after much reading on this site I still need help...

[Lori_B]

Hi all
I have been a member of this forum for quite a while but have so far found the information I need without needing to post....I know I should contribute, & plan to now that I have taken the first step. What I am struggling with is lens choice, I know that this issue has come up time & time again, but every situation is different & the more I read the more undecided I become. To give you some background, I am a wedding & portrait photographer of 3 yrs(part time at the moment) I have just upgraded from a 400D to a 50D, plan on getting the 5DII once I am fulltime. My lenses consist of Sigma 17-70 macro, Canon 70-300IS, canon 50mm f1.8. I have a tripod, monopod, 430EX flash, reflectors, flash diffuser.
My problem is that the 17-70, although quite sharp & good range, is not fast enough for inside churches & at 70mm not very sharp wide open. I am finding that I need more length & speed to get close ups inside the church. I was considering the 135mm f1.2 prime or the 85mm f1.8. I hear alot of people say the 135mm is too long on a crop, but the 85mm is not much more reach than I have now. I thought of putting a fast prime on my 400D & keeping the 17-70 on my 50D as I take the bulk of my shots with it, but the 400D is no good at high ISO's. I have also considered the 70-200 f2.8, but It's weight puts me off. Sorry for the long first post, but I thought I would explain my situation as fully as possible. I also like the thought of being able to use the new lens for portraits as well....better bokeh etc
Thanks in advance
Lori.....

[PMCphotography]

You could always try the 100 f/2, but there is also the option of a 70-200 f/4 is the issue isn't how fast the lens is.

[tim]

17-55 F2.8 IS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html/BI/2312/KBID/3114) and 70-200 F2.8 IS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html/BI/2312/KBID/3114) are what I use.

[Lori_B]

Thanks for that PMC, I have considered the 70-200 f4 but thought it would not be fast enough for low light indoors, by fast I meant max aperture....unless I use the flash I suppose, but was trying to get away from that.
Hi Tim, my friend just bought the 17-55 f2.8 so I will be keen to see it in action, how does it perform at 55mm wide open? I know I will miss the reach that my 17-70 has though.....maybe if I get the 17-55 + a longer prime? I just don't think I would be able to lug the 70-200 f2.8 around that much, I am only small built :-)

[tim]

The 17-55 is so good I have two of them - one in case the primary one fails. It just works, it makes great images. There's plenty of threads on it.

A fast longer prime might work, 135 F2 prime would be an option, though it doesn't have IS and F2 with no IS is still not the best for dark churches. 85 F1.8 or F1.2, but they're not much longer than the 55mm zoom. The new 100 F2.0 IS sounds perfect, but expensive, 100 f2.8 macro without IS will do ok but again no IS.

Really the 70-200 2.8 IS was built for wedding photographers, if you can't do that you might have to compromise or use a tripod.

[Mike]

You could try a 24-70 2.8 lens from either Sigma or Canon. That'll give you the reach that you are used to. If you want anything wider you could add a 10-20mm UWA lens (always handy to have even if it doesn't get that much use at weddings). I also would suggest getting the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I don't think it is too heavy and you won't be using it all the time. It is the best investment for weddings I have made so far!

[Lori_B]

Tim - I googled the 100 f2 IS, but it didn't come up...how new is it? It might not be released yet here in Aus? The 100 f2 non IS looks okay too, not an L, but the pics in the lens section from it look pretty good.
Hey Mike, I considered the 24-70 as well, it is still an option but on the 50D it is 38mm which is not very wide...... would be good for when I eventually get the 5DII, but not sure how far away that is.
What I need is a 17-135 f2 IS !!!!! is that asking too much? :-)

[SuzyView]

The 100L is new, announced yesterday, and around $1K. Before investing in that lens, I'd consider the 17-55 as that on your 50D would be wonderful, wide enough for the work you need it for.

I shoot weddings with a 5D2 and 40D with 24-70, 70-200 2.8 IS and 85 1.8 mostly. If I only had the 40D, I'd get the 17-55 because 24-70 is not wide enough for a group. Save your money and get the 70-200 2.8IS for the church shots. You can't substitute that lens for anything else zoom for all the uses. The bokeh is amazing with that lens and the sharpness is not to be missed. I have the f4 version, not great for no-flash situations at all. It's too slow.

[PMCphotography]

I have a bad shoulder- my right one has been surgically reconstructed twice, and even though the 70-200 f/2.8 is heavy, I still use it as one of my main lenses. If the ceremony is long, you could always try using a monopod. I do frequently for long ceremonies when using the 70-200 f/2.8.

[picturecrazy]

I too suggest the 70-200 f/2.8 IS... though it is a heavy lens. But you should definitely look into the Canon 17-55. It's the best wedding lens for your cameras without a doubt.

