For those who shoot with a 1D...

[Markitos]

For weddings, do you find yourself using a 16-35 range lens, is something like a 24-70 still wide enough for you? I used to shoot with 2 5Ds, but now I have picked up a 1DmkIII. I have a wedding on Saturday, and I'm just trying to think ahead about what's going to go with what.

I'm afraid that the 16-35 won't be long enough, and that with the crop, the 24-70 won't be quite wide enough. Obviously I can use the 5D if it's really a problem, but I would prefer to use the 1DmkIII since this will probably be a low light event and it's a bit cleaner at 1600 and greater.

[tim]

24mm on the 1D3 is like 18.5mm on a crop body. Grab a kit lens and decide for yourself. Personally I shot two summers of weddings without using a wider lens, but the last season I used the 10-22 a few times.

[Markitos]

24mm on the 1D3 is like 18.5mm on a crop body. Grab a kit lens and decide for yourself. Personally I shot two summers of weddings without using a wider lens, but the last season I used the 10-22 a few times.

Um, what?

24mm on the 1D3 has an EFOV of ~31mm... and I'm coming from FF, so I'm not sure why you're referencing crop FOVs for me.

I also don't really appreciate your flip tone--I'm not a photo or wedding n00b, just a 1DmkIII noob. I have mounted both lenses on the 1D to try to get a sense of it, but until I'm in the middle of the action, it's kind of hard to say.

Just thought I might get some opinions/experiences from others who have used 1.3x crop bodies for weddings.

[picturecrazy]

I don't think Tim was trying to be rude.

As for whether you think it'll be wide or long enough, that's totally up to your style and needs. I am the type who really likes my wides, so I find 24mm on 1.3 to be just a little bit too long. It's close though, and I really didn't have too much of a problem with it. If I thought I really would need some wide coverage, I'd throw an ultrawide on my secondary 1.6 body (or 5D in your case).

But your experiences will differ from mine. The only way to know is to give it a shot. Most 1.3 shooters are fine with 24mm. But I don't know anybody who thinks the 16-35 is a good primary lens on a 1.3. That one is much more limiting.

[Markitos]

But your experiences will differ from mine. The only way to know is to give it a shot. Most 1.3 shooters are fine with 24mm. But I don't know anybody who thinks the 16-35 is a good primary lens on a 1.3. That one is much more limiting.

This is more what I was wondering about... thanks for that!

And I don't think he was trying to be rude either, but saying:

Grab a kit lens and decide for yourself.

suggests that he thinks I am some n00b with an XT with the kit lens and onboard flash shooting my first wedding with one body--it comes across as flip, dismissive, or condescending, depending on how you read it. Also, he didn't actually read my post, and made suggestions based on a crop body, which could also come across as flip, dismissive, or condescending. So that's where I'm coming from. If he didn't mean those things, that's fine.

[jonwhite]

This is more what I was wondering about... thanks for that!

And I don't think he was trying to be rude either, but saying:

suggests that he thinks I am some n00b with an XT with the kit lens and onboard flash shooting my first wedding with one body--it comes across as flip, dismissive, or condescending, depending on how you read it. Also, he didn't actually read my post, and made suggestions based on a crop body, which could also come across as flip, dismissive, or condescending. So that's where I'm coming from. If he didn't mean those things, that's fine.

What he said makes perfect sense, the equiv FOV is close in the examples that he used and most people can relate to what FOV you get with a 17/18mm kit lens on a 1.6 crop body because most of us own or have owned one of those at some time.

I think you need to calm down, Tims answer was concise and nothing more.

Sorry but I have to laugh at your "I am not a photography or wedding noob" in your previous post.

According to your blog your a restaurant manager who has 2nd shot two weddings, I think that would class you as a wedding noob by most peoples measures, I still consider myself a noob after 60 weddings, theres people here who have shot many hundreds of weddings.

[Markitos]

According to your blog your a restaurant manager who has 2nd shot two weddings, I think that would class you as a wedding noob by most peoples measures, I still consider myself a noob after 60 weddings, theres people here who have shot many hundreds of weddings.

<sigh> You're missing my point. I didn't say I wasn't a wedding n00b generally, just that my specific question wasn't the typical wedding n00b question: i.e., "I have an XTi and the kit lens--can I shoot a wedding with this?" I would be grossly misrepresenting myself to say I was an expert wedding shooter. What I did say is that I HAVE shot weddings with 5Ds, and Tim's specific answer/tone was not really relevant/helpful to that question, IMO. I DO understand focal length, and I do have professional equipment. I am also not a total n00b to photography, and I expect my body of work would bear that out--I did NOT bring that up because it's a matter of taste and not relevant to the original question.

