canon 85mm 1.8 and canon 135mm f2

MissB

a fellow dgrin'er loaned me the canon 70-200 2.8 this week and i think its a great lens.. but im a tiny framed woman and I really like to move around alot.. I don't think that the 70-200 and I are going to be close friends. Now my cheapo 50mm 1.8 and i are inseperable. I love the bokeh and the creative range i have with it as far as natural and indoor lighting situations. I have my first wedding coming up and I'd love that creative freedom without the pain of lugging around a hugs lens. I will use my 50mm 1.8 and I was thinking about the 85mm 1.8 or the 135mm F2 ... do you think that the 85mm will be enough zoom? lol... anyone else do all there professional work with only prime lenses?

Feedback would be much appreciated. thank you in a advance.

ziggy53

Weddings often require some framing flexibility, which is why many photographers prefer large aperture zoom lenses.

Primes may be required (or desired) during the ceremony when flash photography is not allowed.

The particular focal length required is always dependent upon the venue and shooting conditions, where you are required to stand and the angle of coverage you desire and whether you shoot FF or crop camera. No single prime lens can possibly cover all situations.

The EF 135mm, f2 USM is wonderful in that AF is fast and sure and the large aperture allows wonderful bokeh with excellent separation of subject and background.

The EF 85mm, f1.8 USM is not quite as nice wide open, but it and the EF 100mm, f2 USM are still useful.

On a FF camera or crop 1.3X/APS-H camera (Canon 1D series) the 135mm is a very nice lens that allows splendid wide open performance and a comfortable working distance that still allows some intimacy. The 50mm is good for capturing a wider field that allows more of the wedding party, especially nice for an angular vantage.

Adjust accordingly for a crop 1.6x camera and for venues different from the ones I shoot.

divamum

Well I don't really count as "professional", but I do love me my primes. I had the 85 1.8, but needed more reach so swapped it out for the 100 f2, which I LOVE (as many reviews state, the 100 is sharper at f2 than the 85 at 1.8, and I have to agree - I can shoot the 100 wide open and know I'll get a terrific shot as long as I place my focus point carefully, whereas with the 1.8 I was always more worried it might not quite make it). For the ~$300 you can pick them up used, they're both GREAT lenses to have in the bag; the 100 is definitely my "go to" portrait lens at the moment.



The 135 is my ZomgiwantitwhyisitsoexpensivepleasepleasecanIwinthelotterytobuyit lens. I WANT one of those!!! But it's usually ~3x the price of the two EF USM lenses so I'm still merely lusting after one....

To round out my collection - because I really don't like ultraheavy lenses - I have a 200mm 2.8L prime. MUCH lighter than the zooms, very fast AF and as long as I do my job well (ie keep the shutter speed up to avoid camera shake, and be extra-sooper-dooper accurate with my focus point if I'm shooting at f5.6 or wider) it is stunning. I picked mine up on KEH for ~$500.

craig_d

I think if you're going to try to shoot a wedding with only primes, you should have at least two camera bodies with you, in shoulder bags, mounted with different lenses and ready to shoot at all times. The idea here is to take advantage of primes without being locked into a single focal length or being out of action for thirty seconds every time you want to change between wide context shots and close-ups. And you'll need to be thinking ahead constantly so you'll know when you need to switch lenses because neither of the ones mounted at the moment are right for what's going to happen next.

Primes are great for size, weight, clarity, and wide apertures, but zooms win hands down for flexibility.

Manfr3d

There are people who shoot weddings professionaly with primes: http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?postID=448
However, she has a 2nd shooter who likes to use zooms. It might be difficult to cover a wedding alone and get all the must have shots, with a prime only.

Scott_Quier

MissB wrote:

a fellow dgrin'er loaned me the canon 70-200 2.8 this week and i think its a great lens.. but im a tiny framed woman and I really like to move around alot.. I don't think that the 70-200 and I are going to be close friends. Now my cheapo 50mm 1.8 and i are inseperable. I love the bokeh and the creative range i have with it as far as natural and indoor lighting situations. I have my first wedding coming up and I'd love that creative freedom without the pain of lugging around a hugs lens. I will use my 50mm 1.8 and I was thinking about the 85mm 1.8 or the 135mm F2 ... do you think that the 85mm will be enough zoom? lol... anyone else do all there professional work with only prime lenses?

Feedback would be much appreciated. thank you in a advance.

I shoot weddings with two cameras, each with a zoom mounted. I used to use a pair of 50D bodies, one with a EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS and the other with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. During the ceremony, I found I was swapping back and forth between these all the time and changing the focal length of each as I went - there really was little in the way of predictability. I now use a 50D with the 70-200 on it and a 5DII with either an EF 24-105 f/4L IS (outdoors) or a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (indoors). The f/4 is a bit too slow indoors sometimes and how I lust after a EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM.

