Revamping Lineup... advice?

Well, friends and photographers, the time has come for me to look into revamping my lens setup for two reasons:

1) A friend and I are starting a photography business together, focusing on weddings, event photography, and portrait photography. Since we're both students (I'm working on a BFA in photography, she has a BA in photocommunications, starting her grad studies this Fall) and have our own bodies/backup bodies, flashes, etc., it would be good to offer our clients a bit more than one photographer can cover while making it a bit easier on ourselves as well.

2) I'm making my first trip out of the United States to the United Kingdom in January and want to make sure I can capture all those memories, by golly!

My current lineup is: 17-40L, 50mm 1.4 (40D and 20D)
My revamp idea is: 24L(maybe 35L? not sure yet), 17-55 IS, 85 1.8
(after a bit of saving and payment from a few design jobs)

As much as I'd hate parting with my 17-40L, I think it would be for the better for low-light shots and the like, thus making it easier for me and produce better results for our clients.


Note that we are also planning on renting the 70-200 2.8 IS for such events, as needed, from a friend in the business.

Suggestions are welcome and appreciated. I think my revamp idea will add a lot more versatility to my.... CURRENT lineup... but I am interested in hearing what you guys think. My budget is in the area of what I have up there. However, turning this into a "which lens is better?" thread will result in anger and sadness, so please don't jump on that ship Thanks!

With your intended work, will you be able to cope with losing the ultra-wide end of your lens line-up? 24mm on a 20D/40D might not be wide enough for some purposes.

If you might occasionally need the 17mm end of your 17-40mm then I would keep that and concentrate your revamp on something more popular with wedding and portrait photographers.

Mike

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #5926983
With your intended work, will you be able to cope with losing the ultra-wide end of your lens line-up? 24mm on a 20D/40D might not be wide enough for some purposes.

If you might occasionally need the 17mm end of your 17-40mm then I would keep that and concentrate your revamp on something more popular with wedding and portrait photographers.

Mike

Selling a 17-40 to get a 17-55 doesn't change the wide end.

In any case, yes, the proposed lens set is probably pretty much what you will get recommended for these events on an XXD body by most people. You might sit and wait a bit on the wide prime until you decide if you will be using it and if so whether you need 24mm or 35mm (probably 24mm).

JeffreyG wrote in post #5927186
Selling a 17-40 to get a 17-55 doesn't change the wide end.

Very true. I suppose it would help if I read the post properly and took it all in.

Mike

(Late response... had to go to sleep at some point of the night)

LoL. Thanks, guys. I wouldn't dare ask whether a 24-70L or a 17-55 IS lens would be the more recommended, and I know my personal style involves a lot of wider shots, so that was answered by myself. The reason for the wide prime also has to do with my UK trip and the amount of indoor shots I'd probably be taking. The 17-55 would probably have that covered, but I've become such a prime junkie lately (I own the 50mm 1.4 and while I love it, it's a bit of an odd focal length on my 40D).

Mike, I must admit I was a bit corn-fused after reading your first post, because you know a 17-xx EFS camera is the same as an EF 17-xx on a full frame (TOTALLY kidding... I repeat... totally kidding)

For the wide prim I have a feeling that the 35mm might become more useful at the weddings and such than the 24mm. I would rent them both before your trip and see which one you like better.

Thanks Cartoonbear. By the way, I'm still waiting for my $1200 from your dad for this month. Kidding!

I'm trying to walk around with my 17-40 set on 35mm and 24mm to see which focal length I could do best with, and it's seeming like the 24mm is way better to me (35L is one of the trinity lenses, which would be, more or less, 24L on a cropped body), but I am considering renting them to see how it goes :P

Love doing just that, setting a particular focal length and walking around like that.

Only thing is that you don't get the crazy DOF

$1200 a month....I think I'd have just about every prime by now. Haha...renting!? why? just borrow mine

do not, get rid of the 17-40L, i love that thing more than my left hand. I'd say maybe look into a 70-200 range lense, cover more grounds, but that's just my 2 cents ;P

I also love my 17-40, but I've been starting to do a lot of indoors photography and low-light photography and that usually doesn't cut it without a flash. I do enjoy it, but the 17-55 (from my experience) really has the edge with the f/2.8 and IS for weddings and for my UK trip. I still hope to have either the 24L or 35L to satisfy my cravings for primes (and L's, darn it. Love those colors!), so I guess that's what the debate right now is. We'll have the 70-200 end covered thanks to a connection.

