buying the 5DII and need two amazing primes to cover my range??

[Edwin Herdman]

EF lenses from the very first ones in the 1970's are still in use on DSLR's today

Minor nitpick: Unless you're referring to prototypes or maybe FD-EF conversions (like the famous The EF system is not quite that old; but still, at over 20 years old (1987) it is amazing how much development they seem to have crammed into that space of time. Yet, as you say, the old lenses are still good.

Personally, I think the only limitation of older lenses is, generally speaking, autofocus. I enjoy using my TS-E lenses but they would be a handicap in most wedding situations - though they could be put to good use for staged photos, like the traditional wedding party lineup photo, and some newlyweds have asked their photographers to use the defocus capability of TS-E lenses for more dramatic couples photos.

I think that, as scalesusa seems to be saying, if you are thinking in terms of how close you can get to the right subject framing for a given focal length, you may need to rethink your movement during the wedding. It seems apparent to me that the 70-200mm f/2.8 will help some of these problems, of course, since you don't need to be very close. A shorter lens requires you to be close by. So, it might be in order to find out what sorts of venues are common for weddings, and experiment a bit with rentals if you can.

Personally, I don't know what wedding photog etiquette is, only just don't do this and become the subject.

 

[Admin US West]

Minor nitpick: Unless you're referring to prototypes or maybe FD-EF conversions (like the famous The EF system is not quite that old; but still, at over 20 years old (1987) it is amazing how much development they seem to have crammed into that space of time. Yet, as you say, the old lenses are still good.

Oops, I transposed the numbers. I was thinking 1978, but the first one was indeed 1987.

At any rate, many, if not most are still alive and lurking in someones attic or in use.

 

[sb]

Iggyotis, if you're interested in wedding photography, here are a few lens related comments from my personal experience:

1. Nothing can touch primes. Some people say 24-70 is the "wedding lens" but I hate it. Too much gets sacrificed with variable focal length, and I would personally sacrifice zoom ability before anything else. It's not hard to walk a little more, but not having a fast lens indoors really sucks, and 2.8 is not fast enough. I only used this lens for one wedding, and I will never use it again. The lens has noticeable barrel distortion @ 24mm, and pincushion @70mm.

2. I use 35mm f/1.4 on a FF body more than any other lens during the wedding day. It is perfect for groom preps because I like the look of the ever-so-slight distortion of the male faces. Of course this is a matter of taste, you may prefer the flat perspective of longer lenses. I don't. However, the same slight distortion is too much for bride's preps, so I use a slightly longer lens for the bride. 50mm is ideal, 85mm is great too.

3. For the ceremony, if I am able to stand close, I usually use either 85mm f/1.2 (1.8 is fantastic too, in some ways better than f/1.2) or 100mm f/2.8 Macro with Hybrid IS. For some ceremonies I've used 35mm, but I like a little more reach here so I can get the closeup of the ring exchange. For church ceremonies, there are rules in terms of where you can stand and where you can't, so I use the 70-200 f/4 here for extra reach. I hate the 2.8 version of it because of the weight, and I'll gladly shoot at f/4 instead and crank ISO to whatever I need to compensate since 5DMK2 kills even at 6400

4. For portraits, I use the 35mm, love the 45mm tilt-shift (I'd shoot everything with that if it were socially acceptable), and longer lenses as well. This gives me a wide range of different looks.

5. For cocktails I use 35mm f/1.4 exclusively because I like the journalistic look rather than flat perspective of long lenses. My partner usually has the 85mm on a crop body (7D) to be able to take candids from further away without people noticing.

6. For reception same setup as #5

If I were you, I would get the 35mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8 first. Down the road you can think about adding 1 long lens to the list (i.e. 135 or 70-200 etc)

Cheers

 

[iggyotis]

thanks so much for your reply sb!

I totally agree about the 24-70...when I went in the store and tried it out I thought I was going crazy as I just couldnt get why everyone loves it. I think using the 50 1.4 prime as my first lens has totally ruined me for zooms so as much I tried to want it, because it would make my life easier being more flexible, I just know I would hate using it!

So yes the 35 f1.4 and the 85 f1.8 are definitely on my list now! Do you think the 135L would be difficult to use for say candids, as you'd have to be quite far from people and hope no one walks in front of you!? I was trying to weigh up getting the 100 f2.8 macro or the 135L as my lens with extra reach as I wondered whether the 100 f2.8 macro might be better to begin as it has that extra reach AND is a macro, whereas the 135 might be too long on occasions so it might not get as much use.

