Lens Line Up Switch...Opinions Wanted
After a year of working with my current lens lineup, it is just not doing it for me anymore. I'm thinking of shaking it up. I'll list my current gear and what I'd like to go to, and the pros and cons I see...any you see I'd appreciate.
First off, I am a wedding photographer, and I shoot portraits (mostly kids and families mostly outdoor). I have a 20D and 30D and plan to keep with a EF-S capable body for at least 2 more years. I come from a medium format background, so the 'prime' mindset is deeply engrained.
Current Gear:
Standard zoom: EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM
Pros: covers a wide range
Cons: Not sharp below f8, IS only useful to compensate for lack of sharpness wide open, SLOW and ponderous focussing when compared to any other lens in my bag.
Telephoto Zoom: EF 70-200 f4 L
Pros: Sharp, superhandholdable, great contrast, good focussing.
Cons: L lens spoilage, white
Primes: EF 28mm f2.8
Pros: Sharp at f4, equal to a standard lens on a crop body, hood for 85 f1.8 fits without vignetting, suprisingly low distortion for a 115 dollar wide angle lens.
Cons: slower AFD (still faster than 17-85) focus isn't always positive, very flare prone even using a big hood.
EF 85mm f1.8
Pros: THE portrait lens, sharp, great seperation from background even at f8, fast focussing, rewards good technique with awesome photos.
Cons: Working distance is a tad long for full length portraits, ok when using off camera flash, but not with FOC, unforgiving.
Lensbaby: It is what it is.
Possible "new" Line up
Standard Zoom: EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM
Pros: I'm hoping it is L sharp and L contrasty for an L price and EF-S build quality :rolleyes
Cons: It might not be
WA Zoom: EF-S 10-22
Pros: Opens new creative avenues I haven't been down since I was shooting 35mm
Telephoto Zoom: Same, I will never sell this lens
Primes: Either 85 f1.8 OR 50mm f1.4 I'm not sure I can get the drop out seperation I am after from the 50mm at apertures smaller than f4.
I'll post some examples...and people who own the 50 f1.4 can tell me if it is possible at f5.6/f8
Shot at f5.6 with 85mm f1.8 flower bed is 10-12 feet behind subjects, I'm figuring a shot with a 50mm f1.4 at f2.8 or f4 might give this seperation but not at f5.6 or f8. Working distance is not so bad with kids but a little long for brides. Any opinions are welcome and needed, and not to poo poo any ideas before they are given, I don't buy 3rd party manufacturer lenses, and yes I know lots of pros use/love/are succesful (and richer) with them.
First off, I am a wedding photographer, and I shoot portraits (mostly kids and families mostly outdoor). I have a 20D and 30D and plan to keep with a EF-S capable body for at least 2 more years. I come from a medium format background, so the 'prime' mindset is deeply engrained.
Current Gear:
Standard zoom: EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM
Pros: covers a wide range
Cons: Not sharp below f8, IS only useful to compensate for lack of sharpness wide open, SLOW and ponderous focussing when compared to any other lens in my bag.
Telephoto Zoom: EF 70-200 f4 L
Pros: Sharp, superhandholdable, great contrast, good focussing.
Cons: L lens spoilage, white
Primes: EF 28mm f2.8
Pros: Sharp at f4, equal to a standard lens on a crop body, hood for 85 f1.8 fits without vignetting, suprisingly low distortion for a 115 dollar wide angle lens.
Cons: slower AFD (still faster than 17-85) focus isn't always positive, very flare prone even using a big hood.
EF 85mm f1.8
Pros: THE portrait lens, sharp, great seperation from background even at f8, fast focussing, rewards good technique with awesome photos.
Cons: Working distance is a tad long for full length portraits, ok when using off camera flash, but not with FOC, unforgiving.
Lensbaby: It is what it is.