Sorry for the bump... just wanted to ask a quick question for those who shoot weddings on crop bodies:

Since I will have my own 17-55 IS, I was debating between the 24L and 35L as my fast prime (in addition to the 85 f/1.8). Just wanted to ask which focal length is more used by you wedding photographers who may use either one on a cropped body. Did the forum search and got such mixed opinions!

I just spent the evening shooting with my 17-40 at both 24 and 35mm.

24: I felt as if I had to get RIGHT up against things in order to be able to frame and compose. Debating whether or not my 17-55 will be able to take care of the wide range.
Seemed too wide for people shots.

35: Focal length felt much more natural and I felt as if I were able to give my subjects and me some breathing room. Better bokeh possibilities, as well! I enjoy the focal length on my EOS3 more, as well, since I have a photography class this semester and I believe it'll be more neutral.

So, as of now, it looks liked I may be opting for the 17-55 and 35L combination over the 24L (and 17-55). I'd appreciate hearing some thoughts from people with such experiences!

Seriously, is there supposed to be a difference between the 24mm L and the 24 non-L, both at 2.8 or 4 ?
I've tried both many times, I magnified, I looked close... nada.
Anyone?

What about between both 35s, same f/ ?

Have a look at this.

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=5782063&po​stcount=32

Since you are starting a business, I guess you have to look for the cost of your equipment relative to the income it can generate. Although the 35L produces excellent colours, nice bokeh, will the income it generates overcome it's cost?

I guess you have to bear in mind your target group. Since you both are starting out, are you really going to get high paying and demanding clients before you've established any reputation? With the practicalities of wedding photography can you see much use for a prime at present time with a limited investment budget.

After a couple of weddings, you will be able to see a trend. Think investment, necessity and income generation.

Would a 50/1.4 give you good bokeh as well at a cheaper price? Will you need a very wide angle for group shots?

I only a poor, meagre hobbyist who takes so-and-so photos. However, running a business is different. You need to generate income efficiently with low costs. Given that the price difference between the 70-200L 2.8 IS and 35L is not very big, I would probably go for the telephoto initially. It will give me many more headshots of the bride and groom and candids of the guests. You also mentioned event photography and portraiture where I see 70-200 being probably very useful. 35L is something I would consider renting instead as I cannot imagine it will give many more shots over and above the 70-200L.

The business aspects of the lens are a bit secondary because I'm also in need of a standard-wide prime for my film body because I am an art photography major at a university and need my own durable equipment for assignments. We have plenty of bookings for both weddings and portraits over the next few months as well as a very good reputation due to interning we did for a wedding photographer, access to both the 10-22 Canon and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS among others (each have 17-55IS), so the question remains: which focal length people find most useful at weddings: 24 or 35, since this lens will serve its purpose for my academics as well and I really wouldn't care to own a 70-200 again (renting will suffice). Thanks for your input! I'm pretty sure I'm going for the 35L as it will suit both purposes quite well in addition to what we already have, after researching it further and doing more field tests.

madhatter04 wrote in post #5965551
Sorry for the bump... just wanted to ask a quick question for those who shoot weddings on crop bodies:

Since I will have my own 17-55 IS, I was debating between the 24L and 35L as my fast prime (in addition to the 85 f/1.8). Just wanted to ask which focal length is more used by you wedding photographers who may use either one on a cropped body. Did the forum search and got such mixed opinions!

I just spent the evening shooting with my 17-40 at both 24 and 35mm.

24: I felt as if I had to get RIGHT up against things in order to be able to frame and compose. Debating whether or not my 17-55 will be able to take care of the wide range.
Seemed too wide for people shots.

35: Focal length felt much more natural and I felt as if I were able to give my subjects and me some breathing room. Better bokeh possibilities, as well! I enjoy the focal length on my EOS3 more, as well, since I have a photography class this semester and I believe it'll be more neutral.

So, as of now, it looks liked I may be opting for the 17-55 and 35L combination over the 24L (and 17-55). I'd appreciate hearing some thoughts from people with such experiences!

I think you answered your own question by formulating it the way you did.

From your description it sounds like you are much more comfortable with the 35L, so my suggestion is to go with it.

Personally, I went with the 24L, but for my own reasons. That is what it is all about, one's own reasons and preferences, and it is good that we actually have the choice...

Kind regards, Wim