Final decision on lenses

photogincollege · Apr 8, 2009

The 70-200 is still razor sharp, though I do tend to prefer primes, but if your doing weddings the 70-200 will provide amazing results, while still providing you with the flexibity and not having to change lenses so often and miss a good shot. The 70-200 and the 24-70 (one on each body) would be a really good choice, but if you would rather have primes, a 35 or 50mm on one camera, and a 85 or 100 on the other would probably serve you pretty well.

FrankLamont · Apr 8, 2009

Oh, in that case I think the 70-200mm...

I was just wondering whether the range made it worth it for weddings.

Of course, would I need the 50mm f/1.4 if I have the 24-70mm and 70-200mm?

Would it still be useful?

photogincollege · Apr 9, 2009

The 50mm is still good for many things. It's got a place in any photographers bag.

TUX424 · Apr 9, 2009

photogincollege said:
The 50mm is still good for many things. It's got a place in any photographers bag.

That being said nothing compares to a f/1.4 except maybe a f/1.2

photogincollege · Apr 9, 2009

True, but there's no way I'd pay the extra for the 1.2 lol.

usayit · Apr 9, 2009

24L, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 135L, 300 f/4L

Faster, cheaper, and wonderful IQ... (another body perhaps?).

Kept me happy for YEARS.... but I do realize some just want zooms.

anubis404 · Apr 9, 2009

FriedChicken said:
It fits nicely.

Is the 70-200mm, at 200mm, adequate for wildlife, though? I don't think so. And the 100-400mm, as grand as it is, hasn't got fantastic reviews when used on a full frame.

It's all very confusing. I'd like to spend less than $8000. So I can pay it back after seven or so weddings.

You're right. A 70-200mm is too short for wildlife, and a 100-400mm is inadequate for weddings. You're going to have to make a choice. Not owning a fast telephoto is probably a very bad idea when shooting a wedding.

photogincollege · Apr 9, 2009

if you do want the 70-200 2.8 but want to shoot wildlife just get a 2x teleconverter and you'll pretty much have a 140-400 5.6.

Montana · Apr 9, 2009

photogincollege said:
if you do want the 70-200 2.8 but want to shoot wildlife just get a 2x teleconverter and you'll pretty much have a 140-400 5.6.

I have both the 1.4 and 2x teleconverters. I only carry the 2x in case I need something to throw at oncoming wildlife. I find it totally useless on my 600mm f/4 IS, let alone on my 70-200 2.8 IS.