ben_eng1

<p>I originally opted for the 24-105 because I wasn't crazy about the 24-70 wide open. Now I think that was a mistake. The 24-105 is a good lens, but there is something about it that's just, for lack of a better term, unremarkable. Also, IS doesn't make up for the 1 stop speed loss with moving subjects (i.e. wedding guests). I'm curious to get my hands on the 24-70 II, but I think the way to go (for me) is to simultaneously use 3 5D's with some combination of 24, 35, 50, 85, 100macro, and 135 primes. With the exception of the 70-200 L's I think that zooms are kinda blah.<br>

Short answer: stick with the 24-70, and if you can afford the new version then go with that.<br>

Jerk answer: sell the 7D and 16-35 and put the money towards 2 more 5D's (MK3 preferably), the 24L, 85 1.8, and maybe also the 70-200 2.8.</p>

<p>I was thinking it would be kinda cool if there was a way to project digital images directly to 669 film. I have a Daylab Copy Pro, but there is no lab where I live. I hate sending out for prints, especially since you have to guess at how much to bump up the contrast and saturation for transfers. And I especially despise making inkjet prints on my printer. Seems wasteful. <br>

Any thoughts? Would be really fun to frankenstein my Copy Pro...</p>

<p>I would ideally like to go the paperless route with my contracts and was wondering if anyone here has successfully done so, and how they handle the e-signature part<br>

Thanks...</p>

<p>Primarily run your 24-105 on the 5D3 and the 70-200 on the 7D. That's what I did for a brief bit when I had a 7D in addition to my 5D2's (all of my ceremonies are outdoors, I switch to primes during the reception). Personally, I avoid 3rd party glass and non-L zooms, but if that's what you got then that's what you got to work with.<br>

FYI that 70-200L 2.8 is by far the best lens in all aspects that you own. Reconsider "bringing it just in case" and use the hell out of it.<br>

Personally, I didn't like the the files from the 7D at anything over 800. Matter of taste...<br>

Never having been to the venue I can't give you specific advice on how to use your lights. Remote lighting is broad topic- might want to research and practice that a little before-hand.</p>

<p>Lauren, thanks for the input.</p>

<p>As a guy in the wedding business who also has never been married, I always have to wonder about the first impressions my site makes on prospective brides when surfing the web. I would appreciate any opinions and/or feedback not just about the images, but the overall impression one gets from the text and over-all presentation. I'm not afraid (actually welcome it) of harsh criticism, but please keep it professional and relevant. My site address is <a href="http://www.benengphotography.com">http://www.benengphotography.com</a> . <br>

Of course, if there is anything I can help anyone out with too please ask. </p>

<p>I use Exposure Manager. They don't print their logos on the back of the prints or products, and you make your galleries a subdomain of your site (good for SEO).</p>

<p>Thanks John Tonai. That 600 series is exactly what I was hoping existed. </p>

<p>I'm looking around for any cameras that shoot the 669 film that is designed specifically for the film (i.e viewfinder matches the film aspect ratio, camera exposes the whole piece of film), and most importantly has manual exposure settings. I've been trying google but find the results a little confusing due to the number of vintage cameras available.</p>

<p>The 70-200 L's and the 1.4x convertor are the workhorse of most professional ski/snowboard photogs who shoot Canon. For framing flexibility the 100-400L is good, too. Don't be afraid to walk up and down the course.</p>

<p>You could use the 50 f/1.4. Great lens for low-light shooting with the 5d, and it could double as a 80mm on your 30d. Otherwise, and probably the best bet, is to get the 85 f/1.8 for your 5d. Excellent low-light lens for capturing candids at a distance on the 5d, and it can double as a 136mm on your 30d.</p>