about the L, and go w/ a Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM, or the Tamron 70-200/2.8. Either of those lenses will put you in a whole different league from the 70-300 IS, and allow you to retain the flexibility of a dual format system + a back up. Optically, both are inferior to the 70-200/2.8L but only by a small amount. The added speed makes a heckuva difference, and will allow you to drop your ISO at least a stop (w/ equiv. lighting).</p>

<p>One thing I'm a little unclear on though is how he would expect better performance out of your work (@high ISO) when his kit is exactly the same? Maybe it's that he uses enough lighting to keep the ISO down on his rebel, but it seems (at first glance) a little hypocritical to imply that you (as a second) need a $2500 lens when he can't be bothered to get a decent telephoto himself.</p>

<p>As far as keeping the UWA, I would definitely do so, it gives a perspective which is a lot more 'journalistic' in nature, and is something I love to mix into my wedding work. If going w/ a 17-40 or 16-35 on the 5 is out of the question, you should keep the rebel just so that you can continue to provide that coverage.</p>

<p> </p>

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>Thank you, Marcus Ian :) I thought about posting on wedding forum, but here on photo.net, I read excellent posts in various topics(and on my previous one) in Canon section from photographers like <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=425968">Yakim Peled</a> ,<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3728023">Sarah Fox</a>, <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3688373">Arie Vandervelden</a>, <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=271274">Nadine Ohara</a> and you- Marcus Ian ! I found the suggestions very valuable.</p>

<p>For the UWA I thought to trade my Tokina 11-16 for the slower 17-40L(Using it on 5d2) ? I also think that the UWA is a big plus. I don't think that I should keep 600d only for using the Tokina. I have to use the flexibility of the dual format system with the tele end.</p>

<p>I find very helpful the IS for a tele lens. I made some clear and sharp shots at around 200mm even at 1/25 sec with the IS. Only the ISO was generally about 1 stop higher than I want (at f/5).</p>

<p>I get first shooter tele lens (70-300 IS) when he doesn't use it. He shoots with it sometimes: only on daylight and only on 5d2 (He uses 1 body, he just get the rebel for a back up).</p>

<p>I want to get fast telephoto lens also for concerts and other events, where 50mm prime hasn't got enough reach. I found that I often use around 200mm ( FF), so 135L will fit ideally(216mm). I LOVE CANDID SHOTS, catching emotional and spontaneous moments. But I'm open for another suggestions too, not only 135L as the only option for optimal use of the dual format system. I think that keeping 4:3 or 3:2 ratio on the photos after cropping will be easier with zoom.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The 70-200/2.8 IS II is way overkill and eats up way too much budget that I think could be better spent. Since you already have the 24-105 I think telephoto shots beyond it's reach would not justify the 70-200/2.8 IS II, or any of the 70-200 zooms for that matter.</p>

<p>The 5DII/24-105 and 600D/50 will do the bulk of what you need for weddings. I would add either the 135/2 L or 85/1.2 L for use with either camera for no-flash shots during the ceremony and for natural lighting shots during the reception. My preference would be the 85/1.2 L on the 5D II for its additional light gathering and subject isolation abilities. Results from the 5D II are easily croppable for tighter requirements, or you could use the 85 on the 600D when you prefer. Of course if you buy used you could even get both for the price of the big IS II zoom.</p>

<p>It is very handy having two format bodies but if you do get into landscape/architecture photography in a more serious way then full frame is the ultimate way to go. You could eventually look at selling the 600D and 11-16 and getting a 16-35 or TS-E lens. Again, I find my budget goes a lot further by buying used. keh.com is a great place to start.</p>

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>Yes, you are right that 70-200 2.8 IS II will eat up way much budget. But in long term it's very good investment. I love zoom convenience and my main cons is it's weight (2 gripped bodies: 5d2+24-105 & 600d + 70-200 2.8 weight a lot).</p>

<p>I also thought about 5D/24-105 IS and the telephoto reach of the tele lens. 100mm f/2 has great value, but on 600d (160mm) is not going to increase my telephoto reach. Therefore 135mm is my favorite from the prime lenses.</p>

<p>I prefer the canon lenses, the reason to keep the third-party Tokina is the excellent build quality and durability. It's very good start for UWA. I like very much 24 TS-E but it's not from the essential lenses. Of course I may just sell the Tokina and get 16-35 II, instead of 135L, but I need more telephoto lens.</p>

<p>It's very handy to keep the two format bodies. But in that case I have to use optimally the advantages. I'm not sure that 600d is the best possibility over AP-C XXD. Like 50D/ 60D, which will have a user interface somewhat like the 5DII and better AF system.</p>

<p>THANK YOU!</p>

<p> </p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>I still think your best bet is to hunt around for a used 70-200/2.8 L IS mk1. I've used one as a second shooter at a wedding. It's a great lens. Yes the mk2 is sharper but this lens is no slouch. The IS and AF work really well, and the colors and bokeh are wonderful. This lens delivers.</p>

<p>My second choice would be 135/2 because it's less user friendly (no IS, no zoom). I'd hang on to the 11-16 for sure - don't sell it. Upgrading to 16-35 will cost you a lot of money, and you need telephoto right now.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>The 70-200/2.8 IS mk I is a great lens and, before the introduction of the mk II, it was standard gear for wedding and event photographers. It was a great lens, it's still a great lens, don't hesitate to buy a used one if you can afford it.</p>

