My gear plans

Please help me think through my short term and long term gear purchases. As time has gone on I have found that weddings are my real passion. I want to focus my business on them. You can see my past wedding shots in these threads if you're interested:

1st: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=911543 (rented 24-70L and 10-22)
2nd: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=953940 (rented 17-55 & 70-200 2.8 IS which was dead on arrival)
3rd: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=968875 (second shot - used 50mm 1.8, 24-70, 85 1.8, 70-200)

I am planning my gear purchases. One of my goals, is to not go into debt. So with that said, I want to build my business slowly. I have two weddings planned for this summer and they are both outdoor weddings. Low light will not be an issue so I went ahead and purchased a 50d to be my primary camera for this summer. My backup/second camera will be my T1i. So, here's what I currently have:

50d, t1i, 50mm 1.8, 430ex2, (kit lenses as a last resort backup...)

My long term plans include purchasing a 5d2 next fall prior to next summers weddings. So keeping in mind my plans to go full frame in a year I have the following planned purchases for this summer.

Canon 24-70L
Canon 85 1.8
580ex2

Now, I know most of you will say that I should get the 17-55 since i'm on crop. But I plan to go to full frame next year, and the weddings i'm doing this summer are outdoors so I can back up. I've shot with the 24-70 and I love it. Second thing is, why the 85? Mostly because its a quality lens that is inexpensive. I will be able to put the 24-70 on my 50d and the 85 on my rebel.

Other options:
70-200 2.8 IS - I will plan to purchase this in the future. The weddings I have currently will not require me to be far away, the 85 on a crop should be plenty of reach.

85L - Another long term goal is to have this lens but its way too expensive now

Canon 17-55 - Good choice for a crop, but I plan to go full frame next year. Also, I don't want to mess with the lesser build quality, I prefer the 24-70.

50 1.4 - Would like to have this replace my 50 1.8 but maybe not necessary yet, especially with the 24-70

135L - Maybe I could get this instead of the 85 1.8 right now for this summer?

Macro - Another future plan, not a necessity.

I know gear choices are very personal decisions. I think that my choices are good ones for me but please let me know if you think a different choice would be better. So, in summary, my gear list for this summers outdoor weddings is:

Cameras:
50d
T1i
Lenses:
24-70
85 1.8
50 1.8
kit lenses as a last resort backup
Flashes:
580ex2
430ex2
24" softbox
Light stand
radio triggers

I think your bodies are just fine! Just get the 5DII when your income can support it but for now a 50D is a good primary body for starting out. And instead of getting a 5DII you could always look into getting a used 5D first (for $900 or so) and using that if you can't afford the 5DII right away. Remember, choose glass over bodies!

As for the lenses, I'd recommend getting the 24-105mm over the 24-70. Having the extra reach on one lens is great (especially on a cropped body) and if you're already planning on having a prime that can be used for low-light situations I think you'll find you have more flexibility with the 24-105mm. If you were planning on getting the 70-200 right away I'd say the 24-70 is a great choice because you can have that on one body and the 70-200 on the other, but having your max reach be 85mm is a bit limiting for some situations. Or if you're really set on the 24-70 get a 100 or 135 prime instead of the 85. It's a great lens, but so are the 100 Macro and the 135L.

As for the flashes, I've recently discovered that some non-Canon brand flashes are great and often not nearly as expensive. I wish I'd done more research on this before buying my flashes. I'm even considering selling my 580 and getting an off-brand and pocketing the difference. If you're strapped for cash in the beginning it's OK to not get Canon-brand equipment. A lot of times they work just as well! The same goes for lenses- Sigma is a great option for lenses like the 24-70mm and even their 70-200 isn't bad at all. Buying used for a reputable location is also an option if you need to save a little money. New gear is fun and all, but when you're first starting out buying used can take you a lot further.

thanks for the input.. good stuff. I could swing the 135L in my budget instead of the 85 1.8.

Or should I consider the 100 2.8L ??

The 135 is one of my favorite lenses, and it has practically taken the place of my 70-200mm. I couldn't justify buying a macro lens for only a few shots, and the f2 is great. You wont be disappointed.

If you're going to get a 50mm, skip the 1.8 and just go with the 1.4. I went through all 3 and have finally settled on the 1.2. The 1.8 is just a waste IMO...you WILL upgrade. The 24-105 is nice to have the reach but you really need faster than f4, especially if you can't crank your ISO up. 24-70 would be the way to go and you still have plenty of reach on a crop.