I have shot more than two weddings (I have second shot two weddings with the same person). I have not shot a LOT of weddings, but it's not my first trip out, either. I'm not sure what my full-time job has to do with being or not being a photo noob, but okay. Based on your response, I would expect you'd be thrilled to discover that I do second shooting, rather than n00bly throwing myself out there and letting the pieces fall where they may.

My question was answered, so we can all go on back to our little worlds. Not sure why anyone feels the need to be smug or ridicule someone.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think at this point we can consider the air cleared, and discuss the question with out the sideline discussion of who is rude, skilled, or a noob.

IMHO if you have a 5D as well, put the 24-70 on one body and the 16-35mm on the other.
You'll be best able to judge which goes on which on location, and amazingly, we can swap these lenses quickly!

[Markitos]

IMHO if you have a 5D as well, put the 24-70 on one body and the 16-35mm on the other.
You'll be best able to judge which goes on which on location, and amazingly, we can swap these lenses quickly!

Thanks for your insight! Ultimately (and obviously) the decision will be made when I get there and start shooting, but I like to pre-conceptualize how the day will go before it starts, and to have some strategy. As a restaurant manager, I am very used to the pressure, reacting to rapid changes, and being flexible, but it's still nice to have thought about.

I suspect that the 24-70 will end up on the 1D mostly, and then the 16-35, 70-200, and 135 will take turns on the 5D.

[Markitos]

And Jon, you've some lovely work on your blog!

[jacobsen1]

http://www.newschoolofphotography.com/forum/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

seriously though, for you mark, I'd put the 24-70 on the 1D and 16-35mm on the 5D to start. You can obviously switch later, but knowing how/what you shoot, I'd think making the 24-70 a tad longer would actually help in a lot of situations (where you might be reaching for your 70-200 or 135, maybe 70 * 1.3 could work). Then when you want wide, you'd probably want REALLY wide so having the 16-35 on FF would be benificial.

Think of it this way, 16-35 & 31-91 or 21-46 & 24-70mm. Basically, adding the reach to the 24-70 on the 1D gives you more range. Putting the wide on the 1.3 gives you hardly any added width at all.

CNs: Put the 24-70 on the 1D and enjoy your new gatling gun!

[CyberDyneSystems]

seriously though, for you mark, I'd put the 24-70 on the 1D and 16-35mm on the 5D to start. ...

My thoughts exactly, make the long longer and the wide wider,.. with still plenty of overlap. :)

[tim]

Um, what?

24mm on the 1D3 has an EFOV of ~31mm... and I'm coming from FF, so I'm not sure why you're referencing crop FOVs for me.

I also don't really appreciate your flip tone--I'm not a photo or wedding n00b, just a 1DmkIII noob. I have mounted both lenses on the 1D to try to get a sense of it, but until I'm in the middle of the action, it's kind of hard to say.

Just thought I might get some opinions/experiences from others who have used 1.3x crop bodies for weddings.

Sorry, I got the crop conversion backwards. You seemed to take offense very quickly and go on the offensive, perhaps you should look within yourself to work out why. My kit lens suggestion was a VERY practical suggestion, though it was wrong because I got the crop conversion backwards. I saw your gear list so I knew you weren't a n00b with a rebel and a kit lens.

"Try it and see" really is the best advice you can give someone. No matter what others think you ultimately have to decide what suits you.

[Markitos]

^ I don't think I did actually take offense--not knowing you, your post came across as a bit flip. If you look at my second post, I allowed that I may have been too quick to judge.

I only took offense to the off-topic and irrelevant comments that came after because I felt jonwhite was similarly quick to judge. I am a bit quick to the offensive on the internet because, especially on POTN, people are often very quick to offer totally nonsensical and off-topic advice. There are also many who are helpful.

After rereading your comment, it made more sense, and I'm sorry if I contributed to making this thread any more incendiary. Thank you Tim for your level-headed and helpful reply.

[tim]

Happy to have been some help - though since I got things backward I don't think I was!

What I can say is 17mm is usually wide enough on the 40D, but occasionally I use the 10-22. 55mm on the 40D isn't always long enough, but that's why I have the 70-200.