Do I need a 5th lens?

R

-Rob-

Say Cheese!...Oh, and call me Susan
Messages
3,931
Edit My Images
No
I hate it when people come on here asking what lenses to buy but I’m going to do it anyway.

Next month I am going to be replacing my entire kit. The current plan is to get:

Canon 5D MkIII
Canon 16-35mm f2.8 MkII
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS MkII
Sigma 50mm f1.4
Sigma 85mm f1.4

I was also thinking of a 100mm f2.8 IS Macro but I’m not in to macro photography so I really don’t think I want it or need it so it leaves me with a £500-600 hole in my pocket for a lens.

I will be shooting wedding and portraits so any suggested lenses need to be suitable for that.

I have considered a 135mm f2 but my mate has one that I can borrow any time I want and I think there is too much similarity with the 70-200mm which can give almost as a good a result.

Do I really need a 5th lens just because I have the budget for it? The 4 lens above give me 16-35, 50, 85 & 70-200. Do I really need to fill the gaps?

Where would your money go if you were in my shoes?



PS – back-up body and flashes etc is already sorted!!
 
Spend it on lights. :)

Edit: Oops! See that's sorted.
 
I shoot Nikon so can't really comment on specific lenses but why have you decided against a 24-70 f2.8 lens? This seems to be the bread and butter lens of most photographers. I would be tempted to ditch the 50mm f1.4. Just my opinion though and people's shooting style is different.
 
If the 16-35mm is for weddings I'd forget it, terrible lens and just sold mine. My 24-70/2.8 gets a lot of use and I also like the Canon 85mm/1.8. I use the 100/2.8L Macro for the ring shots and for details, both bridal prep and reception.
 
Last edited:
135 2.8 soft focus?

Matt
 
Just to one body, and 5 lenses?? Get another body I would say. You already have cross over focal lengths - why complicate it even more?
 
Rob has already said "back-up body and flashes etc is already sorted" Actually, in terms of back-up I'd also be looking at a backup wide angle
 
Last edited:
OneTen said:
If the 16-35mm is for weddings I'd forget it, terrible lens and just sold mine.
Click to expand...

What makes you say its a terrible lens? I've read a lot of reviews that say it is excellent.

As for getting a 24-70mm. I shot a wedding last week and took 900 shots. Only 23 of them were with a 24-70. It's just not a lens I like.
 
I'd read the same reviews before buying it. It's horrendous if you include people, they become distorted unless dead central, it's also not very sharp. I've used three different lenses and all were as bad, I have wedding photographer friends who have experienced the same.

I use the 24-70 mainly at the 24mm end, but other than that it doesn't get much use. I'm actually making it a back-up lens now and using the 24mm f/1.4L
 
Last edited:
-Rob- said:
I'm not sure what this post means?
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting you look at a 135 lens, used to be the length of choice on 35mm film bodies for portraits, so should be good on a FF body. Canon do a Soft Focus 2.8 version,you dial in sf (or not), dreamy pictures, very old Hollywood would suit some people very well.

Matt
 
Personally, I'm a great believer in modern zooms - in many cases, they optically outperform some older primes, so I'm another who would (and has) go for a 24-70 f/2.8, either 2nd hand or from a 3rd party manufacturer. My Sigma (Nikon fit) version live on my D700 most of the time, and the other 2 zooms (12-24 Sigma and 70-300VR Nikon) take their turn when necessary. I also carry 3 primes for specific situations - an 8mm fisheye, a 50mm f/1.8 and a 105mm Macro VR. Their specialist uses? Fisheyes are possibly the only lens whose effects are almost impossible to recreate using software. I like the distortions and round image the 8mm gives me and use it quite a lot. The 50mm comes out to play in low light situations and when I want that field of view with a shallower DoF than the 24-70 f/2.8 gives me. And the Macro? Well, the clue's in the nomenclature!
 
If you are asking yourself if you need a 5th lens, the answer is no :)
 
MatBin said:
I'm suggesting you look at a 135 lens, used to be the length of choice on 35mm film bodies for portraits, so should be good on a FF body. Canon do a Soft Focus 2.8 version,you dial in sf (or not), dreamy pictures, very old Hollywood would suit some people very well.

Matt
Click to expand...
I've highlighted the reason why I'd never buy that lens. I want pin sharp images not soft focus. I've had a Nikon 135DC wanting sharp images and sold it because very few shots were sharp.
 
Last edited:
-Rob- said:
What makes you say its a terrible lens? I've read a lot of reviews that say it is excellent.

As for getting a 24-70mm. I shot a wedding last week and took 900 shots. Only 23 of them were with a 24-70. It's just not a lens I like.
Click to expand...

I found 24-70mm fantastically useful for weddings. Obviously it is only f/2.8, not 1.4 so it can't do those tricks with incredibly thin DOF, but it's great otherwise.
Or you may get 35mm f/1.4L or the Samyang version.