 

[Flake]

Funny but in the UK the 24 - 105mm f/4 IS L is regarded as the wedding lens, which is why the 5D MkII is available as a kit with it. Maybe not the fastest lens but the 24 - 70mm 2.8L just won't cut it, even at this time of the year it's so dull & overcast the IS is just a necessity. It's been raining for a month and some days it's been so dull the street lights have come on. It's cold too! The only solution is speedlites or / and IS.

Primes are all well and good but sometimes you'll just not be in the right place and miss the money shot, and all that changing of lenses will inevitably mean more dirt on the sensor, and more time messing in the kit bag. Great if you're in a church and don't want to disturb the ceremony & you're going to be under steady light and in a similar place though.

I do wonder how you're going to manage group shots when there's 30 people to shoot, I know formal wedding shots are a little out of fashion, but some do still like them.

 

[wolftrap]

I've been shooting weddings for a year now with the following

EF 24mm f1.4L
EF 50mm f1.2L
EF 70-200mm f2.8L mk II

I'm fairly confident going to any wedding with those 3 lenses. The 50mm f1.2L probably gets the most use. Like you I research and think about lenses for a long long time before buying them. I see a lot of local wedding photographers using the L zooms, 16-35mm or 17-40mm and 28-70mm and they give nice clean pictures, but they don't jump out. You don't get the bokeh of the fixed primes. In the next 3 months I'll be going for the following and then I'll have everything I need.

EF 35mm f1.4L
EF 85mm f1.2L
EF 100mm f2.8L macro mk II

 

[iggyotis]

hey wolftrap,

that sounds like my dream setup! so the prob is trying to work out which ones to get first I guess... I know you have the 24 but I wondered whether I would use this as much as the 35 so maybe it was better to get the 35 to begin with? Also at the long end I know the 70-200 is a great piece of glass but its quite heavy and "in your face" so I was thinking maybe the 135 L might be a bit less intrusive? Have you ever used that prime before?

 

[Admin US West]

I have the 35mm l and the 135mm l, and they are a great pair. however, there is a large gap between the two, and 85mm is pretty useful.

 

[iggyotis]

So you favour the 70-200 over te 135 for weddings? Is this because it gives you more flexibility?

 

[Axilrod]

So you favour the 70-200 over te 135 for weddings? Is this because it gives you more flexibility?

I shot a wedding and used both the 70-200 IS (v1) and the 135mm f/2. When I was looking through the pictures, I kept running into shots that I thought FOR SURE were from the 135mm, but when I looked I realized they were the 70-200. And I hear the 70-200 II is a big improvement, so yes, for weddings the 70-200 would definitely be more versatile, and I don't think you'd lose much image quality (if any).

You can't really go wrong either way, but if you can only have one, get the 70-200.

 

[Axilrod]

I've been shooting weddings for a year now with the following

EF 24mm f1.4L
EF 50mm f1.2L
EF 70-200mm f2.8L mk II

I'm fairly confident going to any wedding with those 3 lenses. The 50mm f1.2L probably gets the most use. Like you I research and think about lenses for a long long time before buying them. I see a lot of local wedding photographers using the L zooms, 16-35mm or 17-40mm and 28-70mm and they give nice clean pictures, but they don't jump out. You don't get the bokeh of the fixed primes. In the next 3 months I'll be going for the following and then I'll have everything I need.

EF 35mm f1.4L
EF 85mm f1.2L
EF 100mm f2.8L macro mk II

I've had ALL of the lenses that you have/want in the last year (except the 24 1.4 and my 70-200 was v1). I'll tell you this, when I got my 85mm 1.2, I pretty much stopped using my 100 f/2.8 Macro L IS and sold it shortly after. I just know that every single picture that comes out of that 85mm is a winner.

The 35mm f/1.4 is awesome as well, but with the 24 and 50 I wonder how much use you'll get out of it.

I've only been using DSLR's for a year, and in the last year I have had:
16-35mm f/2.8L
24-70mm f/2.8L (2 different copies)
35mm f/1.4L (2 different copies)
50mm f/1.2L
70-200mm f/2.8L IS (sharpest zoom I have ever used)
85mm f/1.2L II
100mm f/2.8L Macro IS
135mm f/2

I was new to all of this (video guy switching over) so I wasn't sure what I wanted. I've downsized recently, and at the moment I have: 16-35mm II, 50mm f/1.2, 85mm 1.2 II, and the 135mm f/2. I sold most of the others because they didn't feel necessary, but I sold the 35mm 1.4 to try out the Zeiss 35mm 1.4.

Anyways, going from a T2i w/ kit lens to a 5DII and all of the previously mentioned was crazy, but a hell of a learning experience. Ultimately I learned that: Primes > ALL (but at the same time the 70-200 showed me just how damn sharp a zoom can be).

 

[sb]

thanks so much for your reply sb!