I've highlighted the part of your post that worries me - you're preparing to shoot your first wedding. Please take this in the spirit it's intended ... I'm trying to help rather than be harsh ..... Have you second shot any weddings? Have you attented many weddings? I fear if the answers to both these questions is "No," that you won't be totally prepared for the fast pace you will encounter and will, therefore, miss a significant number of "gotta haves" because you are in the process of swapping one lens for another. There are a couple or three people here who do very successfully shoot weddings with primes (urbanaries and heatherfeather, and shima come to mind), but they didn't start that way - they got some experience under their belt first.

May I make a suggestion? Consider using zooms during the wedding - when things are moving sooooo fast and there's no such thing as "Do Overs". Then, for the rest of the day, pull out your primes. There's very little that happens the rest of the day that won't be repeated a number of times. The only exceptions might be the cake cutting, the garter toss, and the bouquet toss and you will have plenty of time to set up and prepare for these.

divamum

with all of the above

My experience is shooting theater events rather than weddings, but same principle applies and I would have to agree that time lost to lens swapping can be problematic - I think I kind of assumed you'd be using two bodies if you were planning to shoot a wedding with primes..... It's one of the top reasons I want a 2nd body; if I were shooting zooms, that wouldn't be nearly as big a priority for me.

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

My experience is shooting theater events rather than weddings....

Not yet anyway :lol :lol4

rpcrowe

I agree with Craig

craig_d wrote:

I think if you're going to try to shoot a wedding with only primes, you should have at least two camera bodies with you, in shoulder bags, mounted with different lenses and ready to shoot at all times. The idea here is to take advantage of primes without being locked into a single focal length or being out of action for thirty seconds every time you want to change between wide context shots and close-ups. And you'll need to be thinking ahead constantly so you'll know when you need to switch lenses because neither of the ones mounted at the moment are right for what's going to happen next.

Primes are great for size, weight, clarity, and wide apertures, but zooms win hands down for flexibility.

Primes are great if you need to shoot available light. IMO, the operative word here is "need". If you are allowed, flash, creatively used will do a better job in most venues. Unfortunately many photographer's avoid the use of flash because they are not capable of using flash creatively. See Neil van Niekerk's excellent web site on flash photography:

http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/

also see Joe Demb's web site:

http://www.dembflashproducts.com/flipit/weddings/

Now I will get off my soap box. If a photographer desires to use primes to shoot a wedding (or shoot at any other venue) it is my considered opinion that the photographer should be equipped with at least two, if not three, bodies with lenses of different focal lengths. A photographer following the sometimes hectic action of a wedding or wedding reception certainly doesn't have the luxury of time to be able to consistently switch lenses.

Additionally, it is close to criminal for a photographer to attempt to cover a wedding with a single camera.

The top-line zooms will provide plenty of quality for weddings and just about any other venue. If a photographer is desirous of absolutely top-line quality; I would suggest that he or she shoot with a pair of 5D2 cameras and a 24-70L and one of the 70-200mm lenses. The high ISO capability of the 5D2 would allow available light coverage in all but the dimmest lit venues.

I will digress for a second to sing the praises of IS capability in longer focal length lenses. While IS capability is nice in the shorter focal lengths, it really shines in the longer lenses. I can actually hand hold a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens better than I can a 70-200mm f/2.8L (non-IS) in lower light conditions. As an example, I can easily shoot at 200mm using 1/60 @ f/4 using my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and expect virtually 100% sharpness. I could not hand hold the 70-200mm f/2.8 (non-IS) lens at an equivalent exposure using 1/120 @ f/2.8 and expect equivalent sharpness. I can also shoot at 1/30 @ f/4 second with my IS equipped lens and get a very respectable ratio of keepers. I couldn't get any keepers hand holding the f/2.8 (non-IS) lens using 1/60 second @ f/2.8. Additionally, most wedding ceremonies do not include fast action and can most often be shot with a slower shutter speed.

BTW top line zooms like the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L or any of the 70-200mm tele zooms will beat the pants off the nifty-fifty in A/F capability. The nifty-fifty is a nice, dirt cheap lens but, is certainly not a professional tool. In addition to a poor focus capability, it has terrible bokeh, is not as sharp as you need when shot wide open and the build is so bad that it is actually dangerous for a pro photographer to use that lens when trying to capture a once in a lifetime occasion. A simple tap against a doorframe or other object might send the front element spinning to the floor. It happened to me once but, luckily not while shooting a wedding.

I no longer shoot weddings but, I always shoot with at least two cameras - even though I shoot with zooms (17-55mm + 70-200mm f/4L IS). These two lenses will cover 90% of my needs and are often the only lenses I carry for general and travel photography (although when traveling I will have some back up lenses in my motor home or hotel room).