Ring shots and shooting from the back? - 300mm f/4L IS.
 
-Rob- said:
I've highlighted the reason why I'd never buy that lens. I want pin sharp images not soft focus. I've had a Nikon 135DC wanting sharp images and sold it because very few shots were sharp.
Click to expand...
Rob you dont have to have the SF on all the time, its supposed to be sharp when its turned off, my copy looks pretty good and whilst I understand you want sharp do all your customers? Just a thought and I dont want to start an argument with you :)

Matt
 
i had a 24-70, optically it's a great lens and very versatile, but not 'magical'.

I sold mind and got as 35L. best thing i ever did. if you've got an opportunity to give a 35L a spin, give it a go.

Obviously, it's a bit more than your budget, but it's well worth it. Something about the look you get from that lens, it's very special indeed.

In terms of the end result, the 135L is very similar to the Sigma 85 - the background blur is very similar (and both are what i'd describe as bokehtastic portrait lenses), but personally and it is subjective, i just prefer the 135L. Whilst there are certain types of narrow dof shots that work better on the Sigma 85, the 135L focuses much, much faster and the bokeh is just slightly creamier.
 
Last edited:
OneTen said:
Rob has already said "back-up body and flashes etc is already sorted" Actually, in terms of back-up I'd also be looking at a backup wide angle
Click to expand...


AH, I didn't spot that - In that case, still no. He has enough to do a wedding. Get a real good roller bag maybe?

I have 4 lenses, and a back up body, and would be very confident doing a wedding right now. 24-70, 50mm, 105mm macro and 70-200 + TC [if needed] - I also have 3 flashes. I know of wedding photographers who pretty much use their 24-70 on one body, 70-200 on the other, and that's it. They'll have more J.I.C, but rarely use them. A macro is always handy for ring shots and dress/shoe detail. But other than that, the main 2 on 2 bodies, good to go.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
AH, I didn't spot that - In that case, still no. He has enough to do a wedding. Get a real good roller bag maybe?.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, I finally bought a roller bag on Sunday. I got a Delsey Pro Trolley 52 half price at an exhibition.
 
cuthbert said:
i had a 24-70, optically it's a great lens and very versatile, but not 'magical'.

I sold mind and got as 35L. best thing i ever did. if you've got an opportunity to give a 35L a spin, give it a go.

Obviously, it's a bit more than your budget, but it's well worth it. Something about the look you get from that lens, it's very special indeed.

In terms of the end result, the 135L is very similar to the Sigma 85 - the background blur is very similar (and both are what i'd describe as bokehtastic portrait lenses), but personally and it is subjective, i just prefer the 135L. Whilst there are certain types of narrow dof shots that work better on the Sigma 85, the 135L focuses much, much faster and the bokeh is just slightly creamier.
Click to expand...
The 35L and 135L are the obviousl choices to fill the gaps if I don't opt for the 100mm Macro but as I said in my OP, my mate has the 135L and he also has the 35L so I can borrow them whenever I want. The question is, is it worth getting my own copies of them. We shoot together a lot and will borrow eachothers kit a lot. We're trying to avoid duplicate lenses but I guess if we want the best then it may be unavaoidable.
 
From my experience, these are the following main uses of your lenses at a wedding only:

16-35 / 17-40 - wide shots of church, venue. Group shots, wide location shots of the couple during photo "walk" if you take them on one.

35L - just always seems to be the perfect focal length for small group shots indoors. Think those moments where a table will say "can you take our picture please?" - the 35L just always seems to be right! Also has many other uses for portraits (close up), low light and action shots (first dance, the ceremony, etc)

50 - dont own one, but same as above but slightly longer. Maybe less suitable indoors?

85 - you already own an 85 so know what its for... fantastic focal length though for almost anything

135 - again, you know pretty well. F2.0 allows for good low light potential although you need to keep shutter speed up fairly high. Excellent lens.

70-200 2.8 IS - good all rounder lens. Good at everything.

It seems your main problem is in the 16-50mm region, as anything over 50mm is covered.
Which leaves you with a few choices

17-40 L
16-35 L
24-70 L or third party equivalent
24L
35L
50L

As you know, I own the 17-40 L and think its great. Indoors for those wide church shots, you'll likely be at f8 anyway, so not sure the 2.8 of the 16-35 will be that important here...high ISO and f5.6 - f8 is likely to be what you use. For outdoors, f8 isnt going to be a problem, and you can handhold this lens at pretty slow shutter speeds, depending on subject movement.

Also... dont rule out the option of 85mm + extension tubes... this is what I use for my ring shots and it works really well. Even just a 12mm extension tube allows you got get really close... Not sure a 100mm macro would be needed tbh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top