Once you go "L" you'll never go back....

[picturesbyme]

Most of my lenses are L too but just because it's an L doesn't mean it is better then a newer non L lens.
I know it should be (usually the price indicate that, right? That's enough for most people..). I think several new lenses give an exceptional performance.
I wonder how canon deal with the "let's make a new lens but make sure it won't be better than the 20 years old L" dilemma

I still have a 60D and beside that I needed a backup,  the size, same battery, good quality under ISO800 (for me) flip screen ...etc....  the 67th reason to keep it was that I love the Canon EF-S 60mm macro for its image quality, size, price. I also use the Sigma 8-16mm UWA a lot on it.
It's a beautiful threesome

[ishdakuteb]

Usually when I shoot with a second shooter, I tell them exactly what I expect them to shoot and how I want them to shoot... My last wedding, amateur, good but not great photographer... He shot 7d and 5d2 and used 135L and 24-105....  It was slightly low light and 90-95% of his 5d2 shots were unusable and he had a slightly better keeper rate with the 7d...  Long story short, despite telling him exactly what I wanted, I shot similar stuff just in case, and for the most part, I ended up using only a handful of his shots and most of mine...  It was a great learning experience for him and I sat down with him afterwards and critiqued his shooting with him no bars held...  He learned quickly... the second shoot I had with him, it was an outdoors event and better lighting, but his keeper rate was much much better...  In the end, gear can be crucial, but also you much teach your second shooters, talk to them, and guide them... If they dont know why what they did was wrong or doesn't work, then they would never know and wont improve...

here i am trying to learn.  let me know as if you think that what i think is right (thanks in advance).  i am not sure what he paired his set with.  as for me i would go with:

1. 5d mark II with 135L (iso 6400, open wide)
2. 7d with 24-105mm (iso 6400, open wide).  must use flash on this one a long with -1 and 1/3-2/3 flash power)

7d pair with 70-200mm is II is perfect in low light situation.  if light situation is too low, search for spot light assist such as shooting closed to video man... kinda cheating huh (having been using this pair in low light number of time, not really having problem with it eventhough i have violated speed all the time (down to 1/50), but thanks to canon IS system...

Assuming upgrading cameras to the 5d3 is out of the question...  I would almost swap the two lenses... put the 135 on the 7d and 24-105 on the 5d2...  6400 on a 7d can get quite ugly very quickly and usable shots may not be easy to find...  I would have the 7d and 135 on as a detail camera...  tell the second shooter (assuming he's shooting the 7d) to get accent shots that would naturally be filler in your album such as but not limited to a nice close up of the mother and or father of the bride tearing up, grooms expression as the bride walks down the isle, settings, tables, silverware, food, people laughing/crying... hugs/kisses/etc... emotional stuff sells well.   then use the 5d2 and 24-105 to get overalls, groups, The main story telling camera...  details if you can...  I would use a 430 or 580 even if you use it just for AF assist as you will need it with the 5d2 in low light. 

With my 5d3, I was able to shoot around ISO 16000-20000 during the ceremony (no flash) and even on 11x14's you can barely see any noise... blew my mind.   If you do a lot of weddings, I would save up every penny possible to get the 5d3 if I were you, but with that 2 camera set-up, that's how I would run things...

ummm... i am not sure iso 6400 on 7d comes out that ugly, but i have used 6400 all the time in low light, it came out just not that bad though.  in fact, i have include some of picutures that i have shot with 6400 on my 7d here... do not make me sad since i am still loving my canon 7d even though i have 5d mark III (ordered from adorama last time)

imo, i would not put 135mm on 7d in low light due to camera shake (no is on 135).   i assume that there is no way that he can get 1/125 in low light as i never get that kinda speed in low light.

these pictures were taken with 7d and 70-200mm is II (all available light no flash.  i hate to to perform flash range calculation for crop frame in my head during shooting.)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9654.msg175587#msg175587

and also some here...

