j_arnott

<p>I've used the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and was extremely frustrated with it's slow auto-focus, especially on moving subjects. It just would not lock on. This was the case even in broad daylight and it caused me to miss many shots. I finally ended up getting the Canon 70-200 2.8 and it made a world of difference. So, from my experience, I would definitely not recommend the Tamron.</p>

<p>I shot a wedding ceremony from the back of a medium sized hall over the weekend and the 70-200 2.8 non-is was perfect for getting both full lengths as well as tighter shots. It was the perfect lens for that situation. I bought it used for $975.00. I also used this lens during the toasts from a distance. My primary lenses that day, however, were the 35L 1.4 and the 17-40 4.0. The 85 1.8 also saw some use. In my opinion the 70-200 2.8 is a good lens to have in your kit.</p>

<p>Kevin, that's a lot of exclamation points and question marks. If your response is directed at me of course I understand this, as I believe does everyone else who posted. My original question was posed in a more general sense and that is what people were replying. </p>

<p>Thanks for all your comments. I have a meeting next week with one of the photographers I contacted today which, along with all your input, has completely restored my faith in the direction I have chosen for myself. Yes, it's a difficult market to work in. But I believe wedding photographers like yourselves are putting out some of the most creative imagery today and that's something I have to be a part of. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. LOL... no names. Some great points made here though... all of your input is much appreciated. Again, what you're saying about equipment is exactly how I understood it to be as well. So I was kind of taken aback when I got that reply. I try not to obsess over the latest and greatest gear. I know my equipment, it's a solid kit for the most part and I shoot well with it. Thanks again. </p>

<p>Thanks for your replies, everyone. I am in Los Angeles. I've actually used cold calling (emails with links to my work, actually) with some success and even this morning have made a wonderful contact that may result in some 2nd shooting and mentoring. <br>

I started shooting with the 40D a couple years ago. When it came time to get a backup camera I considered the 5Ds but was very comfortable with the 40D and actually shooting quite well with it so decided to get another. The money I saved went towards a Canon 85mm 1.8. :)<br>

Thanks for putting my mind at ease about the camera issue. It's what I understood as well but the exchange I had with that photographer made me think twice.</p>

<p>I have been contacting wedding photographers in the area introducing myself and seeing if anyone might be willing to give me an opportunity to second shoot for them. I shoot with a decent range of lenses and two 40Ds. One of the photographers politely told me he was not looking for second shooters and if he was he would not hire a second shooter with anything less than a 5DII (not even a 5D would suffice). I appreciated his candor and am now wondering if I am handicapping myself right out of the gate by shooting with 40Ds. Whether it's actual or perceived the result is the same, at least in this one case. What do you think? A 5D or 5DII is definitely at the top of the list but I need to pinch a few more pennies before I can swing that. If the 40Ds are holding me back I might have to start pinching faster. Thanks in advance for your input.</p>

<p>Excellent lesson and beautiful work, Neil. Thank you. When shooting reportage how do you handle questions and requests about the more traditional posed group shots with the families, wedding party, etc? Do you explain during your initial meetings that you don't take them as they are not consistent with your style of shooting? Or do you simply oblige them? My experience is that even though the couple swears up and down that they want a "photo journalistic" approach to their wedding that they will indeed want, expect even, traditional group shots. Thanks again.</p>