Switching to Canon

sid-180

sid-180

sid-180

Associate
Joined
6 Nov 2009
Posts
551
Well i have decided to switch to Canon from Nikon

Reasons i am getting more involved into short videos.
Also 80% of professional friends i know have canon so easy to help each other out if need be.

I will miss my Nikon gear but really feeling Canon these days.
 
Personally I'd just pick up a GH4 and some adapters/speedboosters, but you can go wrong with that setup!


edit: *can't
 
Last edited:
Was going to say the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is a cracking lens :)

Although I'd ditch the 70-200 in favour of a 135L f/2.0 personally :)
 
sid-180 said:
yeah however i shoot a fair bit of weddings so so the 70-200 is ideal for those long distant based shots ;)
Click to expand...

Not really. The 135L is perfectly acceptable, that's all I use. I pretty much only pick up my camera for weddings at the moment :)

And if you still can't get 'those' shots with a 135L, you need to work on your skills ;)

Pros of the 135L include, size and weight...it's considerably lighter and easier to use, it's as sharp if not sharper, better bokeh and it's also cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Phate said:
Not really. The 135L is perfectly acceptable, that's all I use. I pretty much only pick up my camera for weddings at the moment :)

And if you still can't get 'those' shots with a 135L, you need to work on your skills ;)

Pros of the 135L include, size and weight...it's considerably lighter and easier to use, it's as sharp if not sharper, better bokeh and it's also cheaper.
Click to expand...

Agree, the only negative is you will need a relatively high shutter speed to get a sharp image. If only it had IS!
 
gjc10212 said:
Agree, the only negative is you will need a relatively high shutter speed to get a sharp image. If only it had IS!
Click to expand...

It stops to f/2.0 - I'd be surprised if you can't get a stable image with that speed :p :D

I've never once thought "this really needs IS" :)
 
Phate said:
Not really. The 135L is perfectly acceptable, that's all I use. I pretty much only pick up my camera for weddings at the moment :)

And if you still can't get 'those' shots with a 135L, you need to work on your skills ;)

Pros of the 135L include, size and weight...it's considerably lighter and easier to use, it's as sharp if not sharper, better bokeh and it's also cheaper.
Click to expand...

Cons include no 70mm, 85mm, 105mm, 150mm and 200mm prime focal lengths all in one lens. I would hazard a guess that the AF is also better on the 70-200mm.

24-70mm +70-200mm on 2 bodies is a popular combo for weddings and events because it covers all your needs with sufficient aperture for DoF and low light needs for most uses. I've not done many events but I'm liking using a 24-70 on FF and an 85mm on crop, and then swapping over to a 24-70 on FF and 35mm on crop. Having the zoom lens means you don't miss opportunities. If I started doing serious wedding photography I would probably have a 70-200mm on one body and fast 35mm prime on another (with a 24mm prime, 24-70 and 14-24 in the bag).

What I like about the 70-200 is the tele end allows for fantastic head+shoulders portraits with very smooth background but decent DoF to ensure the whole head is sharp. Then with a flick of a finger you have a great f/2.8 lens.

Plus every wedding I have been to (as a guest) the photographer had to be at the back of the church. 200mm is then the min, one wedding tog had a 300mm f/2.8.




That all being said, the 135L is a cracker of a lens sand if you are confident with primes and don't need the longer lengths then all those pros you listed certainly add up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom