wedding tog, whats your choice

[superstes]

As wedding photographers, if you had the choice of these two set ups, what would you really choose to walk out the door with.

I'm only picking these two options because I have been reading about both lenses and wondering the best route to go, FF or crop.

Thanks.

Steve

[bric-a-brac]

the only reason I didn't vote for the full frame is because I like the extra reach I can get out of my telephoto on a crop body, and 6 frames a second is nice for some select things during the reception.

...I only mention this because it means that my decision has less to do with the specific lenses in the poll and more with the format of the camera.

[superstes]

Well after some research I finally have decided on my new set up, I'm going to sell one of my 30D's and my 24-70L to fund a 40D and the 17-55 2.8 IS.

My 70-200 is mint on my back up 30D but when funds allow a 5D is on the cards.

I have a 430ex and have just arranged to get my hands on a 580ex II.

Any thoughts on this?

Thanks.

Steve

[dr_morbius]

Perhaps you should not sell the 24-70 if you're planning for a 5D. If you have the 70-200 you don't need the extra reach of the 17-55 on a crop body. IS in my experience is rather useless when people are moving. If you keep your lenses and get a 5D, it's lower noise will allow for higher ISO:s and faster shutter speeds, which is much better than IS.

[Peacefield]

All I can tell you is what works for me. I like my current combo of a 24-70 on my 50D and the 70-200 on my 5D2. And I aspire to upgrade the 50D to a second 5D2 which will make the 24-70 even more appealing.

[superstes]

Thanks guy's,

Perhaps I should get the 40D first and try the 24-70 on that, I'm not happy with it on my 30D.

[superstes]

If you keep your lenses and get a 5D, it's lower noise will allow for higher ISO:s and faster shutter speeds, which is much better than IS.

Very good point.

[cdifoto]

All I can tell you is what works for me. I like my current combo of a 24-70 on my 50D and the 70-200 on my 5D2. And I aspire to upgrade the 50D to a second 5D2 which will make the 24-70 even more appealing.
Sounds kinda backwards to me. I'd do the 70-200 on the 50D and the 24-70 on the 5DII instead. What makes you do it the way you do?

[FamilyJules]

Sounds kinda backwards to me. I'd do the 70-200 on the 50D and the 24-70 on the 5DII instead. What makes you do it the way you do?

That's what i was thinking :confused:

[Peacefield]

Sounds kinda backwards to me. I'd do the 70-200 on the 50D and the 24-70 on the 5DII instead. What makes you do it the way you do?

Two things. One is that the long end of the 70-200 is too long when mounted on a crop camera. And think about the flow of the ceremony; I have the 24-70 on the 50D with flash (or not depending on brightness of the scene) which is perfect for the shots coming up and down the aisle, then I reach in for shots of their hands as they exchange rings, close ups of their expressions, etc., during the ceremony using natural light with the 70-200 and 5d2's low light capabilities. Also, I didn't bother to mention that I keep an old XT in my bag as a third body which always has Sigma's 10-20 on it for when I need a very wide shot. And, of course, I can always swap lenses between the two cameras, but the only time I ever find that necessary if at all is maybe at the bride's house and possibly just a few shots of the dance floor curing the reception when I want to be a little wider than the 50D lets me.

I aspire to trade my 50D out and get a second 5D2. With a pair of those cameras, this lens combo should be fantastic. Until then, it works well enough.

[cdifoto]

Two things. One is that the long end of the 70-200 is too long when mounted on a crop camera. And think about the flow of the ceremony; I have the 24-70 on the 50D with flash (or not depending on brightness of the scene) which is perfect for the shots coming up and down the aisle, then I reach in for shots of their hands as they exchange rings, close ups of their expressions, etc., during the ceremony using natural light with the 70-200 and 5d2's low light capabilities. Also, I didn't bother to mention that I keep an old XT in my bag as a third body which always has Sigma's 10-20 on it for when I need a very wide shot. And, of course, I can always swap lenses between the two cameras, but the only time I ever find that necessary if at all is maybe at the bride's house and possibly just a few shots of the dance floor curing the reception when I want to be a little wider than the 50D lets me.