Possible "new" Line up
Standard Zoom: EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM
Pros: I'm hoping it is L sharp and L contrasty for an L price and EF-S build quality :rolleyes
Cons: It might not be
WA Zoom: EF-S 10-22
Pros: Opens new creative avenues I haven't been down since I was shooting 35mm
Telephoto Zoom: Same, I will never sell this lens
Primes: Either 85 f1.8 OR 50mm f1.4 I'm not sure I can get the drop out seperation I am after from the 50mm at apertures smaller than f4.
I'll post some examples...and people who own the 50 f1.4 can tell me if it is possible at f5.6/f8
Shot at f5.6 with 85mm f1.8 flower bed is 10-12 feet behind subjects, I'm figuring a shot with a 50mm f1.4 at f2.8 or f4 might give this seperation but not at f5.6 or f8. Working distance is not so bad with kids but a little long for brides. Any opinions are welcome and needed, and not to poo poo any ideas before they are given, I don't buy 3rd party manufacturer lenses, and yes I know lots of pros use/love/are succesful (and richer) with them.
0
Comments
The 50 can be used as a portrait lens if the 85 is too long on the 1.6 crop
The 10-22 is sharp and outside of build, I feel near L quality. It's a fun lens to play with.
My set up includes primes, but the telephoto ones are really the only ones that get much use. I generally don't use the 50 and 85 until days when I get bored and force myself to get creative using a prime only for that day.
If not doing birds, my most used are three zooms: the 10-22, the 24-70 L, and the 70-200 2.8 IS L. The last two are expensive, but get used so much and have such great quality the price is worth it.
Gear: Canon 7D
Canon 24-105 f/4 L
Canon 28mm f/1.8
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
I respect your prime bias ( I strongly share it, actually ), but the 24-70 f2.8 L gives outstanding images in a full frame camera, and should do as well if not better on a 20D. And the zoom from 24-70 will be very handy for shooting weddings. I think the f2.8 or f4 will give you the seperation that you need for portraits too.
I shot this image at my niece's wedding with the 24-70 on a 1DsMkll, and you can see every thread in the veil clearly when the image is examined at 200%
Almost all of the images I shot that day were with a 24-70f2.8 L
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I LOVE the 24-70 f2.8 L, a collegue has it... and I have used it extensively BUT It doesn't replace 2 lenses for my style. As a sole photographer at wedding I need 1 lens that goes from wide to mild tele not a wide zoom and a standard to tele. I need to sneak up the isle to get the kiss, then march back out with them leaving and shoot the whole church wide with the same lens. It doesn't shoot my ladderless reception style either, where I like to use overhead camera holds, wide angles, and small apertures to maximize DOF. I like to get close to my dance floor subjects, in the thick of the party, use rear curtain slow syncs, zoom blurs, and low angles. The 24-70 is just plain not wide enough (but it is a great lens). Possibly the 10-22 added to the mix could change things, but I have become used to IS for use with rear curtains, and I am not sure I could achieve the effects I like without it. Believe me at almost the same price point as the 17-55 the 24-70 is very tempting for the L build quality and (probably) superior sharpness and contrast.
I can be, and I've used it when necessary, but it's recommended to use a longer FL, the subjects will be more flattering with a longer FL.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Why not turn in to a 2 camera shooter? One body with the 17-50mm, f2.8 and the other body with the 70-200mm, f4L.
The longer zoom is fairly effective for portraiture at the 70mm end, has good sharpness and bokeh qualities at f4 (although a different kind of bokeh compared to the 85mm) and good general handling with excellent focus speed. You might also look at the f2.8L version. Bigger and heavier, it does have that extra stop at the "right" end. The IS version is a bit heavier yet, but with less camera shake effect it might be worth considering, like for a balcony shot with available light.
The shorter zoom would handle the interior stuff and wide group shots and exterior architechtural (establish shots of the church).
It's fairly easy to change flash from one body to another, so I recommend that as opposed to dedicated flash for each body. Extra weight and damage to the flash are the obvious problems.
What I am describing is also my strategy (two cameras) and I intend to find the perfect "holster" for both bodies, so if anyone has ideas ...