I totally agree about the 24-70...when I went in the store and tried it out I thought I was going crazy as I just couldnt get why everyone loves it. I think using the 50 1.4 prime as my first lens has totally ruined me for zooms so as much I tried to want it, because it would make my life easier being more flexible, I just know I would hate using it!

So yes the 35 f1.4 and the 85 f1.8 are definitely on my list now! Do you think the 135L would be difficult to use for say candids, as you'd have to be quite far from people and hope no one walks in front of you!? I was trying to weigh up getting the 100 f2.8 macro or the 135L as my lens with extra reach as I wondered whether the 100 f2.8 macro might be better to begin as it has that extra reach AND is a macro, whereas the 135 might be too long on occasions so it might not get as much use.

Iggyotis, sorry about late reply...

Anyway you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned 135L vs 100 f/2.8 macro. I 100% agree, and prefer 100 f/2.8 L macro (Hybrid IS). I don't consider 135L to be an ideal indoor solution because it doesn't have the IS, so you have to shoot at 1/135sec at least. Also i don't sufficiently like it @f/2.0 so I knew I was gonna end up stopping it down to f/2.8 anyway, so I decided I may as well get the macro (with hybrid IS) which kills @ f/2.8. The long 135mm reach is sometimes too much for cocktail mingling etc. and also sometimes you unexpectedly find yourself too close to the subject, and being able to close focus is essential.

Now about Flake's comment...

I actually have never missed the money shot due to messing around with lenses, mainly because once I don't frequently change lenses. Once I decide on what I'm going to use for a particular setting, I stick with it. Secondly, I always pay attention to what's going on around me, so i don't attempt to change lenses at a bad time.

As far as large group shots are concerned, it's true that once in a blue moon, you'll end up having to shoot a larger group. For those extremely rare situations when 35mm on my FF is not wide enough, I have the 17-40mm f/4. Knowing that I would only need an extreme wide angle in very rare situations, I decided to save some money and get the cheapest pro wide angle I could get.

Anyway, the point is, since you can't buy everything at once (unless you're really rich ) I would focus on the best bang for the buck, and 35mm and 85mm sure give you a lot of bang!

 

[infilm]

The 16-35 will do the job for your interiors. I have one on my 7D and I'm rarely wanting a wider lens. On a FF sensor it definitely do well for you. In terms of a long prime such and the 100L. I really can't comment. I do have the 70-200L IS. Its great but probably not fast enough if you are shooting in a club. Good luck.

 

[iggyotis]

hey guys, thanks for the recent comments ! I just got my 5DII the other day and wow am I loving it!! it makes my 50 1.4 stand out even more! so now tomorrow is the day i am going into the camera shop to buy 1 or 2 lenses to add to my arsenal. I know I would love that 35 1.4 so its just on the long end now that I need.

so the only small spanner in the works is I've been asked to cover Berlin Fashion week for a website and I'm concerned that having two primes (one wide/one long) will be awkward to change between. Im worried ill miss some good shots of people walking by who are further away if I just have my 35mm on my lens which is what i will use for the street style shots. I have my other 550d camera so I could wear both cameras but after seeing how amazing the pics look on the 5D it will be hard to go back to the 550d! if I got the 35/135 or 100 combo would there be a lens which was better suited to either camera?

another option is to only carry one camera and then i buy one prime to add to my collection for things like weddings/events and then one zoom (either 24-105 f 4/20-70 f2.8) for those times when switching between primes might be hard to do or i nee to be very quick. so id just use the zoom for BFW and accept the picks wont pop as much but that ill get more shots maybe?

So hard to decide as my work can be quite random so the lenses have to cover so much... Or maybe I just accept they cant cover everything and just buy the 35 and the 100 macro and I have to try and work with this as much as possible.

 

[infilm]

Sounds to me like you need to look at what light levels you find yourself working at the most. Then you can answer the question of primes or a zoom for yourself. If you are only going to have 2 lenses, I'd be looking at a zoom. Also its hard to beat the convenience of a zoom.

Personally I find that MOST times I can work at a level where a f2.8 zoom is fine. For the rare times where I am below a 2.8, I go for my 35l or the 50l. If I am doing portrait work then the 50 is the lens for me.

Good luck.

 

[krboynton]

Cool. Thanks for the response! I wondered how it compared to say, the 85 1.8 which I used to have- it was quite fast.
[/quote]

I have both. The 85mm focuses a little faster, but has more light to do so. The 135mm is great for indoor sports and will do fine. Overall, though, you may want to keep your 550D and throw an 85mm on there, giving you about a 135mm focal length, then keep the 5D II for the standard and wide angle shots. Unless you're going to use f/1.4 on a 35mm f/1.4, I would go for the 35mm f/2. It's a little older, but the image quality is superior to my L zooms at the same focal length.