[nvsravank]

I just recently had a friend of mine assist in a dance shoot. I actually provided him with the 24-105 L for him to use on his T2i. His timing was great. His crop was good. He was let down by equipment. No having the F 2.8 and not having that great low light meant higher ISO and more noise than I could tolerate. For some shots that were towards the back of the stage i had him use his 55-250 mm lens.

While I knew that the photos wont be of the same quality as my 5D Mark III, I still expected decent shots and I was surprised at the amount of post i had to do, the loss of photos due to poor focus, the loss of photos due to shake.

I told him - I will get him better equipment next time.

[awinphoto]

Usually when I shoot with a second shooter, I tell them exactly what I expect them to shoot and how I want them to shoot... My last wedding, amateur, good but not great photographer... He shot 7d and 5d2 and used 135L and 24-105....  It was slightly low light and 90-95% of his 5d2 shots were unusable and he had a slightly better keeper rate with the 7d...  Long story short, despite telling him exactly what I wanted, I shot similar stuff just in case, and for the most part, I ended up using only a handful of his shots and most of mine...  It was a great learning experience for him and I sat down with him afterwards and critiqued his shooting with him no bars held...  He learned quickly... the second shoot I had with him, it was an outdoors event and better lighting, but his keeper rate was much much better...  In the end, gear can be crucial, but also you much teach your second shooters, talk to them, and guide them... If they dont know why what they did was wrong or doesn't work, then they would never know and wont improve...

here i am trying to learn.  let me know as if you think that what i think is right (thanks in advance).  i am not sure what he paired his set with.  as for me i would go with:

1. 5d mark II with 135L (iso 6400, open wide)
2. 7d with 24-105mm (iso 6400, open wide).  must use flash on this one a long with -1 and 1/3-2/3 flash power)

7d pair with 70-200mm is II is perfect in low light situation.  if light situation is too low, search for spot light assist such as shooting closed to video man... kinda cheating huh (having been using this pair in low light number of time, not really having problem with it eventhough i have violated speed all the time (down to 1/50), but thanks to canon IS system...

Assuming upgrading cameras to the 5d3 is out of the question...  I would almost swap the two lenses... put the 135 on the 7d and 24-105 on the 5d2...  6400 on a 7d can get quite ugly very quickly and usable shots may not be easy to find...  I would have the 7d and 135 on as a detail camera...  tell the second shooter (assuming he's shooting the 7d) to get accent shots that would naturally be filler in your album such as but not limited to a nice close up of the mother and or father of the bride tearing up, grooms expression as the bride walks down the isle, settings, tables, silverware, food, people laughing/crying... hugs/kisses/etc... emotional stuff sells well.   then use the 5d2 and 24-105 to get overalls, groups, The main story telling camera...  details if you can...  I would use a 430 or 580 even if you use it just for AF assist as you will need it with the 5d2 in low light. 

With my 5d3, I was able to shoot around ISO 16000-20000 during the ceremony (no flash) and even on 11x14's you can barely see any noise... blew my mind.   If you do a lot of weddings, I would save up every penny possible to get the 5d3 if I were you, but with that 2 camera set-up, that's how I would run things...

ummm... i am not sure iso 6400 on 7d comes out that ugly, but i have used 6400 all the time in low light, it came out just not that bad though.  in fact, i have include some of picutures that i have shot with 6400 on my 7d here... do not make me sad since i am still loving my canon 7d even though i have 5d mark III (ordered from adorama last time)

imo, i would not put 135mm on 7d in low light due to camera shake (no is on 135).   i assume that there is no way that he can get 1/125 in low light as i never get that kinda speed in low light.

these pictures were taken with 7d and 70-200mm is II (all available light no flash.  i hate to to perform flash range calculation for crop frame in my head during shooting.)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9654.msg175587#msg175587

and also some here...

