Your opinions on the following wedding glass

M

_MikeyB

Messages
346
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm about to buy some lenses for shooting weddings and portraits as I've spent too much on hire fee's.

I'm 100% sure on the following, but I'm undecided on what to buy with my spare cash... (I have about 5K to spend in total)

They will be sitting on a 5D Mkii.

So here's what I will definitely be buying:

24-70 F2.8 L
70-200 F2.8 IS L Mk ii
100 Macro 2.8 IS L

So that's the range I need to shoot covered, but now I can't decide whether to buy either a 85 1.2L as I just love this lens, or go for a 135mm F2 and a 35mm 1.4.

Can anyone give me their opinion? Or would you recommend anything else obvious?

I've got flash, spare body (looking now), lots of batteries, CF cards etc.

Thanks
Mike
 
Last edited:
Why the 100L Macro?

I would leave that out and get a 85L and 35L both at least 2 full stops faster than the 2 zooms.
 
EdBray said:
Why the 100L Macro?

I would leave that out and get a 85L and 35L both at least 2 full stops faster than the 2 zooms.
Click to expand...


The 100 Macro is for the detailed ring shots and I've used it sometimes for detailed dress shots too.

I shot a wedding without it and I did miss it.
 
Last edited:
Not that I shoot weddings, but, the WA (35mm) would be a must for group shots in low light to enable as low an Iso as you can get away with. Slightly surprised you are going with a 100mm macro lens, personallY I would get an 85mm only (and probably the "ordinary" 1.8, as its pretty fast and gives great results), cant really see the point of 100 and 85, care to explain why both? (Bit late - sorry, extension ring on an 85 would be a much lighter option though)
Might consider a 50mm 1.4. The 135L would be very tempting too.

Matt
 
Last edited:
MatBin said:
Not that I shoot weddings, but, the WA (35mm) would be a must for group shots in low light to enable as low an Iso as you can get away with. Slightly surprised you are going with a 100mm macro lens, personallY I would get an 85mm only (and probably the "ordinary" 1.8, as its pretty fast and gives great results), cant really see the point of 100 and 85, care to explain why both? (Bit late - sorry, extension ring on an 85 would be a much lighter option though)
Might consider a 50mm 1.4. The 135L would be very tempting too.

Matt
Click to expand...

Hi Matt, the reason for the 100 is as explained for the detailed ring shots etc.

The 85 1.2 is just a dream lens, I've used it at all my weddings and I adore it, but I've recently been looking at the 135mm and the gorgeous bokeh it produces.

The 35mm would be for group shots. I normally use the 24-70 for them, but I'm thinking the extra stops would be beneficial.

I've also been looking at the Sigma 50mm 1.4 too!!

It's a nice situation to be in, even though a little confusing.. :)
 
What about the 35L, Sigma 50mm f1.4 and the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and the 135L
 
instead of the 85mm 1.2 get the sigma 85mm 1.4, it's half the price and the general consensus is that whilst it has slightly more dof at 1.4, it is overall just as good and better focus speed, you then save money to put towards the other primes
 
EdBray said:
What about the 35L, Sigma 50mm f1.4 and the Sigma 85mm f1.4 and the 135L
Click to expand...

That's a good idea... mmmm..?

I'll have to research the Siggy 85.

joescrivens said:
instead of the 85mm 1.2 get the sigma 85mm 1.4, it's half the price and the general consensus is that whilst it has slightly more dof at 1.4, it is overall just as good and better focus speed, you then save money to put towards the other primes
Click to expand...

As above Joe, cheers.

The23rdman said:
Where's the back up body? ;)
Click to expand...

5D classic. (On the hunt for a decent one at the moment).
 
I think I may hire the lenses I'm debating about and make a decision from that. Otherwise it may cost me even more in the long run.
 
Ok, I'm considering not getting the 100mm Macro now, but instead looking (again) at the 35mm for the group shots (even though the 24-70 should be capable) and then maybe the 135L as it simply looks awesome.

Do you think I would use a 135L if I had the mk 2 70-200?

And is my decision a wise choice or would I miss the macro for the detailed shots?

This shopping business takes a lot of hard research!! But I do love it.

: )
 
daugirdas said:
with 70-200mm f/2.8 and 100mm macro you really don't need 135mm. 85mm 1.2 and 35 1.4 are the one to choose between - depending on your style.
Click to expand...

I've not used the 35L before, but love the 85L.

Decisions, decisions....
 
_MikeyB said:
The 100 Macro is for the detailed ring shots and I've used it sometimes for detailed dress shots too.

I shot a wedding without it and I did miss it.
Click to expand...

You surely don't need a macro lens just for that. I thought every wedding photographer had a supplementary +2 close up lens in their shirt pocket for those kinds of shot. £30.

On the other stuff, add a 16-35L and see how you get on with the new outfit. Aside from a few specialist shots, there is very little you can't do with three f/2.8 zooms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top