The 135 F/2L is a nice lens, but it doesn't really gain any speed for you over a zoom during your typical non-moving ceremony. For example, if you are using a 17-55 or 70-200 F/2.8 IS, you can easily shoot at 1/30 and have sharp photos. But with a 135 F/2, you'll need to be shooting at 1/125 at the minimum (1/200 is the guideline due to crop factor, but you can pull off 1/125 with very steady hands) which means you are actually losing one stop compared to the 2.8 IS zooms.

I'm not saying the 135 F/2 isn't useful, but if you're looking at it in order to gain speed in a non-moving situation (as you are), it has marginal benefits. Same goes for the 85 1.8. It is a fantastic lens (of which I really love), but for ceremony usage, it doesn't gain you much over a stabilized lens.

If you are serious about getting into weddings, then you should be serious about getting the right gear without compromise.

[pwm2]

I don't really think the 70-200/2.8 IS is so heavy, as long as there is a battery grip and hand strap on the camera. Without the grip, I get too little camera to hold in relation to the weigh of the camera. At least if I have the flash mounted too.

[matonanjin]

The 100L is new, announced yesterday, and around $1K.

it was a new F/2.8 macro introduced yesterday I think. Not a new 2.0

[picturecrazy]

I don't really think the 70-200/2.8 IS is so heavy, as long as there is a battery grip and hand strap on the camera. Without the grip, I get too little camera to hold in relation to the weigh of the camera. At least if I have the flash mounted too.

If you are supporting the camera and bearing weight with your right hand then you are holding the camera rig improperly.

[pwm2]

If you are supporting the camera and bearing weight with your right hand then you are holding the camera rig improperly.
I am bearing the weight with my right hand while carrying it. That is the time when the weight of lens and flash matters. I would most definitely don't want to try one-handed snapping - when taking a photo, most of the weight goes from my left hand and down into my chest since I keep my left elbow towards the chest to get myself a human monopod ;)

[archaeoman]

I don't really think the 70-200/2.8 IS is so heavy, as long as there is a battery grip and hand strap on the camera. Without the grip, I get too little camera to hold in relation to the weigh of the camera. At least if I have the flash mounted too.

I find the grip, but especially the hand strap make a huge difference with heavier glass.

[4mr4do4sho]

As what others have stated I have found 2 setups that pretty much covered everything that I needed for all of my weddings:

40D (or any crop body) + 17-55mm
5D/5DII + 70-200mm 2.8 IS

The weight of the 70-200mm took some getting used to but it's like playing sports - the more you practice/use it, your body (arms, hands, etc) will adjust to using it. And like Tim mentioned, the 17-55mm hands down is a great lens, of course I wish the build was a little more solid. I recently sold my 40D and bought a 5DMK II and sadly I had to let go of the 17-55. My replacement was the 24-70L.

Hope this helps.

[mariusz]

I really like the 70-200 f2.8 use it 70% of my shots but you should get something that would fit your style of photography.
cheers.

[Lori_B]

Thanks for your help everyone, I think I was trying to find an alternative to the 70-200 f2.8, but in all honesty It would be the best lens for the job I need, especially once I add the 5DII to my kit. I will also replace my 17-70 (for weddings at least) with the 17-55 f2.8, I have heard & read so many great things about it on a 50D......I could still use the 17-70 for macro shots (rings, flowers etc) as it does that really well. Now to save the cash....
cheers
Lori

[bric-a-brac]

I'll be devil's advocate and mention that there a few of us on the wedding forum here (myself included) who sold our 70-200/2.8 L's in favor of the 135/2 L. I use mine with a monopod when it's really dark and don't find it the least it restricting. The extra stop can be a lifesaver and I suppose some of us find the extra light and subject isolation more valuable than a zoom range.

just 2 pennies which might be misconstrued for a thought...

[Lori_B]

Hi bric-a-brac, can you tell me what the slowest shutter speed is that you are willing to hand hold your 135/2 L before you bring out the monopod?

[picturecrazy]

Thanks for your help everyone, I think I was trying to find an alternative to the 70-200 f2.8, but in all honesty It would be the best lens for the job I need, especially once I add the 5DII to my kit. I will also replace my 17-70 (for weddings at least) with the 17-55 f2.8, I have heard & read so many great things about it on a 50D......I could still use the 17-70 for macro shots (rings, flowers etc) as it does that really well. Now to save the cash....
cheers
Lori

You want the 70-200 F/2.8 IS. The IS is what makes this lens really usable in low light at insanely low shutter speeds.

[bric-a-brac]

Hi bric-a-brac, can you tell me what the slowest shutter speed is that you are willing to hand hold your 135/2 L before you bring out the monopod?

Hi Lori,

I feel pretty comfortable hand-holding the 135 L at 1/100th of a second, and that's mounted on a 40D or 50D. I probably could go 1/80th or 1/60th if I could brace myself against a wall or doorway or chair, but at that point I'd rather have the added security of a monopod.

I wouldn't want to shoot people at 1/30th with or without IS on any lens, just because I've found that even when they're standing still they tend to fidget just enough to be a bother at that speed and slower.