This year I’ve been tuning my gear in function of my style. More specifically, my lens arsenal. But I haven’t reached the end of the tunnel yet. I want to be able to take just what I need and leave out the lenses that don’t see enough “action”. Damn, not an easy task!
70-200 2.8L IS
I used to love this lens, I could shoot all day with it, it would always be on one of my bodies: bridal preparation, ceremony, the shoot, family portraits, candid at receptions…. but it’s getting too heavy and for all other parts of a wedding beside the ceremony there are better prime lenses to use and get better shots. There is just nothing that compares to primes. But there is also nothing that can do what this baby can do …
Usage: So the only action this baby has been seeing lately is the ceremony…. and even then, I revert to the 85mm whenever I can (when I can get close enough without disturbing the scene too much).
Why would I drop it? too heavy, a bad fit in my shootsac and nowadays it’s only used in church.
Why not drop it? I need an alternative to get closer in on the action. I’ll never want to sell this one and when I do I’ll miss her. Can you really do without?
Replace by: Nothing really can replace this baby. And the more I think about it. I’ll never part with this lens, it will probably always come in handy at a big church or so. But if that is it’s single purpose, I will try to do without this lens the next couple of weddings… lets see how that goes …
First L glass I owned. Yes this lens can do pretty much anything but I don’t like it. It doesn’t pack any punch, it doesn’t bring anything extra to the shot.
Usage: I use it for a close-up of the rings (best macro lens in my arsenal, pretty sad huh), and while it’s on I use it to take some more detail shots of the dress and shoes. During receptions I might pop this one on but I might as well use my 16-35 for those “group of friends having a drink” shots. If there is more space to move around I even use the 50 to mingle during the reception.
Why would I drop it? It’s good at everything but it’s doesn’t shine in any area.
Why not drop it? It’s good at everything but it’s doesn’t shine in any area.
Replace by: A macro, the 100mm 2.8 IS pops to mind.
I bought this lens last year, because I wanted something “wide” and I was hoping to make it a part of my style.
Usage: Very little on the 16-24 range , I use it from time to time on those grand wedding venues where you really want the wide shot. It’s handy when you are in a pinch eg. bride preparing in a small rooms or a tiny city hall office room. The 24-35 range comes in handy during receptions.
Why drop it? wide is not my style and this could be replaced by the 24mm or the 35mm ?
Why not drop it? I love the colors. As stated, it sometimes just comes in handy. If the venue is grand … I’ll really regret not having it with me…. an alternative would be to get the cheaper 17-40L and sell this one (save me some $ for the 50 1.2). It’s a shame that this great lens would see the action it really deserves.
I started with the plastic fantastic 1.8. Upgraded to the 1.4. If I got stuck on one focal length. Please let it be 50mm. I easily takes 60% of the shots with this one.
Usage: whenever I can. And when I can’t I find a way to use it anyway!
Why drop it? Never unless I keep eyeballing that 1.2 version.
Why not drop it? I’m starting to see the world through the 50 and I don’t want to be blind again.
Another recent adjustment to my arsenal. During shoots the bulkier 70-200 got replaced by this one.
Usage: Preparation, shoot, candid during receptions.
Why drop it? Nope, eventually it might get replaced by the 1.2 version but I’m too happy with this one for now. Still I have a feeling that 85 as the longest lens doesn’t always get me close enough.
Could the 100mm 2.8 IS be usefull during ceremonies too?
Why not drop it? During eSession or shoot this will always be in my shootsac together with the 50mm and the 16-35 (because I want something wide(r) with me me too.
I start to feel more & more agitated by the zoom lenses. They are bulky and 2.8 is not wide open enough for my style. Primes suit me better, yes you have to switch lenses but that makes you work more. The more you work the better your pictures. When I started in wedding photography, the 24-70 & the 70-200 where all I needed. But now I’m feeling more and more confident during a wedding day and I want my pictures to stand out.
100 2.8L IS
Drop the 70-200 & 24-70 and get the 100mm macro. Decided not to drop the 70-200, it will do church duty
need needed a good macro lens. There are cheaper macro’s out there but this can double as a good portrait lens. and the IS would help me in a dimly lit church. (but is it long enough to replace the 70-200?)
Update: from my first experiences with the this lens it seems like a kickass macro lens, and a good portrait lens in a controlled environment. I’m afraid in dimly lit churches the AF might have some difficulties. After evaluating my LR catalogue it seems that most of my church pictures were made above between the 110mm-200m range.
Sometimes with the 50mm I have to focus too much on the couple, not always able to frame the emotion around them. (first look, entering church, first dance, etc..) I really like shooting wide open. and without flash. Downside: When I get the 35 I know I’ll probably still want to hold on to the 16-35mm.
Made the error of testing this one …. I shouldn’t have. I’m am SO getting me this lens, the 50mm is my thing. But it will have to wait till next year!
So my primary bag would now contain 3 lenses : 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8. Yes, I can totally see me using just these on a controlled shoot. But for the “occasion” these two will still come in handy: 100 2.8 L IS, 16-35 2.8 L, 70-200 2.8 L IS
What I’d like to hear from you: What’s in your camera bag (wedding related). What are your experiences shooting without the über 70-200. How are your experiences with the 100 2.8, the 35mm and 24 mm?
Oh and god help me, both lenses
are /del> were in stock!