My gear plans

Ahtz wrote in post #11912717
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.

Yes, I would still say the same thing. If you are humble and good at what you do, you're gonna get more business, and they're not all going to be outdoor weddings in nice weather. Even outside, I often find myself in situations where I cannot back up. Like when you are doing family photos and there is a mob of people behind you all trying to get the same picture you are. It happens.

For ceremony shooting, I rarely ever use the 17-55, honestly. Not even the 24-70 or 24-105 is good enough. I'm usually shooting in the 100-200mm range because I want to respect the ceremony and the moment they're sharing. But some shooters are fine with getting right up into people's faces. I'm not. I do not consider the 17-55 a ceremony lens, nor the 24-70 or 24-105. Those are the "everything else" lenses.

Ahtz wrote in post #11912717
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?

And some people like to raise their civics and put big tires on it. Some people like cars that bounce off the ground to the beat of their music, and some like their cars so low they can't run over speedbumps. It's all style. Some styles are just more PRACTICAL than others, and some have more utility than others.

I'm not saying you should follow my style. Not at all! That would be counter-productive. I'm just telling you my experiences. I've owned the 17-55, 24-70L, and 24-105L simultaneously for 4 years. For wedding shooting, I could never find a good reason to use a 24-XX lens over the 17-55 on a crop. In fact, I MUCH preferred the 17-55/crop over 24-70L/FF. The 17-55 is one of the fastest, most accurate focusing lenses I've ever used. The 24-70L is one of the slowest, least accurate focusing lenses I've ever used (I've owned 6 or 7 of them in search for one that was awesome. None were)

Ahtz wrote in post #11912717
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

Once people truly realize and believe that a crop body is absolutely NOT going to prevent you from producing award winning imagery, the urge to upgrade isn't so dire. There is a current thread where we kinda touch on this topic: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1003638

If you are going to become a truly amazing photographer, you will achieve that regardless if you are a crop of FF shooter. If you can swing the 70-200, I'd definitely go for that. IMO, there is no better ceremony lens. And honestly, I use the mk1 lens and have absolutely NO desire to pay the extra grand for the mk2. Same reasoning, the mk2 is not gonna make me any better of a photographer. I mean, if the mk1 has produced COUNTLESS cover shots for Vogue, Sports Illustrated, Rolling Stone, etc then can I really say that I truly need the mk2? You will not make any more bookings or sell any more prints because you have an mk2. Clients can't tell a diff. I'd put the extra grand towards lighting and more lenses.

Thank you. I really do appreciate you input.

Well I went to the local camera shop and tried several lenses. I think i've decided on the 17-55, 85 1.8, and 135. This combined with my 50d and t1i will be my first legit wedding season setup. Now to find the best deals on everything. Thank you all for helping me thing through this.

I was perfectly comfortable with the Tamron 28-75, and later the Canon 24-70, when I was using crop cameras only. For wide, I had the sigma 10-20. I didn't feel that I needed wider than the 24-70 for things besides ultrawide environment shots.

I was never comfortable with the 17-50 range on a crop camera because it is not very good at DoF control.

85 and 135 are somewhat redundant. The 135 is optically superior but has a higher shutter speed minimum to keep from camera shake blur. 85 is somewhat shorter but is easily long enough on crop cameras for head-only shots.

If I was picking a crop sensor lens set (without expensive L primes) it would probably include Tokina 11-16, Canon 24-70, 85 f/1.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS. My experience has been that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS completely negates the benefits of the 135L in almost all situations where the 135L would be useful.

I would sell the cheap kit lenses and put that money toward the 70-200 f/2.8 IS (version I) instead of the 135L.

For the past handful of weddings I used my 7D instead of 5D as my primary body mostly because my 5D is having some issues and I don't want it to be my primary anymore. There were only a few times that I noticed any difference between shooting FF and Cropped. Mostly during large group portraits and then I would just take a step back and problem solved. Another time was when I was trying to take pictures of my new house and wasn't able to get as much of the interior rooms as I wanted to, but I'm not a real estate photographer so it wasn't a huge deal.

I DID get a 5DII recently but the only reason I did is because I need the higher ISO and FF for birth photography. If I didn't shoot births and am currently trying to make that more of a business priority I would've kept my 7D/40D/5D combo and would've found myself keeping the 5D in my bag more and more. So really, no need to be afraid of xxD cameras! The price is great for someone just starting out and they are very capable of capturing beautiful photos at weddings assuming the person pushing the shutter knows what they're doing.

picked up a 17-55 tonight from a guy on craigslist for a really good deal. Very happy with my choice.

well, its funny. After reading all these threads about how the 40d, 50d, 7d, crop cameras are really great and will produce great wedding photos I chose to go the 50d route. I was just turned down for a second shooter job with a local studio because my "gear is not what they are looking for."

sigh... oh well. Now I know why the 'newbs' just go out and start shooting on their own rather than second shoot. Its way easier to get wedding gigs as a prime than it is a second.

Ahtz wrote in post #11944750
well, its funny. After reading all these threads about how the 40d, 50d, 7d, crop cameras are really great and will produce great wedding photos I chose to go the 50d route. I was just turned down for a second shooter job with a local studio because my "gear is not what they are looking for."

sigh... oh well. Now I know why the 'newbs' just go out and start shooting on their own rather than second shoot. Its way easier to get wedding gigs as a prime than it is a second.

I didnt get my first jobs as a second shooter (which I shot for free) until I had a 5d2, 40d, 24-70, 70-200, and some other odds and ends.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #11944879
I didnt get my first jobs as a second shooter (which I shot for free) until I had a 5d2, 40d, 24-70, 70-200, and some other odds and ends.

Ya, i've read you said that before. It is what it is eh? i'm not sure whats easier to hear, "i'm sorry, your not a good enough photographer for our studio," or "your gear is not what we are looking for."

Sorry to hear that Ahtz. Maybe comfort yourself that someone who would reject you based on your gear is not someone you want to shoot for anyway?

Christina wrote in post #11945335
Sorry to hear that Ahtz. Maybe comfort yourself that someone who would reject you based on your gear is not someone you want to shoot for anyway?

I think you're right Christina. Thats the better way to look at it.

Some studios are looking for compatiblity. It's hard when the primary is shooting a 5d2/85 1.2 and the second has a xxd and 50 1.8 (just using it as an example). Most primary's need all the shots to look as if they came from 1 camera so the second might not be able to crank his/her ISO or shoot wide open at 1.2... Not to mention the 5d2 and xxd's do have a pretty drastic different look to them.

I went through about 4-5 rejections based on gear alone. Once I upgraded everything it was much easier to get second shooting jobs. It also makes you look more experienced, even though we all know that's not the case...

Congrats on your new purchase, get out and shoot!

Well in my case I would reject you as a second because of your back-up camera. I don't mind the 50D but if all you have if that fails is a T1i that would be an issue for me. Also with no flashes I'd have to lend you mind which I could do, but lots of other photographers can't.

Ahtz wrote in post #11920987
I think i've decided on the 17-55, 85 1.8

what i use at every wedding.. good combo on a crop
i rent the 70-200L 2.8 IS or markII version a lot though too.

PeaceFire wrote in post #11949133
Well in my case I would reject you as a second because of your back-up camera. I don't mind the 50D but if all you have if that fails is a T1i that would be an issue for me. Also with no flashes I'd have to lend you mind which I could do, but lots of other photographers can't.

yeah, you have to have at least one good flash.