I aspire to trade my 50D out and get a second 5D2. With a pair of those cameras, this lens combo should be fantastic. Until then, it works well enough.
Understandable. That's the reverse of what I prefer though. I don't use a 70-200 anymore, but I put the 135 on a 30D and the 24-70 on the 1D II. I'll then mount the 12-24 to the other 30D. It would make more FL sense to put the 12-24 on the 1D II and the 24-70 on a 30D but I like to have my best (not IQ but responsiveness-wise) body paired with my most used lens. I can get my closeups with the 30D and 135 just fine while I have a wider view with the 24 on 1.3 than it would be on 1.6. 12mm is pretty insane on any format so I don't use it much.

Of course before and after the ceremony all bets are off since I can usually switch lenses out if I want to.

[bric-a-brac]

Understandable. That's the reverse of what I prefer though. I don't use a 70-200 anymore, but I put the 135 on a 30D and the 24-70 on the 1D II. I'll then mount the 12-24 to the other 30D. It would make more FL sense to put the 12-24 on the 1D II and the 24-70 on a 30D but I like to have my best (not IQ but responsiveness-wise) body paired with my most used lens. I can get my closeups with the 30D and 135 just fine while I have a wider view with the 24 on 1.3 than it would be on 1.6. 12mm is pretty insane on any format so I don't use it much.

Of course before and after the ceremony all bets are off since I can usually switch lenses out if I want to.

not to hijack this thread, but how do you feel about using 135 on a crop camera as opposed to the 70-200? I've been looking to swap my magic drainpipe for the 135 because the extra stop has a much greater value to me than the extra distance and the zoom. I'd like to know your thoughts on it.

[cdifoto]

not to hijack this thread, but how do you feel about using 135 on a crop camera as opposed to the 70-200? I've been looking to swap my magic drainpipe for the 135 because the extra stop has a much greater value to me than the extra distance and the zoom. I'd like to know your thoughts on it.
I like it quite a bit. I don't miss the 70-200 f/2.8L IS at all. I may not have zoom, but I have discretion and speed.

[Peacefield]

To further hijack, I thought your 135 comment very timely as I've just started looking at either the 135 or 85. The 135 is nicely priced, much lighter, focuses faster than either zoom, and would do a good job on either camera (though I think I would like it most on FF). I choke on the price of the 85, but can imagine eventually sinking the $'s and expect it would also be very useful on either body. I'm wearing two cameras during the ceremony and sure would like to make things a little lighter.

[cdifoto]

If I was getting an 85 again I'd probably re-purchase the smaller, lighter, and snappier 1.8 version. The CA that plagues it in high contrast scenes is basically a non-issue in low light, and that's the only time I'd use it. 70mm is close enough to 85mm and I have that in the 24-70.

[Bkolowski111]

Thanks guy's,

Perhaps I should get the 40D first and try the 24-70 on that, I'm not happy with it on my 30D.

I could be wrong on this......but if you dont like the 24-70 on your 30D then I would say its not going to be much different on the 40D.

[superstes]

I could be wrong on this......but if you dont like the 24-70 on your 30D then I would say its not going to be much different on the 40D.
The more I use it the more I like it, here's an example that I'm not unhappy with, but the impression I'm getting is that the 17-55 would be better

Shot in RAW and no PP, these are much better not compressed for web
ISO 100
43mm
f/2.8
1/400 sec

Would I see a greater improvement with the 17-55

[Philco]

Just to add my two cents since I've owned both. The 24-70 IMO has better color and contrast, and is sharper when properly calibrated. Unless my 17-55 was soft, which I dont think it was. The L build quality is better too, which counts considering how much abuse gear can take wedding after wedding. I'm not trying to be an L snob, it's just been my experience. Also, the DOF will be different on the 5D. The reach may not be as far as a crop body, but the DOF is closer to a prime look on a FF body, and you can always crop in to make the difference- especially on the 5DII. If you were shooting sports, I would say go crop, but for portrait work, FF is the way I prefer to go.