Help with lens choices..

Jarckivy

Hello to all,

I am having a hard time choosing which lens or lenses I should purchase. I have about 1400.00 to spend.

I have 11 weddings this year and I am real tired of spending so much on rental gear. I always rent the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 17-55 for the other weddings I have shot. I also do alot of family sessions and just got started doing Cheerleading portraits.

So if you only had $1400, what would be the lens or lenses that you would get the most use out of for what I shoot?

Thanks for the help:)

ziggy53

The EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM is more than your budget. You could buy the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM with your budget however.

If you can do with out the IS, the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM is within budget.

If you want to go with a third party lens consider the Tamron 70-200mm, f2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro and Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di II are very nice, although they lack IS. They would be in budget together.

Alernately, the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM II Macro is a faster AF but less sharp at the long end and especially wide open, compared to either the Canon or Tamron. It too lacks IS but is a similar price to the Tamron 70-200mm mentioned.

Scott_Quier

Jennifer,

Without knowing what you have (though we do know what you DON'T have), it's a little difficult to advise. However, I can say that unless you are very good predicting the action/shot for which you would use the 70-200 zoom, I suspect you will quickly become quite frustrated with the AF on the Tamron. I have played with this lens a bit and found it to be not even in the same league as the Canon. The Canon versions, on the other hand, are famous and for good reason.

All that having been said, I think you would be better served with the 17-55. It is quite possible to photograph an entire wedding, the portraits, and reception with nothing but this lens - not easy but possible. I don't think the same can be said of the 70-200 zooms.

Finally, I would say that it is almost always cheaper in the long wrong to buy the right tool the first time rather than buy a compromise, become dis-satisfied with it, sell it, and buy the first choice. DAMHIK

Matthew Saville

I love me the Sima 50-150 2.8, and if you plan on shooting all 11 of these weddings (plus a few more engagement sessions, etc.) BEFORE you upgrade to full-frame, it just makes financial and practical sense to buy a crop sensor lens that best fits your shooting range needs.

If I were you I'd go for the Canon 17-55 plus the Sigma 50-150, OR something more dramatic like the Tokina 11-16 plus the Sigma 50-150, if mid-range just isn't really exciting for you. (Or, get a Sigma 30 1.4, if mid-range is exciting for you AND you need a low-light performer...)

Again, I understand that some photographers will urge everyone to stick with full-frame gear even now while shooting with a crop sensor for the next year or two. However from an artistic standpoint, I just couldn't do it. They created the specific focal ranges (24-70, 70-200) for a REASON. And unless you're a wildlife shooter, the extra reach just ruins things. 70-200 on a crop sensor (105-300) just does NOT lend itself to close-quarters photojournalism. 24-70 on crop (36-105) can make a decent mid-range portrait zoom, but is once again far less practical for the wide-to-mid range of photojournalism that I'd prefer. I'd need to get something even wider, bottom line. So, I invested in multiple crop-sensor lenses because I knew it would be a year or two (or three) before I got a full-frame body.

This may not be the case for you, but I personally found that I couldn't do it. I'm also a sissy who prefers not to lug around a lens any heavier than 750-800 g... Which is why my Nikon 17-55 and Sigma 50-150 are awesome- rugged professional build quality, yet extremely light compared to the likes of a 70-200 2.8 etc...

Just my opinionated opinion!
=Matt=