<p>The various non-IS lenses can be excellent, and they're priced well, but IS is very valuable if you're shooting in a dark venue without a flash.</p>

<p>The 135L is also a great lens, but I think for weddings and events a zoom is more practical.</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I use a Canon 5D2 with Tamron 28-75 F2.8, Canon 17-40 F4L, and Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and 2- Canon 580 EX II flashes. I find on the 5D2 I use the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 the most. However, F$ is ok with flash but without flash will not focus as fast as F2.8 lens. I also use the 28 1.8, 35 F2.0, 50 1.8 and 85 1.2L. For low light video nothing touches the primes. I plan on upgrading the Tamron 28-70 to the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VR when it comes out. Personally I prefer the Tamron over the Canon 24-105 F4 because I need speed in this range the most. Also I have a 30D as backup camera but never use that anymore just collects dust.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>My preference would be the 85/1.2 L</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am baffled by the suggestion that the 70-200mm ver 2 is too expensive and then you suggest the 85 f1.2L, a much more specialized lens which is about the same price! Doesn't strike me as very helpful. I think that a 135/2 or 70-200mm ver 1 is more appropriate. Why a TS-E lens for a wedding? Some of you guys must go to different kinds of wedding than I do is all I can say!</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Wedding gear (not including flashes and battery packs):</p>

<p>Canon EOS Full Frame x 2.<br>

Canon EF 70-200/2.8L IS USM.<br>

Canon EF 24-70/2.8L USM.<br>

Canon EF 16-35/2.8L II USM.</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_king2]

<p>For weddings I use my 5DII with 24-105, 17-40 L's together with my 85mm f/1.8. On my 7D I use my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. I find this dual format kit very flexible. I do use my 580EX flash when needed - usually as bounce fill indoors. I find the f/2.8 ability of the telezoom invaluable, not only for low light but for narrow DOF when required. I also have the Canon 70-300 non L zoom - I've used it on the 5DII for indoor shooting but usually with bounce flash - its maximum aperture at the long end of f/5.6 is too slow for me, even though the high ISO IQ of the 5DII is very good.</p>

<p>The importance of backup redundancy cannot be underestimated. I had my 24-105L fail on me during a shoot with my 5DII. Luckily I had my trusty old Canon 28-135 in my bag as a backup. The client was totally unaware and was very happy with the final product. Since then I now even carry a third body (50D) with spare lenses and flash in my car when doing a shoot.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>I too would spring for a 135L, given your needs. It will give you 216mm (equivalent FOV) on your 600D. Keep the Tokina. Very highly regarded, and rightly so.</p>

<p>Before my first 5D2 got stolen, my 24-105L was my most-used lens for weddings, followed closely by my 17-40L and then my 50 f/1.8. When replacing my stolen gear, I opted for Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8 instead of it, and put the cash saved to other uses. It has served me well so far and has a big plus in terms of close focusing distance. I am now able to take very close detail shots. I miss FTM and also the sheer build quality and smoothness of the 24-105L's zoom. I am therefore looking to supplement my kit with a 135L. Possibly even offload my 28-75 and revert to the 24-105L I once loved ;-)</p>

<p>Many people swear by the 70-200 lens family but I have not found need for that lens in my kit.</p>

[nathaniel_geller]

<p>"I still think your best bet is to hunt around for a used 70-200/2.8 L IS mk1" - I like your idea, before 3 weeks there were used, like new 70-200/2.8 L IS mk1. It was 450$ more expensive than the usual price of used 135L.</p>

<p><strong>Giving 500$ more for Mk 1 maybe better option if I have to choose between it and 135L (used) !? <br /></strong>(If I keep the two format system; I often use 200mm FF eqv (216 with crop body))</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1159709"> @ Mark Anthony Kathurima</a> I'm really sorry for your stolen 5D2, probably it was very difficult to restore your whole Canon system :( I read also M.P. uses 17-40L for weddings and it's interesting to me whether f/4 was fast enough for most of the cases?</p>

<p>For the UWA I'm considering also <strong>trading Tokina 11-16 2.8 for 17-40</strong>L. The used ones have identical prices. I find useful 600D <em>swivel</em>-and-tilt <em>screen</em> to make creative pics from unusual view points with the Tokie. It is a helpful for some atmospheric shots.</p>

<p>For the tele I'm convinced that 2.8 is a must, but for the UWA for me isn't so clear. I will be able to use 17-40L on 5D2, which has more than 1 stop higher ISO performance.</p>

<p>Also the body set-ups will be different in situations <strong>when I need UWA,</strong> if I trade 11-16 for 17-40L:<br /> 1/ 5D2+17-40, 600D + 24-105 or tele lens<br /> 2/ 5D2+24-105, 600D + 11-16<br /> <strong>What is your opinion for choosing the better UWA, for optimal use of the two format system?</strong></p>

<p> </p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Nikolay,<br>

Yes, it took a lot to replace. It got stolen the week I was going to finalise the insurance cover, so it technically wasn't yet covered :(</p>

<p>I typically shoot my 17-40L at f/4 to f/5.6 on my 5D2. I have not had issues getting it to focus even in lower light. I have found that my style has evolved to become 95% sans flash until perhaps the bridal session. The camera gives me the freedom to shoot at ISOs of well above 1600 without flinching :) I don't ever find myself wishing for f/2.8 on the UWA. I appreciate it on my 28-75 though :)</p>

<p> </p>