I started with a 40d, Tamron 17-55, 50 1.4, 85 1.8. That got me through a couple of easy weddings but I quickly saw the value of better gear and upgraded to 5dmk2, 24-70 (sold for 16-35/50L) 85 1.8 and 70-200 2.8. If you can afford to just by the best now, you'll be happier in the long run and you won't be constanly thinking about buying better gear.

ggalluppi wrote in post #11905814
If you're going to get a 50mm, skip the 1.8 and just go with the 1.4. I went through all 3 and have finally settled on the 1.2. The 1.8 is just a waste IMO...you WILL upgrade. The 24-105 is nice to have the reach but you really need faster than f4, especially if you can't crank your ISO up. 24-70 would be the way to go and you still have plenty of reach on a crop.

I

I already own the 50 1.8. I think i've pretty much decided on the 24-70. I'm trying to decide on one more lens. 85 1.8, 100L, 135L. Right now i'm leaning towards the 135L

135L for sure. I have and LOVE my 100mm but I use it almost solely for MACRO shots. I take a lot of these for weddings but it's more important to have a lens you can use for everything before needing a MACRO and that's the 135L. Like Bryan said, if you get that you pretty much don't need the 70-200 and it will pair well with the 24-70.

I don't have the 135L, but I do have the 100mm macro and the 85mm 1.8 and I adore both. I don't think you can beat the quality of the 85mm for the price... it is an amazing lens. I have never felt any desire to upgrade that one. Plus it's on the smaller side and is more lightweight. Just love it!

I love the 100mm for portraits, and the ability to shoot macro too is fabulous. It's a great lens.

Also I'd throw out there for a wide angle lens, the 16-35mm is another big favorite of mine. I never tried the 17-55. But I love the 16-35, especially on a full frame. So nice and wide.

what if instead of the 135L I got the 70-200 2.8 non IS. Is it even worth getting that? The 135 doesn't have IS so the 70-200 would basically net me the same focal length with no IS but if the lighting is good enough I can go up to 200. They are similarly priced.

Ahtz wrote in post #11911928
what if instead of the 135L I got the 70-200 2.8 non IS. Is it even worth getting that? The 135 doesn't have IS so the 70-200 would basically net me the same focal length with no IS but if the lighting is good enough I can go up to 200. They are similarly priced.

I have both of the lenses you are talking about, and if I had the choice, I pull out the 135mm every time. I actually bought my 135 (all my primes for that matter) as a backup for my zooms. Unfortunately, the primes took over my style and they are all I try to shoot with. Recently I have tried shooting only with my primes, and havent found a need to go longer than 200. I do plan to get a 1.4 teleconverter at somepoint which would give me 200mm.

For me, 2.8 isnt fast enough, and the 70-200 weighs a TON. I sure do love my 135.

I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record... but I'll say it again. Get great glass first and body later. Great glass on a cheaper body gives you more options and flexibility than a more expensive body with less of a lens selection imo. I wouldn't move to the 5Dmk2 until you have an excellent collection of glass to suit just about all situations you'll be in... which is a lot for wedding shooting. Full frame sounds romantic but it totally unnecessary. Concentrate on glass first!

I STRONGLY recommend using a 17-55 instead of a 24-70L. It is just MUCH better suited to a 50D/T1i setup than a 24-70L. If you buy one used then after a year or two you can probably sell it for what you bought it for, or a minimal loss. I found shooting with a 24-XX lens on a 1.6 crop to be limiting to my shooting because it's just not wide enough for a primary lens. I would feel handicapped with that setup... honestly. If you are not VERY well experienced in wedding shooting, AND using a non-ideal lens/body combo, you're just kicking yourself in the teeth.

I mean, if you had a honda civic that needed new tires, but knew you were going to buy big SUV next year, would you buy gigantic tires that would make your civic look like a monster truck? Just because you might upgrade to an SUV? No way. Handicapping your current setup for something that might come in the future will do nothing but frustrate you in the present.

If you want to kick ass in the weddings you have NOW, then I'd consider the following...

17-55 IS
10-22, 10-20, 11-16, or something ultrawide. When you need it, you REALLY need it.

