Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 15 Oct 2015 (Thursday) 23:21
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I just went all-prime..

 
aemravan
Goldmember
1,622 posts
Likes: 419
Joined Jun 2010
     
Oct 15, 2015 23:21 |  #1

So just something I wanted to put out there to see what other people were currently set-up with..

for the longest time I have been shooting my canon 24-70 2.8L at weddings (second shooter, 8-14 weddings a year). Great versatile lens.. but recently, in my "i need new equipment" phase i purchased a sigma 50 1.4 on amazon... holy crap....what a lens. Shortly after (this morning) i ordered the sigma 35 1.4 art. That put my arsenal at the 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 100mm 2.8L macro, and 24-70mm 2.8.

After purchasing a nice tripod tonight for some landscapes I gave the 85mm a serious thought... I considered getting away from the zoom lens completely and going all prime... then I quickly realized that as great of portraits as the 100mm macro turns out..it really is a macro lens...and i rarely shoot anything macro....especially something that I would keep and print... so I thought...why the heck not sell the 100mm macro and buy the 85mm instead? Keep the 24-70 for an off-the wall occasion where I can only have my camera and 1 lens... *(Like travel somewhere, it still turns out a hell of an image..)

so yea... I guess I'm not exactly all prime... but my wedding gear will consist of all prime lenses (only downside is one body... gr...), probably mainly the 35/85 combo.. I'm excited... bot the 35 and 85 come in the mail saturday.. hopefully right before my 2 p.m. wedding :)


Canon 5Diii - Canon 24-70 2.8L - Canon 100 2.8L Macro - Sigma 50 1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,441 posts
Gallery: 1762 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11156
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Oct 15, 2015 23:43 |  #2

Heya,

Get a 2nd body before you worry about more lenses.

Two bodies. 1 with 35mm. 1 with 85mm. Everything covered.

Keep the 24-70. I'm all primes, but there are days when you just need the flexibility of a zoom, and you can still toss a wide prime on there for the really low light tight stuff.

Personally, 85mm vs 100mm, you'd have to really see if it makes a difference to you, but I'd rather have the 100 macro (stabilization and macro) instead of a generic 85mm.

So for me, I did the in between, with a Tamron 90mm F2.8 VC to have between 85mm and 100mm, and stabilization, and macro, and portrait, all in one. I sold my 85 F1.8.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 553
Joined Mar 2011
     
Oct 19, 2015 14:19 |  #3

i used to do all primes but this year i've been using a 24-70 with a 135 for the church and formals.

i put the 85 on a second body over the weekend and it was way too tight at the reception, i end up just using a 24-70 and leaving the second body in the bag. I may look into getting a 35 but i should get an UWA instead.


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aemravan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,622 posts
Likes: 419
Joined Jun 2010
     
Oct 19, 2015 18:22 |  #4

Well...funny thing... I got the 35 1.4 and the 85 1.4 in the mail just in time for the wedding saturday.... the 35 and 85 both are in the mail as of 10 mins ago for a return... surprisingly the 24-70 from canon out did the more expensive PRIME sigma glass, as well as the 35L from canon.... I was blown away by the image quality comparison.... I ended up shooting just about the entire wedding with the 24-70. Better image quality and more versatility? Yea...it was a no-brainer for me. May just be me...but all of my shots with the 35 and 85 compared to the 24-70 came out very disappointing to say the least.... not only were the images NOT significantly sharper and better as I had hoped, but in most cases they were actually worse.... I am now contemplating upgrading to the canon 24-70 2.8II (but from my research the image quality upgrade seems to be minimal for almost double the cost of the lens..)


Canon 5Diii - Canon 24-70 2.8L - Canon 100 2.8L Macro - Sigma 50 1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 289
Joined Nov 2010
     
Oct 19, 2015 18:52 as a reply to  @ aemravan's post |  #5

Having owned all three of those lenses myself the worst by far was the brick (the 24-70). The 24-70 has an incredibly vanilla look that is nothing like what you get on either of the other two.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 553
Joined Mar 2011
     
Oct 20, 2015 07:01 |  #6

i will always choose a prime when i want a particular look to the images, 24mm at 2.8 doesn't give you that. however shooting any faster than that and i feel i lose depth of field and end up with out of focus images when people aren't standing still. so for the brunt of wedding work i will always choose the zoom, for posed portraits i'll always prefer a prime.


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,989 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2947
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Oct 20, 2015 10:47 |  #7

Zooms cant do F/1.2-2.0

Nuff Said


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 289
Joined Nov 2010
     
Oct 20, 2015 12:43 as a reply to  @ umphotography's post |  #8

F0.95 + in my case


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vanmidd
Member
215 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Sep 2013
     
Oct 21, 2015 02:30 as a reply to  @ aemravan's post |  #9

surprisingly the 24-70 from canon out did the more expensive PRIME sigma glass, as well as the 35L from canon

You've got dud copies then. The 24-70 can't compete with a decent prime. My 35 sigma art is better than any zoom lens I've ever used. My 24-70 hasn't come out of the bag for close to 2 years.