I use an OPTECH Dual Harness which distributes the weight of two cameras and flash units across my shoulders, not on my neck.

http://optechusa.com/product/detail/?PRODUCT_ID=87

The Dual Harness is fully adjustable and the chest strap is high enough that it would be comfortable for most women. However, if it is not; the chest strap can be removed.

BTW, as photo equipment goes, the Dual Harness is fairly inexpensive.

Finally, You "could" use a third camera on a standard OPTECH neck strap along with the two on the dual harness. The connectors for the Dual harness will fit any OPTECH strap - so you would have no problem switching cameras from place to place - if the need arises.

Mnemosyne

I tend to use my 135 f2 in place of my 70-200 frequently. But I'm usually in bars at the front of the stage, so it works out. But there are times where the 200 would come in handy.

MissB

Im starting to wonder if it might just be useful to get a new camera body instead of a lens. my issue has been low light... some of the entry D series cameras have ISO capabilities up to 12,000 or better. my current XSI can only go upto 3200. Should i just start by getting a new body??

Scott_Quier

MissB wrote:

Im starting to wonder if it might just be useful to get a new camera body instead of a lens. my issue has been low light... some of the entry D series cameras have ISO capabilities up to 12,000 or better. my current XSI can only go upto 3200. Should i just start by getting a new body??

No! Your camera is fine ... you're not going to want to shoot much above 1600 anyway. Glass really is where it's at. The exception might be if you can swing the price of the new 7D - that would be a worth-while upgrade.

divamum

MissB wrote:

Im starting to wonder if it might just be useful to get a new camera body instead of a lens. my issue has been low light... some of the entry D series cameras have ISO capabilities up to 12,000 or better. my current XSI can only go upto 3200. Should i just start by getting a new body??

How the heck do you get your xsi up to 3200? Mine will only do 1600....

Btw, noise IS an issue on the xsi at high ISOs, but I've found that if I expose to the right as much as possible and work the images in noiseware afterwards, 800 looks good, and 1600 is useable. The real problem is if an image is underexposed to start with - it doesn't really do well with that....

Mnemosyne

@Diva: Check in your menu for an extendable ISO setting. My 1Ds and 40D (and most of the high end cameras) go naturally to a certain ISO, but can extend it beyond that.

I was unaware that they introduced that feature in the Rebel line, since my XTi doesn't do it. But it makes sense since the XSi is Digic 3 or 4.

@MissB: I wouldn't get a new body just for low light. Unless you're shooting in a cave 3 miles underground, I haven't seen the need for it. Your 50 f1.8 and 135 f2 should be good enough. I've used those on 1600 and 3200 ISOs in bars for years. Learning how to use slower shutter speeds can help with low light, and I use a technique called shooting to the right. Metering off the brightest point. It helps lower the noise and bring back saturation and contrast. At least, it looks like it does to me.

divamum

Mnemosyne wrote:

@Diva: Check in your menu for an extendable ISO setting. My 1Ds and 40D (and most of the high end cameras) go naturally to a certain ISO, but can extend it beyond that.

I was unaware that they introduced that feature in the Rebel line, since my XTi doesn't do it. But it makes sense since the XSi is Digic 3 or 4.

Nope - the xsi doesn't have it. No extendable, unless there's a hack for it that MissB knows that I've missed somewhere along the line!

ziggy53

Scott_Quier wrote:

No! Your camera is fine ... you're not going to want to shoot much above 1600 anyway. Glass really is where it's at. The exception might be if you can swing the price of the new 7D - that would be a worth-while upgrade.

Until you upgrade to a FF body you won't find "that" much difference in ISO performance, and even then the FF bodies are only better by about 1 stop. You are almost always better to improve lenses first and then improve/upgrade bodies. I actually think that lighting should be a more important consideration than bodies as well.

Your XSi probably still has a lot of life and utility left in it. (I still have and use 3 - Canon 350D/XT bodies that I like a lot. One is a dedicated IR camera, but the other 2 are just a nice, light body that works great for family event stuff and even an occasional paying gig.)

Divamum is correct that the XSi is limited to a maximum 1600, not 3200.

MissB

Im sorry.. i must have google-itis got my facts lost. You're right my xsi only goes upto 1600.. now off to google 7D

divamum

MissB wrote:

Im sorry.. i must have google-itis got my facts lost. You're right my xsi only goes upto 1600.. now off to google 7D

Good luck getting hold of one in time.... !!! (first shipments aren't expected until the end of the month....)

Scott_Quier

MissB wrote:

Im sorry.. i must have google-itis got my facts lost. You're right my xsi only goes upto 1600.. now off to google 7D

Here is a good place to start