70-200 2.8 IS (you don't need the version 2. The version 1 is excellent)
50 1.4 is great for preparation shots.
extension tubes for rings
85 1.8 is great for receptions (speeches and candids)
135L is great for ceremonies and receptions

And of course you need at least two good flashes. If you become really good with your setup, you may find that you do not need to upgrade your body. Just don't blame the gear for a lack of technique. Commit yourself to MASTERING your initial setup before upgrading. You'll save money and become a much better photographer in the process. The time to kick ass is now. I wish you the best.

picturecrazy wrote in post #11912519
I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record... but I'll say it again. Get great glass first and body later. Great glass on a cheaper body gives you more options and flexibility than a more expensive body with less of a lens selection imo. I wouldn't move to the 5Dmk2 until you have an excellent collection of glass to suit just about all situations you'll be in... which is a lot for wedding shooting. Full frame sounds romantic but it totally unnecessary. Concentrate on glass first!

I STRONGLY recommend using a 17-55 instead of a 24-70L. It is just MUCH better suited to a 50D/T1i setup than a 24-70L. If you buy one used then after a year or two you can probably sell it for what you bought it for, or a minimal loss. I found shooting with a 24-XX lens on a 1.6 crop to be limiting to my shooting because it's just not wide enough for a primary lens. I would feel handicapped with that setup... honestly. If you are not VERY well experienced in wedding shooting, AND using a non-ideal lens/body combo, you're just kicking yourself in the teeth.

I mean, if you had a honda civic that needed new tires, but knew you were going to buy big SUV next year, would you buy gigantic tires that would make your civic look like a monster truck? Just because you might upgrade to an SUV? No way. Handicapping your current setup for something that might come in the future will do nothing but frustrate you in the present.

If you want to kick ass in the weddings you have NOW, then I'd consider the following...

17-55 IS
10-22, 10-20, 11-16, or something ultrawide. When you need it, you REALLY need it.

70-200 2.8 IS (you don't need the version 2. The version 1 is excellent)
50 1.4 is great for preparation shots.
extension tubes for rings
85 1.8 is great for receptions (speeches and candids)
135L is great for ceremonies and receptions

And of course you need at least two good flashes. If you become really good with your setup, you may find that you do not need to upgrade your body. Just don't blame the gear for a lack of technique. Commit yourself to MASTERING your initial setup before upgrading. You'll save money and become a much better photographer in the process. The time to kick ass is now. I wish you the best.

I think what Lloyd said has so much truth it is amazing. I will disagree with one point though (with all due respect) and that is about the Ultra wide. From what I have seen, Lloyd's style revolves around doing a lot of ultrawide shots, which are amazing. I on the other hand, shoot much tighter. I have the 11-16 (useable on the 5d2 at 16) but barely use it. I guess when you need it, it is great to have it, but I would focus on other issues first rather than dropping 600-800 on that.

As for the other lenses, I think he is spot on. I am getting frusturated with my 50mm f1.4 and plan on upgrading to the 1.2, but I would still recommend the 1.4. Its a great little lens, and will remain in my bag for backup purposes.

Well, I can agree that you may be able to survive without the ultrawide, but there may be some shots that you just cannot get... like when the mother of the bride wants a group shot of her 25 out of town family members, taken in her living room because it's raining outside. Artistically you definitely don't need it, but sometimes, you just REALLY need it.

You can probably get by without one, but when funds allow, I'd definitely add it to the bag.

I appreciate what you are saying and I agree if I was planning to shoot several weddings this summer, indoor & outdoor. But would you still say the same thing if I was only planning to shoot a handful of outdoor weddings where there is plenty of room to back up. I'm just not sure that I will feel limited by the 24mm on the wide end. I've used it before during an outdoor ceremony and reception. When I used the 17-55 I was more frustrated by the lack of reach that it had.

Also, I don't think your analogy of the off road truck tires on a civic works very well. The 24-70 is a great lens on a crop body, its just a different focal length than the 17-55. Whether or not its a good focal length is dependent on the style of the shooter right?

More so, what I'm hearing you say is, don't plan to upgrade to the 5d for a few years. Shoot with the 50d, maybe buy another 50d or 7d next year and stick with the crop for a few years. If that was the direction I plan to take, I would consider more seriously the 17-55.

Actually, given the lower price of the 17-55, It's really only an extra couple hundred to get the 17-55 & the 70-200 mk2 vs the 24-70 & 135L. Maybe that is the better route.... hmmmm