I can't speak for your 85 1.4...but my 85 1.2 is a 10/10, again, no zoom comes close, especially for focus drop-off, bokeh etc.

I've heard the 24-70 ii is a good one, which is good news, because the original 24-70 was absolutely horrible, especially for portraits and low light.


Van Middleton Photography - Byron Bay Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnTrav
Member
Avatar
131 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Philadelphia
     
Oct 21, 2015 10:39 |  #10

aemravan wrote in post #17752432 (external link)
Well...funny thing... I got the 35 1.4 and the 85 1.4 in the mail just in time for the wedding saturday.... the 35 and 85 both are in the mail as of 10 mins ago for a return... surprisingly the 24-70 from canon out did the more expensive PRIME sigma glass, as well as the 35L from canon.... I was blown away by the image quality comparison.... I ended up shooting just about the entire wedding with the 24-70. Better image quality and more versatility? Yea...it was a no-brainer for me. May just be me...but all of my shots with the 35 and 85 compared to the 24-70 came out very disappointing to say the least.... not only were the images NOT significantly sharper and better as I had hoped, but in most cases they were actually worse.... I am now contemplating upgrading to the canon 24-70 2.8II (but from my research the image quality upgrade seems to be minimal for almost double the cost of the lens..)


I have used all three of these lenses and used them all for weddings. My primes are sharper than my 24-70. Maybe you can post some samples for people to see. But I was in the same situation. I was shooting low light at a weddings and my 24-70L is what I used and it got the job done but I wanted more so I bought a 85 1.8 and borrowed my brothers 35L and used the 85mm on my 5Dii and the 35L on a 7Dii and it was far better than when I used my 24-70L. The primes let in more light to keep my ISO a little lower. Also shooting at 1.8 on my 85 IMO is a tad sharper than shooting at 2.8 on my 24-70.


Canon 5D Mark III - Canon 5D Mark II - Canon 7D - Canon 70-200 f/2.8L - Canon 24-70 f/2.8L - Canon 17-40L - Canon 85 f/1.8 - Canon 50 f/1.4 - Canon 580 exii (x2) - rokinon 8mm fishey

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 289
Joined Nov 2010
     
Oct 21, 2015 11:04 |  #11

I have to wonder if the OP was just not used to a more shallow DOF at wider apertures and just missed focus.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mckay ­ photography
Senior Member
Avatar
676 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
     
Oct 27, 2015 15:16 |  #12

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17754548 (external link)
I have to wonder if the OP was just not used to a more shallow DOF at wider apertures and just missed focus.

Could be indeed.

I use a 24-70mm II for a lot of a wedding day and it's great - but my primes (canon 35mm 1.4, 50mm sigma art, 135mm f2) are sharper for sure. And they have the 'look' you get shooting wide open that a zoom cant replicate.


Gear: 5D mkiii x 2, 35 1.4 L, 16-35 L, 24-70 mkiiL, 70-200 L, Sigma Art 50 1.4
Wedding Photography Sydney (external link)
| Wedding Photography blog (external link) | Wedding photography Bowral (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aemravan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,622 posts
Likes: 419
Joined Jun 2010
     
Nov 01, 2015 08:16 |  #13

I'm used to a shallow depth of field, definitely wasn't missing focus. And I was comparing the 3 lenses at the same 2.8 stop, I know this isn't any sort of ideal test. The primes did have a particular "look and feel" to the images but with my copy of the 24-70 the center sharpness was better on the 24-70 than the 2 sigma primes. Maybe they were crap copies, I bought them new on Amazon, so who knows. Maybe my expectation for the primes to perform light years better than my old canon mid-range zoom made me judge the images overly hard, but for the loss of versatility at weddings the $1800 price tag of the primes over what I already had was a no-brainer for me. This is just my personal preference. I'm not saying I agree that primes have better image quality just due to the nature of the lens, that is a given, I'm just saying that in my case my 24-70 outperformed the 2 sigma primes (which could have been bad copies) and had a lot more versatility for the type of wedding images I shoot.

Also, having F1.2 in a low-light wedding situation to drive down your ISO isn't much of an advantage (to me) if there are things happening fast and the possibility of missing focus is increased. I'll shoot at an elevated ISO and do some noise reduction in post, to me, slight loss of detail from the NR is a better situation than missed focused on a good quality image


Canon 5Diii - Canon 24-70 2.8L - Canon 100 2.8L Macro - Sigma 50 1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shooter ­ mcgavin
Senior Member
Avatar
526 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
     
Nov 02, 2015 18:20 |  #14

My guess is that your sigma primes are off-focus (the reason why sigma sells/includes their micro-focus adjuster).
I've owned a number of sigma lenses, and all were off just enough to make them softer/less-steller than they should have been.

Generally, any decent lens stopped down will beat another (in sharpness) that's set wide-open. But hey, if you have a magic f/2.8 lens that performs better than a stopped-down prime, and you have no need for greater light-gathering abilities, keep that sucker and sell the others!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,433 views & 1 like for this thread
I just went all-prime..
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Mjennis
1273 guests, 300 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.