Each person is going to have their own tolerances and expectations... Your images, they look good, however it's hard to judge on a res'd down image, and at 100%, assuming there is NR applied, you do lose that crisp focus that you would get from a naturally low ISO...  The lower the ISO, especially if it's 1-2 stops, which the 135 would buy you, would and could make a big difference in whether a print would look as good as a 30x40 or only sellable as an 8x10.  The 135 with my IS does suck, but one thing I am implementing in my studio is requiring all photographers who shoot with/for me use monopods...  More convenient that tripods, a lot more stable than handheld, and you can get 2 different manfrotto monopods with feet and or legs...  while not as sturdy and secure as a tripod, and I would never in a million years recommend leaving your camera unattended on it freestanding, it does give you that stability you wouldn't have any other way, and to take it one step further, it gives even more stability if you wish to incorporate fusion video as a product to your clients and you dont have to worry about shaky video...  So the extra speed the 135 buys you, stability of a monopod, you can get intimate shots you probably would miss or couldn't get tight enough to capture going the other route...  We can also go into the focusing systems, wide angle giving more DOF than shallow and the 7d/135 taking the most advantage of that, etc... but anywho personally that's how i'd do things, but each has their own preferences... 

[larams67]

If I did have a 2nd shooter with me I would not choose an amateur to help in a professional job situation. I think that is a setup for failure right there.

If I had a situation where I felt it was ok to have an amateur with me. I think I would expect them to not have L lenses.

[awinphoto]

If I did have a 2nd shooter with me I would not choose an amateur to help in a professional job situation. I think that is a setup for failure right there.

If I had a situation where I felt it was ok to have an amateur with me. I think I would expect them to not have L lenses.

Agreed but it also goes to knowing what your getting before hand and preparing accordingly... 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Interesting, because this not only deals with lenses, but camera bodies and second shooters!

interesting, i have not checked pentax specs so fun fun fun it has in camera IS...

so, here are some thoughts.

By the end of this weekend I will have shot 9 weddings as a second shooter and 4 as primary (2 of which I had second shooters on).  So I kind of feel that that puts me in a unique place (cause I'm living on both sides of the fence as it were).

Gear --- as the beginning of the season I was running with a 7d, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 (the non-IS version).  I felt like I was of good use outdoors, and for the ceremony (though the noise on the 7d really got on my nerves above ISO 2000, and with the 70-200, especially at the long end camera shake was an issue if I went below 1/80th - for ceremonies I try my best to go natural light only.

At that point though I was also bring a set of AB-800 with me, and 2 speed-lights.  So gear wise I was good.  then I snagged a mk3 and was bringing 2 bodies to bear. 

It's interesting too because over the course of these 9 second shooter experiences i've worked with 6 shooters each who were at differing levels of experience (from lots of time and exp on me to same as me to one with less exp).  One for this weekend is so nervous that she is seriously leaning on me for the ceremony especially).  So it's just neat to see the differing levels of wants and needs (and correspondingly pay - from $100-500).

with all that said, and mentions of gear ---I can say L is awesome, but yeah I have gone back!!!!! LOl

with my 7d, I had the 2 L lenses, but for crop the options for ultra wide are slim.  So, I snagged the 10-22 canon.  and later on, after the mk3 purchase, as a means of trying to get my 7d to do some neat things, I snagged a 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 ---LOL...I love em both but in the last wedding I ended up using the 24-70 and the 10-22 on the 7d.  LOL, so I went back to non L, then back to L...  The 85 1.8 is really nice though, in fact...i love the way both primes work on my mk3...lol  so the 7d ...uggg... I used to love it but its hard to love it next to a mk3.

back to the OP...

I think that this is really where the good old gear vs skill debate gets really interesting.  This second shooter with his current setup would be good for outdoor ceremonies, and well lit receptions (the pentax claims ISO range to 6400, but if the 7d is anything like it, 6400 is just plain old ugly!!!!)

