What Lens Should I Get Next?

[MrsOpie]

Well, I've finally decided to sell my Sigma 70-200mm/2.8 lens and get something that I will use. With the money I get when I sell it I would like to get either:

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM ($470)

Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye ($600)

Wide Angle Lens (Not sure what one will fit an EF lens mount)

Tripod

What do you think?

[jt168]

I find the telephoto to be quite useful for the wedding, but you must be considering selling it for good reasons.

The 100 macro gets little use for me in weddings, mostly take ring shots with it.

Fish eye is good for capturing the grandeur of the room, that's about it... Hard to photography people using it, unless you put them near the center.

I would suggest a wide angle zoom lens like 16-35, however, it is a bit pricey.

Good luck!

[italianfemmy]

If you sell it, then you won't have anything longer than 70mm? That is screaming disaster waiting to happen to me. Okay.. so, I don't know a lot.. but here's what I do know.. the best portraits are taken at 85mm or 135mm. It best flatters your subjects proportions. Plus, the longer focal length will allow you to zoom in and get ring exchange, unity candle lighting, etc if the church requires you be back behind where all the guests are. The longer focal length would allow you to stand back during the reception and get in real close on the bride and groom dancing, etc... etc... etc..

So.. I guess my advice is to not do it or to get the canon 70-200 IS 2.8 instead.

[MrsOpie]

the problem is that I can't get any good pictures using the 70-200mm hand held and I dont have a tripod. My options are to either get a tripod or get a canon 70-200mm/2.9 L IS (which I can't afford).

[bcap]

MrsOpie, if I may suggest, wait it out and save up for the 70-200 2.8L IS. It is well worth it and is a very valuable lens for weddings.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

How about a 135L or 200 2.8L for speed, lighter weight, and IQ increase?

[howzitboy]

id say save up and get the 70-200 is. its a lens all the pros are using and cant live w/out. i think u should join them too!!

[JaertX]

or the 85 1.8? Love mine.

[tim]

70-200 F2.8 IS - on a 5D it's an amazing lens. Actually it's amazing on any camera. I've attached a pic taken of a mate on his 5D, then a 100% crop - you can actually see the contact lens in his eye!

If you sell it, then you won't have anything longer than 70mm? That is screaming disaster waiting to happen to me.

I think that's a little dramatic. I could cover an entire wedding with a 30mm prime, i'd just be in the way a little more.

[italianfemmy]

But if you can't be all up in the kool-aid then you would be screwed. That's just the truth. I agree.. I'd save up until you have the difference. I got mine pretty cheap with a discount coupon code through B&H. Some times they have great deals.

[JaertX]

But if you can't be all up in the kool-aid then you would be screwed. That's just the truth.

Huh?

You've never seen Jeff Ascough's work I guess?

[liza]

I think Ronald's suggestion is a good one. I have primes at both focal lengths and feel that the 135L would probably be the best option for you at this point. The 200L might be a trifle too long. The 100mm macro is a great lens, too, and is wonderful for detail shots. I just don't know if it would be the best bang for your buck right now.

[picturecrazy]

As Liza said, a macro is of limited use and will benefit you in a minimal way. The macro was the LAST lens I picked up in my lineup.

I'm still of the opinion the 70-200IS is the best bet. Even with the 135 prime, you're only gaining one stop shutter. I wouldn't shoot any lower than 1/160 on that lens. Not as much of a gain over your sigma. That lens is much less flexible but over the half the price of the 70-200IS.

[liza]

I completely agree, Lloyd, but if her budget doesn't permit, the 135L would be a decent interim alternative. I'd rather have the 70-200IS myself, and am likely going to sell a couple of lenses to help finance the purchase. :)

[italianfemmy]

Huh?

You've never seen Jeff Ascough's work I guess?

If there's something I am not getting please inform me. But, I don't know how it would be possible with nothing longer than 70mm to be standing way in the back of a catholic church up on a balcony and zoom in for a ring exchange or anything close up for that matter.

And, yes I've seen his work. I still don't get what you are suggesting.

[th3r0m]

If there's something I am not getting please inform me. But, I don't know how it would be possible with nothing longer than 70mm to be standing way in the back of a catholic church up on a balcony and zoom in for a ring exchange or anything close up for that matter.

And, yes I've seen his work. I still don't get what you are suggesting.

He shoots primarily with a 24-70, some shorter and very little longer.

