I've gone and done it.

Mr Jones, If you are doing weddings you HAVE to have a backup for everything - including - ideally yourself.

Mothers of the bride do not always accept - "Er I dropped it and it was my only ..." as a legitimate excuse for why there are no photos of their daughter's "special day".

You also need to have public and professional liability insurance as without the former many venues won't let you shoot professional, and without the latter you are laying yourself open to any legal issues that may result from clients however unreasonable. Oh and don't forget to register the income.....

It sucks I know, but these details are vital.

I have 2 bodies (5D2 and 40D as a backup), 24-70L f2.8, 85f1.4, 70-200L f2.8, 100L f2.8, 17-40L f4 and reckon I would be fine losing any one camera/lens - and all I do is studio work. For weddings I would want 2x5D2s, plus a f2.8 or faster wide angle.

Sorry to be so negative - so let me finish by saying GOOD LUCK and show us the results !
 
BusError said:
I upgraded to a 5dII a few weeks ago, and I used to use a 18-50 f2.8 EX too... I haven't found a replacement for it yet on the 5D. The Canon 24-70 is just too big really, and the Sigma is too expensive for a third party lens..
Click to expand...

Try the 24-105L? I think it's marginally sharper than the 24-70 personally and on full frame the depth of field and bokeh isn't terrible at all. It's a better lens than it often gets credit for certainly and it's smaller and lighter than the 24-70 which I agree can be a pain, Nikon's version is a pain and it handles better than the Canon one.
 
bigredshark said:
Try the 24-105L? I think it's marginally sharper than the 24-70 personally and on full frame the depth of field and bokeh isn't terrible at all. It's a better lens than it often gets credit for certainly and it's smaller and lighter than the 24-70 which I agree can be a pain, Nikon's version is a pain and it handles better than the Canon one.
Click to expand...

I hadn't considered it yet -- it's true it doesn't have a stellar reputation, but nor does the 24-70L so... I didn't know it was smaller tho, I'll look it up...
 
Yeah, my other half has both and I chose the 24-105 over the 24-70 at the weekend to stick on the 5D pretty much because it handles better (Nikon 70-200 on another body though...)
 
bigredshark said:
Yeah, my other half has both and I chose the 24-105 over the 24-70 at the weekend to stick on the 5D pretty much because it handles better (Nikon 70-200 on another body though...)
Click to expand...

Only goes to f/4.0 though, at weddings hes going to want the faster glass! :)
 
Phate said:
Only goes to f/4.0 though, at weddings hes going to want the faster glass! :)
Click to expand...

Depends on your needs, not everybody likes the shallow depth of field craze and it's still shallow enough a lot of the time even at f/4. If he's been shooting with a f/2.8 lens on a crop sensor then a f/4 lens on a full frame sensor gives almost exactly the same depth of field...

35mm, f/2.8 @ 2m on a 1.6x sensor gives 35cm DOF

52mm (so same fov give or take) f/4 @ 2m on a full frame sensor gives...35cm DOF
 
I'm not talking about for the depth of field. I'm talking about the speed of the glass itself.

Church in the winter - your going to need 2.8 at the very least. Prime it for faster speeds where possible.
 
not just for DOF though, some (or a lot) of churches wont allow flash during ceremony and they can be very gloomy.
 
Phate said:
I'm not talking about for the depth of field. I'm talking about the speed of the glass itself.

Church in the winter - your going to need 2.8 at the very least. Prime it for faster speeds where possible.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, I've been completely comfortable with that approach in the digital age myself, I'd take a D3s with an f/4 lens over virtually anything else with an f/2.8 lens. I don't like using big apertures to compensate for lack of light, it's a creative control and it's not an argument for faster zooms in my view as you're only getting one extra stop of shutter speed at best.

Primes are more logical if you want to take that approach. If I had a Canon system I'd have the 24-105L + 35L as a starting point rather than the faster zoom.

But, each to their own, I'm not a regular wedding photographer...
 
bigredshark said:
Perhaps, I've been completely comfortable with that approach in the digital age myself, I'd take a D3s with an f/4 lens over virtually anything else with an f/2.8 lens. I don't like using big apertures to compensate for lack of light, it's a creative control and it's not an argument for faster zooms in my view as you're only getting one extra stop of shutter speed at best.

Primes are more logical if you want to take that approach. If I had a Canon system I'd have the 24-105L + 35L as a starting point rather than the faster zoom.

But, each to their own, I'm not a regular wedding photographer...
Click to expand...

what choice do you have though if the venue does not allow flash?
 
^^^
Neil, I probably wouldn't want to use a lens slower than 2.8 at a wedding tbh, no way would I even consider taking an F4 lens, unless it was to be used outside or near a window, but then that's just excess baggage imo, I generally like to travel as light as possible.
 
Hodders said:
Mr Jones, If you are doing weddings you HAVE to have a backup for everything - including - ideally yourself.

Mothers of the bride do not always accept - "Er I dropped it and it was my only ..." as a legitimate excuse for why there are no photos of their daughter's "special day".

You also need to have public and professional liability insurance as without the former many venues won't let you shoot professional, and without the latter you are laying yourself open to any legal issues that may result from clients however unreasonable. Oh and don't forget to register the income.....

It sucks I know, but these details are vital.

I have 2 bodies (5D2 and 40D as a backup), 24-70L f2.8, 85f1.4, 70-200L f2.8, 100L f2.8, 17-40L f4 and reckon I would be fine losing any one camera/lens - and all I do is studio work. For weddings I would want 2x5D2s, plus a f2.8 or faster wide angle.

Sorry to be so negative - so let me finish by saying GOOD LUCK and show us the results !
Click to expand...

I've got liability and insurance covered awhile back :)

As for backup, after much thoughts and deliberations, I'm selling and going for the 24-70L asap. Everything else will fall into plan as I turn main photog, still got a fair few months yet. Assisting is fine as my boss has a very wide lens collection.

Paul, will keep an eye on what you've got to offer :)
 
neil_g said:
what choice do you have though if the venue does not allow flash?
Click to expand...

Well, I'd look at the body first, a D3s has two or three stops worth of ISO performance over the D700 for instance, so that'd be my first choice.

If I needed the faster glass though, I'd get a prime rather than a faster zoom because at least I'd have two or three stops extra rather than just one.

If you're looking at shutter speeds down at 1/15th to start with at f/4, a faster zoom gets you to 1/30th which isn't much odds in my view. A better body gets you to 1/60th or 1/125th, same with a prime - those speeds are workable with decent technique in the 50-85mm range.

You pick your tools for the job as you see fit but for my money with Canon the 24-70 isn't worth it over the 24-105, it gains you a single stop of Aperture at the expense of IS and weighs more. It's also a shade less sharp to my eye.
 
There would be times with f4 @ 1/30 where the f2.8 @ 1/60 would help, but it's all swings and roundabouts :)

I've been thinking about the 24-104 lately for use on the 1Ds2. I've got a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and the Canon 85mm f1.8 for low light, and I'm tinkering with the idea of trying out the 35mm f2 (I don't have 35L funds at the moment!). I'm probably going to sell the crop kit as I can't really justify keeping the two bodies for a hobby :)
 
Instead of the 24-70L, I've been thinking of the 28mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 to go with the 50 f1.4 for a 3 prime set up. Any opinion on that?

I'm comfortable with switching lenses and using my feet... does make sense financially and for extra stop of light when needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom