Additional Lenses
- Thread starter snips86x
- Start date
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 17,953
- Location
- Close to Swindon, but not Swindon
Ahh yes, didn't think of that one. I nay have a friend who can help with that.
Going back to the lenses, what recommendations for a 17-55mm equivalent on an EF mount for the same price?
I don't want to invest in an ef-s lens to then upgrade to a FF body.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 17,953
- Location
- Close to Swindon, but not Swindon
I used to own one, stunning lens, got a Tokina 11-16 as replacement. My only concern is the f/4, I think I'm going to need at least a 2.8.
I'm also worried about over thinking this and may have to stick with the 17-55mm as the likely hood of me getting a FF camera is slim. The 7D will be with me until it dies
I love it!!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,888
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Here's my experience of it on crop.
When I first started, the first 5 weddings were pro bono, so I didn't have to worry about contracts or consideration or even insurance. I only had 1 body and it was the 30D and the lens I used the majority of the time was the Tamron 17-50.
I also had in the bag:
50/1.8 (focus sucks in low light)
550EX Flash
70-200 2.8 IS (rented for 2 of the weddings), hardly used.
That's it. If you are quick on your feet and anticipate the scene you can get away with adding just the 17-50 in your bag. Go pick up a 30/40D secondhand for about £200 and use it as a back up and bob's your uncle. In fact, when I moved to the 5D, I used 24-70 for half a dozen weddings before I got a 35/1.4, then I got a 135/L, then a 85L. At the beginning my 24-70 (along with my 50/1.4) are perfectly capable combo. Use the zoom for the versatility and the 50 when you want that bokeh or extra 2 stops. I also had a 16-35 for the wide stuff. These days I don't take my 70-200 with me, the longest lens in the bag is a 135L and even that only get used if I am forced to be in a certain position away from the action The rest of the time I use my feet.
7D + 17-50/2.8 = done.
Although these days, I can do a whole wedding with just a 35/85 prime lens combo.
One time, my 24-70 had an Error 99 at 11am mid shoot, for the next 13 hours I used the 16-35/50/85.
And remember to have lots of cards, lots.
When I first started, the first 5 weddings were pro bono, so I didn't have to worry about contracts or consideration or even insurance. I only had 1 body and it was the 30D and the lens I used the majority of the time was the Tamron 17-50.
I also had in the bag:
50/1.8 (focus sucks in low light)
550EX Flash
70-200 2.8 IS (rented for 2 of the weddings), hardly used.
That's it. If you are quick on your feet and anticipate the scene you can get away with adding just the 17-50 in your bag. Go pick up a 30/40D secondhand for about £200 and use it as a back up and bob's your uncle. In fact, when I moved to the 5D, I used 24-70 for half a dozen weddings before I got a 35/1.4, then I got a 135/L, then a 85L. At the beginning my 24-70 (along with my 50/1.4) are perfectly capable combo. Use the zoom for the versatility and the 50 when you want that bokeh or extra 2 stops. I also had a 16-35 for the wide stuff. These days I don't take my 70-200 with me, the longest lens in the bag is a 135L and even that only get used if I am forced to be in a certain position away from the action The rest of the time I use my feet.
7D + 17-50/2.8 = done.
Although these days, I can do a whole wedding with just a 35/85 prime lens combo.
One time, my 24-70 had an Error 99 at 11am mid shoot, for the next 13 hours I used the 16-35/50/85.
And remember to have lots of cards, lots.
I used to own one, stunning lens, got a Tokina 11-16 as replacement. My only concern is the f/4, I think I'm going to need at least a 2.8.
I'm also worried about over thinking this and may have to stick with the 17-55mm as the likely hood of me getting a FF camera is slim. The 7D will be with me until it dies
Even if you do go full frame you will loose peanuts selling on a 17-55mm f2.8 IS if you buy it now second hand they are easily the best lens in that range and hold their value excellently.
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 17,953
- Location
- Close to Swindon, but not Swindon
This is a good choice and looks like a solid lens and would welcome a reduction in my budget to allow movement for other items.
Thanks Ray! Although it makes me feel like I should give up
You've got some sweet kit there, stuff I can only dream off.I guess it's all about the initial investment. If I can get buy with a Canon 17-55mm or Sigma 17-50mm and a nice prime, any money I do make, if I make any, can be used to re-invest into better hardware.