Whether or not you NEED the zoom capabilities of the 70-200 should be the deciding factor. You can get 2.8 or better with other lenses (the 85, 135 and 200 primes being a great example). Take a look at the exif on your shots and see what you usually shoot at on the photo's you think are best. If you find that you are continuously zoomed way in, then save up for the 70-200, if most of your shots are between say 24-70, then stick with what you have, if your exif says you are usually around 105, then the 85 would be a good choice. Really depends on your style. Good Luck!

[italianfemmy]

I'd think most of her shots that she has now are in the lower focal range because she says her current zoom does not do well hand-held. Therefore, she most likely has predominately lower range shots. If she had the 70-200 2.8 IS L, perhaps those numbers would be different.

I think that it's important to factor in how many times you needed the longer focal length but was unable to pull it off because of the low hand held abilities.

[JaertX]

If there's something I am not getting please inform me. But, I don't know how it would be possible with nothing longer than 70mm to be standing way in the back of a catholic church up on a balcony and zoom in for a ring exchange or anything close up for that matter.

And, yes I've seen his work. I still don't get what you are suggesting.

what th3r0m said.

and when he was all film, the longest lens he used (I believe) was a 75mm.

Just tell those that hire you that you don't shoot from the back of the church. A few clients might need you to because of restrictions on their location, but just send them on to someone else.

Don't get me wrong, I have the 70-200 IS and love it, but I could shoot a wedding with just my 35mm and 85mm if I had to. (on FF, that is)

[italianfemmy]

lol. Turning down a paying job because you don't have the proper equipment to meet the religious traditional requirements to shoot in their church seems silly to me. But, hey that's me. I can't see myself saying, "nope, sorry can't shoot your wedding unless you convince the priest that I shouldn't have to stand on that balcony!"

But, that's me and I am very customer service oriented. So, as I suspected, he didn't actually get any of those marvelous pictures at 70mm from 40 feet away on a balcony (not any close up ones anyway.) Which still makes my statement correct.. if you TAKE the job and you HAVE to be that far away, you need something longer. That's all I was saying.

Sorry Mrs. Opie to hijack your thread with bickering.

[th3r0m]

I'd think most of her shots that she has now are in the lower focal range because she says her current zoom does not do well hand-held. Therefore, she most likely has predominately lower range shots. If she had the 70-200 2.8 IS L, perhaps those numbers would be different.

I think that it's important to factor in how many times you needed the longer focal length but was unable to pull it off because of the low hand held abilities.

Seems I remember her saying at some point that the weight was also an issue (ie she had a hard time hand holding it). IS will help, but the 70-200 is still a monster.

And no-one was talking about turning down jobs for lack of the "right" equipment, if your style is for wider shots, then it is for wider shots. Not booking a client who needs you to shoot with a long zoom, probably is not a bad thing for you or your client as the long zoom moves you out of your comfort zone and style (which may or may not be a good thing sometimes). Oh and worst case scenario, there are always altar returns;)

[italianfemmy]

Seems I remember her saying at some point that the weight was also an issue (ie she had a hard time hand holding it). IS will help, but the 70-200 is still a monster.

And no-one was talking about turning down jobs for lack of the "right" equipment, if your style is for wider shots, then it is for wider shots. Not booking a client who needs you to shoot with a long zoom, probably is not a bad thing for you or your client as the long zoom moves you out of your comfort zone and style (which may or may not be a good thing sometimes). Oh and worst case scenario, there are always altar returns;)

Oh well, if you're talking about taking someone out of their comfort zone, then I totally agree with you.

Just not if the only reason is because you're unwilling to invest a little more money in your career. Okay.. guess we had a misunderstanding. *mwah*

[grego]

If you go prime, having a second body is just about a must.

[th3r0m]

So, as I suspected, he didn't actually get any of those marvelous pictures at 70mm from 40 feet away on a balcony (not any close up ones anyway.) Which still makes my statement correct.. if you TAKE the job and you HAVE to be that far away, you need something longer. That's all I was saying.

Sorry Mrs. Opie to hijack your thread with bickering.

Actually, kinda maybe but not so much:)

Obviously he is not going to physically be able to take super close up shots from a balcony. Once again, however, the photographer's style comes into play. If you are the type that constantly zooms in, then odds are you are going to have a long zoom. If you are a wider shooter, then you may not, but odds are that the zoomed in shots you can't take (because you dont have a super zoom) were ones that you would not likely have taken anyways.

