Getting lights = selling one of the lenses >:/

So here's the situation. I will be getting engaged/married very soon, so I will NOT be able to spend any money on photo equipment for obvious reasons. However, I REALLY want to get into lighting and fine-tuning my portrait skills there so I can start making money off all the equipment I've bought

In order for me to be able to get some lighting, I am going to have to sell on of my lenses I'm looking to get one of the new Elinchrom D-Lite IT kits that have the built-in wireless triggers or something in that price range.

Here's what I currently own:

Canon 1D Mark II (1.3x)
Canon 24-105 f/4L
Canon 85 f/1.2L II
Canon 135 f/2L

As you could imagine, I don't want to sell any of the lenses because I got them for a specific purpose. I use the 85mm for portraits/low-light shooting (at wide apertures), 24-105mm for my walk-around/portraits (IS is very handy at times), and the 135mm for it's ability to isolate/compress for portraits, sports, and low-light shooting.

I have a gut feeling that it's the 135 f/2L that's gonna go, but I absolutely LOVE the lens for it's AF speed and sharpness at f/2. If the 85 had the 135's AF speed...it'd be a no-brainer.

I want to make portrait photography my main focus but would also like to be able to do wedding/event photos on the side. With this in mind, which would you let go and why?

Although its a great lens by all accounts it seems to me that the 135 has to go. If you are going to do event work, they 24-105 is a must. The 85 is a more useful focal length on a crop or even 1.3 than the 135. The 135 is just too long to do portrait work in small spaces.

gonzogolf wrote in post #9727309
Although its a great lens by all accounts it seems to me that the 135 has to go. If you are going to do event work, they 24-105 is a must. The 85 is a more useful focal length on a crop or even 1.3 than the 135. The 135 is just too long to do portrait work in small spaces.

Those were my thoughts

Anybody have a different opinion or advice?

Of course, seeing recent 135L posts in the 5D thread has me lusting for one in a big way

85L -> 85mm f1.8 would free up a LOT of cash.

gonzogolf wrote in post #9727552
Of course, seeing recent 135L posts in the 5D thread has me lusting for one in a big way

lol, I know what you mean there. I have a feeling the 135's gonna be going on sale soon. lmk if you're interested.

Sadly, I cant justify it right now. But damn they are nice.

Here's my opinion: I'd sell the 85L and get an 85 1.8 instead. Don't know how married you are to the L, but this would net you more money than selling the 135L.

Edit: just noticed tkbslc said the same thing...

I should add, the 85 1.8 is my most used lens for wedding work. Its wide aperture, fast AF, and light weight are perfect for event coverage. As you touched on in your OP, the 85L may be a touch too slow to AF for fast-spaced scenarios. I've only ever used the mk 1 85L, but it's AF was far too slow for me.

The 135L will really come in handy for weddings, I would keep it.

I would get rid of the 24-105 f4 unless you doing studio portraits. Even then get tamron 28-75 f2.8 for those and use 85/135 for outdoors. I don't know why folks say 135mm is too long. Indoors maybe but for outdoors I would use 70-200mm f2.8 at 200mm side. Heck I can even use 300mm f2.8 to get nice portraits.

Lyndon Chen wrote in post #9727760
I should add, the 85 1.8 is my most used lens for wedding work. Its wide aperture, fast AF, and light weight are perfect for event coverage. As you touched on in your OP, the 85L may be a touch too slow to AF for fast-spaced scenarios. I've only ever used the mk 1 85L, but it's AF was far too slow for me.

The 135L will really come in handy for weddings, I would keep it.

They say the AF speed is noticeably faster (1.6x faster according to thedigitalpicture) and only bothers me because I shot with the 135L and 70-200 2.8 which have lightning fast AF's. It's not a fast focusing lens by any means though, I will admit. The great thing about portrait photography is that the subject normally don't move very fast

tkbslc wrote in post #9727572
85L -> 85mm f1.8 would free up a LOT of cash.

I know it I just love get sharp images at f/1.2 though.

The other thing that makes me hesitate selling the 135 is the 135's relatively good MFD, especially with tubes. Airbutchie's recent work with extention tubes is amazing if you haven't seen it.

exodusfman800 wrote in post #9727979
They say the AF speed is noticeably faster (1.6x faster according to thedigitalpicture) and only bothers me because I shot with the 135L and 70-200 2.8 which have lightning fast AF's. It's not a fast focusing lens by any means though, I will admit. The great thing about portrait photography is that the subject normally don't move very fast



I know it I just love get sharp images at f/1.2 though.

With studio lights, trust me, you won't be shooting @ F/1.2

I recently bought the 1.8, and am just waiting to sell my F/1.2L - they're different lenses in some ways, but the F/1.8 is such a better value, and most of the lens that the F/1.2L is.

Agamemnon wrote in post #9728020
With studio lights, trust me, you won't be shooting @ F/1.2

I recently bought the 1.8, and am just waiting to sell my F/1.2L - they're different lenses in some ways, but the F/1.8 is such a better value, and most of the lens that the F/1.2L is.

Oh I know that. I'd only be shooting at f/1.2 if I were shooting outdoors using natural light and reflectors. I will agree, I SHOULD have gone with the 1.8, but it's so hard to let go of the 1.2 now that I have it...:o

The other take might be that the 85L would be the one to keep. Once you get married, it will be very hard to tell the wife you want to by a $1900 lens. I think with studio/strobist stuff, you will end up using the zoom a lot, so I would keep your 24-105 for sure.

You don't have to go big with lighting. You can't squeeze $400 or so out for a basic strobist kit without selling anything? I mean if you plan on making money with the stuff, it is more of an investment, isn't it?