This is a little alien to me as I was asked to do this wedding after attending her sisters just for the experience of photographing a wedding. I'm more of a landscape and macro photographer.
I guess I have some thinking to do and recommend further suggestions.
This is a good choice and looks like a solid lens and would welcome a reduction in my budget to allow movement for other items.
Thanks Ray! Although it makes me feel like I should give up
I guess it's all about the initial investment. If I can get buy with a Canon 17-55mm or Sigma 17-50mm and a nice prime, any money I do make, if I make any, can be used to re-invest into better hardware.
This is a little alien to me as I was asked to do this wedding after attending her sisters just for the experience of photographing a wedding. I'm more of a landscape and macro photographer.
I guess I have some thinking to do and recommend further suggestions.
If you don't feel comfortable doing it, don't? I'd never shoot someones wedding personally as its also not my style of photography.
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 17,953
- Location
- Close to Swindon, but not Swindon
That's just it though, I want too despite being aware it could go wrong!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,888
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Thanks Ray! Although it makes me feel like I should give up
I guess it's all about the initial investment. If I can get buy with a Canon 17-55mm or Sigma 17-50mm and a nice prime, any money I do make, if I make any, can be used to re-invest into better hardware.
This is a little alien to me as I was asked to do this wedding after attending her sisters just for the experience of photographing a wedding. I'm more of a landscape and macro photographer.
I guess I have some thinking to do and recommend further suggestions.
The amount of gear just gives me choices and back ups. I have every focal length covered twice in zoom and primes. I have 3 bodies and I have over 500G (closer to 600G) of cards and 5 batteries.
But if pushed comes to shove, in theory I could pull it off using 1 body and my 35mm. In almost any given wedding, when I sort the photos by lenses, there are at least 50% taken by the 35mm (24 on crop). You can spend all your money and put it on a 24/1.4 but personally, at the beginning when you are learning so your anticipation of a scene isn't as experienced, a zoom will help you more than primes. This is where I think a 17-50/2.8 is more useful to begin with. Primes are great but only when you know what you are doing and ideally, have 2 bodies with a different focal length lens on the other so to give you that flexibility. It's a juggling act between versatility and image quality, something which only you can decide.
I did my first wedding last year and pretty much had to wear a nappy the entire time.
I pulled it off ok but there's no doubt a good paid pro would have done a better job, in the end the B&G were very happy and I shot all day with my 35mm, 85mm and 12-24mm.
Getting the standard shots is fine, I had a list of must haves and went through them like a 'to do list. However getting those shots does not equal a record of the day which is where I struggled somewhat.
As an example Ray, An Exception and mrk on here are really good at documenting the day by capturing the unseen moments, being ready for the unexpected while at the same time putting their spin and style on the usual wedding shots.
Its something I admire greatly but will never be comfortable with myself.
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 17,953
- Location
- Close to Swindon, but not Swindon
The 17-55mm seem to be very well priced on the bay! Cheaper then going to Jessops.
There is really no alternative in this focal length. Buy the 17-55 second hand and then if and when you go full frame sell it on for minimal costs or a potential profit.
An alternative but still crop lens is the excellent sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. You trade in a shorter focal length for sharper optics and a stop and third aperture.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2012
- Posts
- 17,953
- Location
- Close to Swindon, but not Swindon
I have been doing some research and I have narrowed it down to:
Looking at the quality compared to the Canon 17-55, it seems sharper across the center & mid-frame, but slightly softer around the edge.
Sigma 17-50 vs Sigam 17-70 - Image Quality
I had considered the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical, but compared to the 2 Sigmas the quality was not as good.
What do you think? Would you go with the 1st or 2nd choice?
- Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM
- Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC OS HSM
Looking at the quality compared to the Canon 17-55, it seems sharper across the center & mid-frame, but slightly softer around the edge.
Sigma 17-50 vs Sigam 17-70 - Image Quality
I had considered the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical, but compared to the 2 Sigmas the quality was not as good.
What do you think? Would you go with the 1st or 2nd choice?
Last edited:
Come to think of it, I'd also entertain the 18-35 sigma also for its low light performance
My thoughts exactly. The 17-50 covers a nice range of focal length and I think the advantage of the aperture is worth more than the 20mm of focal length when moving is available. On a crop you've got 35 and 50mm focal lengths covered.