What I would do with that shooter for receptions is set him up with some off cam lighting - lower ISO and higher shutter speed (going below 1/60th when people are in motion...camera shake is trumped by motion blur.  Prime lenses sound nice for that, but with DOF being so extreme, the focus system has to be dead on to get keepers at 1.8 with people in motion.   Other than that, if your willign to accept hit or miss shooting from him until he can make his own upgrades, then that's up to you (you're in a much better place to judge his potential, is training him worth the investment in time?)

[sdsr]

My brother does some for-money work as well as a bunch of not-for-money work.  He doesn't have a lot of cash so he uses what he's got, which is a 400D and mostly plastic lenses.  But his technique and composition are really good & he knows that he needs to stop down like crazy and/or crop a lot for anything that matters, so his clients are always happy with the result.

Only a bad carpenter blames his tools.  Teach your friend how to work around the limitations of his gear...

That's true, of course, up point.  But some gear has a lot of limitations to work around.  You can take good photos with a Pentax K-x (I briefly owned one as a back-up for a K-5 before switching to a 5DII), but it isn't very impressive in low light and won't win any prizes for focus accuracy (notoriously, it doesn't even have visible focus points in the viewfinder!); pair it with a rather slow Tamron zoom lens and taking photos becomes rather a gamble. Last January the other half and I were on a boat on Lake Lugano for the first (and, for all I know, last) time, one of us with the K-5 and a Pentax zoom, the other with the K-x and a Tamron zoom; at a crucial moment (fleeting light and scenery/architecture) the effing Tamron seized up (it wasn't cold) and stopped focusing and wouldn't work again until I turned the camera off, removed the lens and put it back on, by which time it was too late.  (No Canon lens has ever done that to me - yet - nor did any of my Pentax lenses.)   I don't know about the 70-300, but that particular zoom - a fairly well-regarded 18-250 - wasn't reliably accurate at focusing anyway....

[brought1]

Hey guys.....Brought1 here...the originator of this thread....

Wow...I love the comments!  Thank you everyone for your imput.   With that being said, here's my follow-up -

Early on someone posted about - "Regardless of the equipment, ultimately it's the image that matters."  This is very very true. 

NOW THE BUTT...lol

A little more info on this wedding -

This was a paid gig.  I knew that he was an amateur and "More than likely" would have issues with the varying lighting conditions.  He was not there the entire time, just through the First-look...ceremony....and part of the reception. 

With that being said...Somebody mentioned that I should've set him up with one of my canon bodies with primes.  Honestly, it didn't even cross my mind to do so.  I'm very touchy with my Nifty-fifty mark 1, just because it took me a while to find a very good one...( Sorry - I prefer the metal mount)

ALL BESIDES THE POINT.  He did great!  No question about it.  He was respectful...did as I asked...took the shots I requested and did them quite well. 

The way I approach all of my photoshoots, especially when I'm team shooting or have an assistant shooter is as such: 

1.  Let me get the shot I have in mind ( the classic...traditional shot)
2.  After that is done...usually in one or two shots, let's get creative.  For those of you who will argue with this, please don't.  As a working professional, I would rather have 1 shot that is completely usable and sell-able than a bunch of extreme creative shots that are just mediocre and don't capture the "Essence" of the moment.
3.  As long as I have achieved step 1..and am happy with my result ( just a quick glimpse to the lcd screen) then I allow the second shooter to step in and try to get what they had in mind. 

This way, it doesn't matter if I have the newest amateur photographer or a seasoned veteran, in the end I have the shot I need!

Around my area, photographers are just brutal to one-another and therefore I don't associate with them ( I try not to) and because I have a teaching-heart, I would prefer to make connections with amateurs with great potential sooo...when I'm in need of a second gunner, I know their style and commitment to the cause.

Sooo..back to the main point.  Equipment -

In college my roommate purchased a 10 thousand dollar trumpet.  Did he "Need it"...that was completely up to him.  His response to me was.." This is the last trumpet i'll ever buy."  He's a professional in England, Ph.d. and is a professor.    The point is, professionals know the equipment they need in order to get their best results...