Thanks,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
In my 5 years (not a long time) of shooting weddings, I have seen a few 2 camera shooters. It seems split as to who they are. Some are the real deal wedding photojournalists that don't pose any shots and are always right with the bride and groom in the moment, the other half just seem to be idiots who think it looks cool to carry 2 cameras. I am NOT the real deal wedding photojournalist and I never will be. I use lights, lots of them, and pose people so they look decent and natural. I add some photojournalistic element into my final product. I have great respect for WPJs, and admiration for how many shots they shoot to get their results, and marvel at how they can sell themselves on in the moment shoots alone. Their style does run into access and proximity problems, and puts them in direct conflict with officiants and some wedding planners. There is nothing I could want that I could get with a second camera that I couldn't get with one camera.
My normal sequence for lens use is.
Getting ready 85 f1.8, 17-85 and lensbaby
Pre ceremony portraits 85mm and 28mm
Coming down the isle 17-85 or 28
Ceremony from back of church 70-200 on tripod with a few low WA's thrown in off the tripod.
Portraits on altar 28mm
Bride and Groom portraits 85mm
Reception intros 17-85
First Dances 85mm AND 17-85 occasionally 70-200
Rest of the reception with 17-85
I could see the use of keeping a zoom and flash on one camera and the 85 f1.8 on the other in AV with no flash just for ambients.
What I think of as true advantages to the two camera approach:
1) The "Backup" is always available.
2) Canon bodies are very good about going to sleep and waking quickly (at least the ones you and I use).
3) If it's around your neck, you're not as likely to forget it.
4) Dust on the sensor becomes a negligible problem with no lens changes. ( I've already experienced it once as a problem, and didn't see the problem until later.)
Thanks,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Kinesis makes a belt that accepts a holster for a DSLR and lens. It can even have room for a flash also. www.kinesisgear.com
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
interestling enough...this brings up another reason I don't think the approach is for me. I hate straps...I never use one I bought one that snaps on and off, and the stap parts that stayed attached were in my way. I'm sure this comes from shooting MF for so long, you don't hang a Hassy with a Dennis Reggie bracket around your neck, or a Mamiya C330 for that matter. I don't like the way they make me look in my suit, they get in my way, and strain my neck. Yeah I worry about sitting my cam down sometimes, but it is better than bending down and having the flash bracket suddenly flip and attack your crotch.
I understand. I used a Hasselblad 500C and Mamiya C330 as well (and more recently, a Yashica 124G and even a Yashica 635). I used the neck strap to avoid dropping everything accidentally. I held on to everything with a handle-mount flash (Rollei E36RE), but just used one camera at a time. I shot flash with Portra 160 (rated 125) and available light with Portra 400.
My last serious still wedding was 2 years ago with 6 bodies; 4 MF and 2 - 35mm SLRs, shooting film. I had kinda given up still weddings for a long time because I didn't truly need the income or hassle. Now, suddenly, I find myself needing the income, but the film process is sooo expensive, so I switched to digital SLRs. (I have also been doing wedding videos, 2-4 camera shoots.) I've been practicing at family/friend events and doing stills to document rehearsals, prior to video shoots. I think I'm about ready for the wedding market.
I am looking for good holsters for the cameras when not in use. You are right that I'll look kinda dorky (2 cameras and a suit and holsters), but I can accept that if I get the results I'm looking for.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
review is to be believed...I am definately getting the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM
According to the results it is resolving more detail at 24mm and f2.8 than the 24-70 f2.8 L
and more detail at 17mm and f2.8 than the 16-35 f2.8L.
With mild CA to boot...
Possibly more detail than can be utilized by the 30D/20D sensor. Which addressed my biggest gripe with the 17-85 IS USM...sharpness. I expected it to be good, but not as good as tested in this report.
Thanks for that! I have added that link to my favorites.
Vignetting (1 EV) appears to be the only significant problem of the lens, but with good corner sharpness and low CA it should be largely correctable in software.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums