Question about lenses on camera's?

[NateWagner]

Ok, I'm not sure where I should put this... but I thought this might be a good place.

Say I'm shooting an engagement session in which I have time between my shots. and say I have a 40d and a rebel XT, along with a fast 18-50 and a fast 70-200...

With this in mind, would it be better to use just the 40d and swap the lenses back and forth as needed? or would it be better to to put say the more used lens on the 40d and the lesser used lens on the XT?

The reason I ask is that I hate to switch lenses, but then again, the difference in quality between the XT and the 40d is obviously a fair amount.

What is your opinion?

 

[Josh66]

MY opinion is that it would be better to use the better body and change lenses as needed.

If the 5-10 seconds it takes to change lenses is not a big issue (which I doubt it would be doing an engagement session) I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Why do you hate changing lenses? Dust?
If you're worried about dust - it's going to happen, no matter what. You can be paranoid about it for the rest of your life, or you can just accept the fact that dust is going to get inside your camera and clean it (or have the shop clean it for you) when it gets bad.

 

[NateWagner]

yeah, it's partially the dust, and partially that as I am still somewhat inexperienced I often don't know which lens I would prefer... thus a lot of switching back and forth. At the same time though, while it is a hassle I'm not sure it's too much of a hassle.

 

[Applefanboy]

I would use the 40d and the 70-200. Why even bother with a short lens for an engagement session?

 

[NateWagner]

are you serious? well, probably for the more artsy shots that show the backgrounds etc. It's also much more useful in tighter situations where one doesn't have the room to back up...

but, that's just my point of view.

 

[table1349]

are you serious? well, probably for the more artsy shots that show the backgrounds etc. It's also much more useful in tighter situations where one doesn't have the room to back up...

but, that's just my point of view.

I would consider Applefanboy serious. Sub 70mm is not really the most flattering for formal portraits.

Nothing like using a wide angle lens to make the bride to be look wide, large and in charge.

 

[elemental]

I have to say I'd rather have the 40D with the more used lens (probably the 70-200, right?) and the Rebel XT with the less used lens (the 18-50? Again, guessing). I don't think the XT is a huge image quality loss compared to the 40D. At least, this seemed to be the consensus on the "How much difference does the body make?" thread, but I shoot a low-end Pentax digital body so I can't say for sure. I think one would be hard-pressed to see the difference between a 40D and an XT using the same lens on a reasonably-sized print with appropriate post work anyway.

It seems that I have the minority opinion though, and I don't shoot paid portraits, so what do I know?

 

[elemental]

I would consider Applefanboy serious. Sub 70mm is not really the most flattering for formal portraits.

Nothing like using a wide angle lens to make the bride to be look wide, large and in charge.

I still think, given two nice lenses and a spare body just sitting in the bag, it's worth throwing the short lens on the XT to perhaps grab a wide-angle of the whole scene or something like that (depending on setting). It seems like an enormous waste to leave a nice body and lens at home. 50mm on a crop body isn't awful if you're trying to get some background in the shot as well.

 

[NateWagner]

I guess with many of the engagement shots I like (and the ones I tend to take) I often use a pretty decent mix of the wider shots, and the longer range.

Also, because I don't use a tripod on most of my shots (I haven't developed that habit yet) I find the wider lens to be much easier to handhold as I start running out of light. But, for close-ups the 70-200 is an excellent choice.

anyway...

Taking this beyond engagement sessions, say if I were doing a wedding with the same two bodies and lenses (plus back up lenses etc. as needed) what would the suggestion be?

 

[tsaraleksi]

I go back and forth on this, because I really like to use my nicer camera, but I also like being able to switch between them. My conclusion for events has been to keep one body set up as a versatile group shot body, with a medium zoom (in my case a 24-70/2.8) and a flash for when people say 'take our picture!' , while I have the other as a body for doing enterprise shots that I pick out and can feel free to set up as I like (usually it's a 35L or 85L).

 

[frXnz kafka]

Unless you're shooting high ISO, you're not going to see a major difference between the 40D and the XT. If this is the case, I would definitely use both bodies.

 

[Josh66]

Keep in mind that I don't do this for money, but I think it would be easier to just use one body.

All of the photos will be on one card.
Minor differences between bodies (WB, stuff like that) won't be an issue.
Only one set of buttons/controls to work with.

In a situation where speed matters I can see how two bodies with different lenses on them would be a huge benefit, this just doesn't sound like one of those situations to me.

I could be wrong though, apologies if I am.




It sounds like it's just going to be a personal preferance thing...

 

[Village Idiot]

If I was shooting a wedding, I'd have one lens on each body. If it was something where time wasn't a huge issue, then I'd just switch lenses. Learn to do it fast and buy a blower.

are you serious? well, probably for the more artsy shots that show the backgrounds etc. It's also much more useful in tighter situations where one doesn't have the room to back up...

but, that's just my point of view.

I would use the 40d and the 70-200. Why even bother with a short lens for an engagement session?

I've posted this one numerous times. This was shot with a Sigma 10-20 at 20mm. Learning how lenses act and using those qualities to your advantage can get you some good photos. Plus I like portraiture with UWA lenses.