They can still get them with lesser equipment, don't get me wrong, however, if this is your calling, then you ought to get the equipment that will not HINDER your creativeness...what do I mean.

If I have two different cameras that both take pictures, same settings...same everything...however, one of them produces much higher quality images.  ( i'm not going to argue about what makes a good picture) stictly talking about overall digital quality...Naturally, I would prefer the camera that achieves the end goal.  Whether that be Canon, Nikon...pentax...sony...OK... If you're on the other extreme and prefer the camera that takes poor quality images and can't really tell the difference...then please stop reading and move on to the next thread. 

I need the best tool for the job I'm doing!!  If it's a prime, then it's a prime...if a zoom works best..then it's a zoom...T/S...macro...Tripod...Whatever.

He is an amateur so I didin't expect him to have the best or nicest equipment, however, as a working professional, I have a workflow that is 2nd to none...and is customized for my needs.  When I have to break my workflow to completely adjust for a poor quality image, it's time consuming and not beneficial.  This is why I use the equipment I do.

I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT HIM.  I promise.  I enjoy working with amateurs....they have spirit and vigor that is lost with some professionals. 

What hit me most...was how different in quality the images are. 

I'm posting two images. 

Thanks.

Here's some exif info on the two pics...

1.  Pentax K-x, Tamron AF70-300, 1/1600, F4.5, 148 mm, ISO 400
2.  Canon 40 D, Canon 70-200 2.8 L II, 1/400, F2.8, 70 mm, iso 100

These images are untouched out of the camera...After all is said and done...we're really only about a stop 1/2 difference. 

 This is about the closest of a shot between us I could find...

[awinphoto]

Brought1... I think all the nikon fans will soon pipe up saying (look at the DR of the pentax) lol.  With that being said, Different camera systems will do that to ya, but even more, depending on the settings and how each camera is shot, 2 different canon bodies could be that different, especially if one was shot jpeg and the other raw...  In the end, everything falls under your name and your brand, and if their shots dont meet your requirements for your brand, dont use them... Tough going but lesson learned.   

[brought1]

Brought1... I think all the nikon fans will soon pipe up saying (look at the DR of the pentax) lol.  With that being said, Different camera systems will do that to ya, but even more, depending on the settings and how each camera is shot, 2 different canon bodies could be that different, especially if one was shot jpeg and the other raw...  In the end, everything falls under your name and your brand, and if their shots dont meet your requirements for your brand, dont use them... Tough going but lesson learned.

Thanks for you comment.   As for the "Tough lesson learned..." One thing you may not know about me is short of the unforeseeable, i'm always prepared.   So, if you read back through my recent post, you'll see my process of assuring I capture the shot i'm after.  And going thru my images, I'm not bothered one way or another about the other photographer's shots.  Why...because I already have the images I'm after, without his images.  And with the amount of weddings i've photographed over the years, I know better than to completely rely on an amateur assistant.

 ( sorry...I know this may come across as being cocky..I promise i'm not trying to be.  Early on in my photography career, I was burned by another photog at an important session because of two different systems...)

As for your different camera systems, Let's start with two different cameras from the same system. 

Yes, chances are they will have a different look.  I'll give you that one - even with the same settings.  So you designate one camera as your primary and the other as your backup.  In my case, my 5D MK II is my primary and one of my 40D's as my secondary.  At weddings, I have my 24-70 attached to the 5D and my 70-200 2.8II to the 40D.

I only use "L" lenses with my 40D because I need the quality of the digital image to be close to my 5D.  I don't care so much about the size....I'll crop if I need to.  I know my results when I use to use secondary lenses...Terrible - Fringes/CA, less vibrant, less color, less contrast.  Also, when I worked as a studio photographer for a local studio, they had a plethora of 28-105 lenses that non-studio photogs would use...and when I would review their images, it was like Night and day.

