FrankLamont
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 556
- Reaction score
- 0
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
So, here's what I've ultimately come up with:
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM - $2000
Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM - $2000
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM - $1300
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM - $800
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - $600
All prices cheapest available in AUD. Prices rounded.
So, in total this is about $6700.
Firstly: I'm about to start taking some weddings and, if I'm lucky, get into some studios to work; I hope I'll be able to pay it off and still be able to live... somewhat. I'll not be buying these instantly, but gradually, over a three year period. In this time, would I sensibly be able to get enough money to pay for these and pay for normal expenditures as well? I haven't got up my pricing yet, but it'd be under $1500 per wedding... maybe even below $1000.
Secondly, I'm not too sure about the 24-105mm f/4... is the IS worth the minus-one stop in aperture, as compared to the f/2.8 on the 24-70mm? The latter is $1000 more here...
Thirdly: is there anything that I don't really need? In all, I'll also be taking landscape and bird shots, but also focusing on weddings, I think I'd need the low aperture (here referring to the above as well).
There's another thing: perhaps I'll save $1000 and get the 17-40mm f/4L instead of the 16-35mm f/2.8L and use the $1000 to get the 24-70mm for the f/2.8? Thoughts? I was thinking of using the wide angle in weddings, but perhaps the 24-70mm would be more practical overall because I don't really need the f/2.8 in landscape. And yet here comes the thing on IS... I doubt Canon is releasing a f/2.8 IS model at this particular level. Anyway, thoughts on this would be appreciated too.
Or, could I just not get the f/2.8 (on either lens) and instead keep the $1000? Would the 50mm, at it's fast f/1.4, suffice for most dark shots? Weddings, particularly? Do these work well enough, in terms of covering the wedding?
I'm confused, as you can see, so help is appreciated.
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM - $2000
Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8L USM - $2000
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM - $1300
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM - $800
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - $600
All prices cheapest available in AUD. Prices rounded.
So, in total this is about $6700.
Firstly: I'm about to start taking some weddings and, if I'm lucky, get into some studios to work; I hope I'll be able to pay it off and still be able to live... somewhat. I'll not be buying these instantly, but gradually, over a three year period. In this time, would I sensibly be able to get enough money to pay for these and pay for normal expenditures as well? I haven't got up my pricing yet, but it'd be under $1500 per wedding... maybe even below $1000.
Secondly, I'm not too sure about the 24-105mm f/4... is the IS worth the minus-one stop in aperture, as compared to the f/2.8 on the 24-70mm? The latter is $1000 more here...
Thirdly: is there anything that I don't really need? In all, I'll also be taking landscape and bird shots, but also focusing on weddings, I think I'd need the low aperture (here referring to the above as well).
There's another thing: perhaps I'll save $1000 and get the 17-40mm f/4L instead of the 16-35mm f/2.8L and use the $1000 to get the 24-70mm for the f/2.8? Thoughts? I was thinking of using the wide angle in weddings, but perhaps the 24-70mm would be more practical overall because I don't really need the f/2.8 in landscape. And yet here comes the thing on IS... I doubt Canon is releasing a f/2.8 IS model at this particular level. Anyway, thoughts on this would be appreciated too.
Or, could I just not get the f/2.8 (on either lens) and instead keep the $1000? Would the 50mm, at it's fast f/1.4, suffice for most dark shots? Weddings, particularly? Do these work well enough, in terms of covering the wedding?
I'm confused, as you can see, so help is appreciated.