Mrs Opie, like I said above (before the family-like bickering :)), go with your style and your needs, not what everyone else uses because while it may suit them, it could end up being a dust collector for you. And that would be a very expensive dust collector.

[italianfemmy]

I agree. But I am with others that if you do infact need the longer focal reach, save for it. Don't spend the 600 or however many bucks now because that's 600 toward the purchase of the 70-200. :-)

[th3r0m]

I agree. But I am with others that if you do infact need the longer focal reach, save for it. Don't spend the 600 or however many bucks now because that's 600 toward the purchase of the 70-200. :-)

Agreed. (oooh, scary, we agree...:p)

[italianfemmy]

oh hush before........

[Phil V]

Keep the Sigma and get a monopod while you save for the IS.

No other lens will give the shots that the 70-200 does, that's why it appears as everyone's 2nd favourite lens to the std zoom.

[tlamb]

the problem is that I can't get any good pictures using the 70-200mm hand held and I dont have a tripod. My options are to either get a tripod or get a canon 70-200mm/2.9 L IS (which I can't afford).

Get a tripod. In low light it is a must have. And get a good one!

[bcap]

Get a tripod. In low light it is a must have. And get a good one!

See, to be honest, I've never really used a tripod. Sure, I own one, but it's way too much of a hassle to carry it around @ a wedding.

I find it restricts what I shoot as well. I can't get down and do some nice-angled shots, I can't get up high, you can't tilt your camera (well, you can, but you won't on a tripod), etc.

The only time I find a tripod useful @ a wedding is during the group shots. So you can leave your camera at the same spot whiel arranging the group. Also, it allows you to have a narrower aperture for DOF and not getting camera shake. But, that is avoided with IS as well.

[Hassan2285]

I know this is off topicish. Heres my suggestion. I think you should sell the lens you have. Keep the money, and then rent the 70-200mm L 2.8 IS, until you have enough and do enough weddings to actually buy one. I rented that lens on my last wedding, the rental place takes C/C, checks and just holds the funds until you return. I only paid 40 bucks. It was very useful.

anyway, thats my .02 cents.

[bcap]

MrsOpie - my ultimate suggestion:

Keep the 70-200. I had this lens before and the optical quality of it is really nice. So if you have to push your ISO up one stop more that you would with the 70-200IS, then so be it.

Keep it, save, and then grab the 70-200 2.8L IS ... that's my opinion.

I really enjoy my 85 1.8 @ weddings also. You may want to consider that for the lower-light stuff where your 70-200 fails, but you want more than a 17-55.

[MrsOpie]

ah the debate. The cold hard truth is that I have 1 body and 2 lenses. I was in the middle of the ceremony and found that I couldn't get in close to the couple for any shots so I quickly changed my 24-70 to the 70-200. I zoomed in and got the shots HOWEVER I had to pretty much junk them or spend a lot of time in photoshop because they were all blurry. I was better off taking a shot with the 24-70 and then cropping it. The lens is pretty much useless unless I have a tripod but do I have time to set it up for shots during a 10 min ceremony? NO I'm better off renting another body and a 70-200 IS until I have the money to purchase another body and the lens.

[bcap]

MrsOpie - why don't you just bump your ISO up one stop and up your shutter one stop to compensate? This will allow you to get a good exposure and will eliminate camera blur.

[italianfemmy]

Mrs. Opie, I am worried that if you keep renting the 70-200 and another body, that you'll eventually pay as much as you would have to buy one that could be yours. I know you have several bookings coming up... why not stick with what you have and use the money from those bookings to upgrade your equipment?

This really isn't my business. It's just a concern I have. Maybe it's not a valid one though. I meant to ask you, have you had any new bookings since you raised your prices?

[Rubi Jane]

I'll second the renting of equipment, especially the 70-200 2.8 IS. I have the lens, love it to death and have developed arm muscles I haven't felt in a while - it's a hefty lens but quite manageable. For the cost of renting, you will get good experience with the lens before dropping the cash down on it. Your purchase decision, when you eventually buy it, will be that more satisfying knowing it's the right lens choice for you. The IS works! I can shoot @ 200mm 1/30th and get a sharp image...after an hour or so of shooting I don't trust myself below 1/60th though.