I have all of my cameras set to Neutral to begin with and like nikon shooters, I tend to shoot to the right...knowing that Canon does very well in bringing back detail from accidental overexposure....not so much from an underexposed image.  ( with nikon...I've found the opposite...They can bring detail out of the shadows better than anyone...sad to say.  But an overexposed image was ruined...)

The point i'm trying to make is that I am very happy with the results I get from my 40D when I have superior lenses attached.  It really does make a world of difference, even if it's only a 10.1 mp camera.  lol 

Someone had mentioned that I ought to place a prime on my other canon 40D and let him hammer out the shots with that.  It didn't even cross my mind, as I wanted him to be comfortable shooting, whereas him using my other body...was a wreck. 

And I had good laugh with the DR of the Pentax.  Years ago, before I bought into canon, I almost pulled the switch and went with a pentax.  Only because they had a button that no matter what settings you had up....if you pushed it, it would give you a decently exposed image.  I thought I needed one of those..lol 

Thanks for your comment!  Have a good day. 

[ishdakuteb]

Here's some exif info on the two pics...

1.  Pentax K-x, Tamron AF70-300, 1/1600, F4.5, 148 mm, ISO 400
2.  Canon 40 D, Canon 70-200 2.8 L II, 1/400, F2.8, 70 mm, iso 100

These images are untouched out of the camera...After all is said and done...we're really only about a stop 1/2 difference. 

 This is about the closest of a shot between us I could find...

it is hard for me to believe that the second one is out of camera jpeg... and it is just based on my experience and what i have learned in these months...  if you live very close to me and show me that you can capture similar image with your 40d in front of my eyes, i will promise that will work for you FREE in three years (weekend only).

[brought1]

Here's some exif info on the two pics...

1.  Pentax K-x, Tamron AF70-300, 1/1600, F4.5, 148 mm, ISO 400
2.  Canon 40 D, Canon 70-200 2.8 L II, 1/400, F2.8, 70 mm, iso 100

These images are untouched out of the camera...After all is said and done...we're really only about a stop 1/2 difference. 

 This is about the closest of a shot between us I could find...

it is hard for me to believe that the second one is out of camera jpeg... and it is just based on my experience and what i have learned in these months...  if you live very close to me and show me that you can capture similar image with your 40d in front of my eyes, i will promise that will work for you FREE in three years (weekend only).

Lol...I promise, this is straight out of the camera...How do I know...I'm editing the pictures for this wedding right now.  All i've done so far is imported them into lightroom and created a few collections...I haven't even touched the white balance. This picture was pulled straight from the CF Card

The only lens I've found that gives me "To-die-for" images with my 40D's is my 70-200 2.8 II and believe it or not....my 70-210 FD F3.5 to..something lens with an FD to EOS Adapter. 

But please keep in mind...I have found very very few lenses that give me this type of brilliance with 40D's.  I honestly think canon screwed up when manufacturing the 40D....IMHO

[ishdakuteb]

sorry,  i am not and will not believe it though i do own some L lenses, plus 50 f/1.4, one of them is the one that you were using to take that pic which is 70-200mm is ii.  why do i not believe it? very simple to me since i am having been studying about digital zone and lighting (still continue to learn with flash).  i do not have that much experience but i might be able to tell what exposure should be used by taking a look at current lighting condition (will force myself more into this area when having more time.)

i am not talking about white balance, i am talking about skin tone of your subject (unless there is a problem with his skin), his outfit and black color on chair makes me hard to believe it.

aiite, i still keep my promise that i am working for you free as if you are living in southern california.  you do not have to worry about lens any more since most of my lens are L lenses, along with 30d, 7d, and a 5d mark III...  open my eyes with that kinda shot, then i will work for you three years (weekend) for FREE...

[CharlieB]

L glass never sold a shot that was crap to begin with.... that was the photographer's problem.

L glass never got a bird to turn its head and face the sun so you'd get a nice catchlight in its eye....

L glass never forced a bride to give you that cute look that her family enjoys

L glass never cured a pixel peeper of their pixel peepin'

Get the lens that does the job.