What two lenses do you want a second shooter to own?

Adam_M

Adam_M

Messages
1,065
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
No
Hey everyone,

A simple question that I want to put out there to everyone who shoots weddings, if a second shooter only had two lenses, ANY two lenses including crazy things like the 50mm 1.2, what would you want them to be?

Just interested to see what people say! I assume I know already, but I'm sure someone may say something that surprises me.
 
50 1.2 and 70-200 IS II 2.8L Id say... But at the end of the day if you're a great photographer with even an iPhone camera then thats all that matters ;)
 
God said:
50 1.2 and 70-200 IS II 2.8L Id say... But at the end of the day if you're a great photographer with even an iPhone camera then thats all that matters ;)
Click to expand...

Interesting response, I put the 50mm 1.2 up there for a reason.

I'm currently debating between a 50mm 1.2 and the 24-70 2.8, as I can get them through work this year with a heafty discount (but I can only do this once per year!) and I'll be getting my 70-200 2.8 L IS back second hand.

I was thinking, maybe the 50mm 1.4 and the 24-70 2.8 would be good, but I do love love love getting as wide open as I can! definitely looking for whatever get's me the best bang for buck in this scenario. I already have a 85mm 1.8, which I love.

A lot of people used to recommend getting 16-35mm 50mm and 70-200mm... stating the 24-70 as a boring lens, but I think this was back when the only FF camera was the 1Ds!
 
F/1.2 is soooooooo shallow and TBH, realistically how much would you actually shoot at that aperture and get keepers when you're working fast at a wedding? Personally, I'd be saving money, getting a f/1.4 if I felt the need to go for a prime like a 50mm. F/1.4 is still extremely shallow enough to get that wafer thin DoF you're after.

Personally though versatility for me is key whenever I shoot; quality zooms, albeit with slower maximum apertures than most primes, are far more flexible IMO, especially when combined with bodies that can handle high ISOs - 24-70mm you mention is a cracker on something like a 7D, 5D2 or one of the 1D bodies..
 
Adam_M said:
Interesting response, I put the 50mm 1.2 up there for a reason.

I'm currently debating between a 50mm 1.2 and the 24-70 2.8, as I can get them through work this year with a heafty discount (but I can only do this once per year!) and I'll be getting my 70-200 2.8 L IS back second hand.

I was thinking, maybe the 50mm 1.4 and the 24-70 2.8 would be good, but I do love love love getting as wide open as I can! definitely looking for whatever get's me the best bang for buck in this scenario. I already have a 85mm 1.8, which I love.

A lot of people used to recommend getting 16-35mm 50mm and 70-200mm... stating the 24-70 as a boring lens, but I think this was back when the only FF camera was the 1Ds!
Click to expand...

To be honest, if you can get it at discount do it but... see below

Also, I have the 1.4 and its an amazing lens, see my flikr for some shots with it and the 5Dii.

specialman said:
F/1.2 is soooooooo shallow and TBH, realistically how much would you actually shoot at that aperture and get keepers when you're working fast at a wedding? Personally, I'd be saving money, getting a f/1.4 if I felt the need to go for a prime like a 50mm. F/1.4 is still extremely shallow enough to get that wafer thin DoF you're after.

Personally though versatility for me is key whenever I shoot; quality zooms, albeit with slower maximum apertures than most primes, are far more flexible IMO, especially when combined with bodies that can handle high ISOs - 24-70mm you mention is a cracker on something like a 7D, 5D2 or one of the 1D bodies..
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this. The thing to remember is that the 1.2 can go as low as 1.2 but you would rarely use it this open, Just the same as the 1.4 really. The reason to buy these lenses is that just above the widest aperture is where they are the strongest - like on the 1.2 any shots at 1.6~ upwards will be amazing, and something like that on the 1.4 as well. THey just have better quality.
Whereas the 1.8 will excel more at around 2.1 ish.

Something to consider. I stand with my point though, the reason people get great shots with all 3 of these lenses is because they know what they are doing, and thats what counts :)
 
Adam_M said:
Hey everyone,

A simple question that I want to put out there to everyone who shoots weddings, if a second shooter only had two lenses, ANY two lenses including crazy things like the 50mm 1.2, what would you want them to be?

Just interested to see what people say! I assume I know already, but I'm sure someone may say something that surprises me.
Click to expand...



They need a 70-200 or similar, don't care if they use that all day. That way they can pick off candids etc while I'm shooting. If they are going to the grooms house for prep. Shots they will need something wider though.
 
postcardcv said:
I'd definitely go for a 24-70 f2.8 before the 50 f1.2, the 24-70 is a very useful lens... that said for me the key lens for a second shooter is a 70-200 f2.8, as long as there's one of those I wouldn't mind too much what the second lens in the back was.
Click to expand...

The 70-200 is something I didn't really think about, but actually this isn't a bad idea! the MK II has just come out, and is going to give me the best bang for buck with this discount. The MK II fixes everything that I didn't like about my old MK I that I had too...

God said:
Absolutely agree with this. The thing to remember is that the 1.2 can go as low as 1.2 but you would rarely use it this open, Just the same as the 1.4 really. The reason to buy these lenses is that just above the widest aperture is where they are the strongest - like on the 1.2 any shots at 1.6~ upwards will be amazing, and something like that on the 1.4 as well. THey just have better quality.
Whereas the 1.8 will excel more at around 2.1 ish.
Click to expand...

Definitely, the 50 1.4 is supposed to be good at F/2 and above, I know my F/1.8 was great! but it fell apart after a few years. Maybe I'll just get the F/1.4... just realised I'm talking to God. funky.

lensflair said:
They need a 70-200 or similar, don't care if they use that all day. That way they can pick off candids etc while I'm shooting. If they are going to the grooms house for prep. Shots they will need something wider though.
Click to expand...

You know, you're right! absolutely right. Okay, that's me done, I'll get that one first. Thanks :) though I need them all eventually, getting the first one right here is very important...
 
Adam_M said:
The 70-200 is something I didn't really think about, but actually this isn't a bad idea! the MK II has just come out, and is going to give me the best bang for buck with this discount. The MK II fixes everything that I didn't like about my old MK I that I had too...



Definitely, the 50 1.4 is supposed to be good at F/2 and above, I know my F/1.8 was great! but it fell apart after a few years. Maybe I'll just get the F/1.4... just realised I'm talking to God. funky.
Click to expand...

I get that a lot... lol

Like I said, I have the 1.4 and its a stunning lens. Absolutely considering the 1.2 but who wouldnt? ;)


Adam_M said:
You know, you're right! absolutely right. Okay, that's me done, I'll get that one first. Thanks :) though I need them all eventually, getting the first one right here is very important...
Click to expand...

I know somewhere thats doing the f4 for 350 if youre interested...?
 
postcardcv said:
I'd definitely go for a 24-70 f2.8 before the 50 f1.2, the 24-70 is a very useful lens... that said for me the key lens for a second shooter is a 70-200 f2.8, as long as there's one of those I wouldn't mind too much what the second lens in the back was.
Click to expand...


You could easily shoot an entire wedding on the 24-70, its my bread and butter lens, couple this with the 70-200 and your set. Anything you want to add is icing on the cake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top