5D MK II + New lens lineup?

[MattSepeta]

I have reached the point where a substantial upgrade is required and afforded to aid in my wedding work.

I currently shoot with a 50D + 17-55 f/2.8IS + 60mm f/2 macro + 11-16 f/2.8 + (Rent) 70-200 f/2.8.

My plan: Buy a 5DMKII to use as my main body, with the 50D as my 2nd.

I also plan on selling every lens I currently have, as they are all EF-S and I would like to be able to use any lens on either body.

I plan on...

- Replacing the 17-55 f/2.8IS with the 24-70 f/2.8L ( I wish I could use this on EF! I love my 17-55!!!) I am also considering keeping it and keeping it almost permanently mounted on my 50D as my main camera, but that would almost defeat the point of spending big bucks on the 5DMKII if i ended up using the 50D for most of the shots...

- Replacing the 60mm f/2 macro with the 100mm f/2.8ISL macro.

- Replacing the 11-16 f/2.8 UWA with the 16-35 f/2.8L I (Get an extra mm in the wide end with this on EF, and keep the 2.8, woohoo!)

- Buying a 70-200 f/4LIS. This is a big question. I figure With the 5DMKII ISO capabilities, I can make the f/4 with IS work out good enough. Besides that, the 2.8IS is ungodly heavy, and I have heard the overall IQ on the f/4 is significantly better than the 2.8. Thoughts?

Does anyone have any better lens ideas??

Will these 2.8 lenses be able to keep up in the near dark of churches when coupled with the high ISO of the 5DMKII, because it seems like the photo community is split between "PRIMES!" and "L ZOOMS!"

I would totally go with the fast primes, but I am trying to get over my bad habit of shooting everything wide open, and am worried that once I do a wedding or two with them, I will decide that I would rather deal with the Noise (fixable) than the mega-shallow-focus shots (not fixable).

 

[luminosity]

I wouldn't buy a 24-70L right now if I was you. It's Canon's equivalent to Nikon's 35/1.4, meaning that it's almost certainly on its way out the door but isn't there just yet.

Wait for the new one, which will hopefully be more in line with Nikon's. The current 24-70L is not a particularly good lens, and Photozone's testing showed it to be particularly mediocre on the 5D Mark II. Photozone also needed four (four) samples of it when they tested it on the 50D before they finally got one that wasn't defective.

Nikon's 24-70 is brilliant, and is so even on the D3x. Canon will hopefully be getting a new one that is where it should be in terms of optics.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I've had to make some similar decisions for my 5D2/7D combo. I decided to keep the 17-55 until Canon comes out with a new 24-70, however long that may take. I too decided against the 70-200 f/2.8L IS because it really tips the scales for me; the f/4L IS is much more reasonable to carry around, even if you do lose some subject separation.

As for the UWA, I went with the 17-40 for several reasons. It's a very light, portable lens, which means it goes with me on nearly every outing. It uses 77mm filters, so I can share filters between it and the 17-55. At UWA focal lengths, subject separation is a non-issue, so I would only need f/2.8 to freeze motion, and that extra stop can usually be made up with higher ISO on the 5D2. And the 17-40 is about half the price of the 16-35, of course.

I too sold my 60mm macro for a 100mm f/2.8L IS. Wonderful lens! It's extremely versatile; I use it a lot.

By the way, your 60mm macro lens is f/2.8, not f/2.

 

[MattSepeta]

I've had to make some similar decisions for my 5D2/7D combo. I decided to keep the 17-55 until Canon comes out with a new 24-70, however long that may take. I too decided against the 70-200 f/2.8L IS because it really tips the scales for me; the f/4L IS is much more reasonable to carry around, even if you do lose some subject separation.

As for the UWA, I went with the 17-40 for several reasons. It's a very light, portable lens, which means it goes with me on nearly every outing. It uses 77mm filters, so I can share filters between it and the 17-55. At UWA focal lengths, subject separation is a non-issue, so I would only need f/2.8 to freeze motion, and that extra stop can usually be made up with higher ISO on the 5D2. And the 17-40 is about half the price of the 16-35, of course.

I too sold my 60mm macro for a 100mm f/2.8L IS. Wonderful lens! It's extremely versatile; I use it a lot.

By the way, your 60mm macro lens is f/2.8, not f/2.

Thanks a ton! Well I think you sold me on the 17-40. I have heard so many mixed things about the 16-35 vs 17-40, but it seems like the extra ISO capabilities of the 5dMKII should be able to counter the slower speed of the f/4. Saving the extra $700-800 will be great.

If I am going that route though, I typically only used my 17-55 in the more wide range, so I may just sell the 17-55 and make due with the 17-40 until a revised 24-70 is released, hopefully with IS. Any word on that? Who knows though, I will probably keep the 17-55 to keep it on the 50D though as my 2nd cam.

Sounds like the 70-200f/4L IS is a sure fire win.

- My 60mm is, in fact a f/2. I went with a Tamron

I rarely find myself shooting it wide open though... The depth of field is just wayyy to shallow at f/2, and I find myself wishing it had a longer reach constantly, as well as the IS!!! I have been kicking myself for not spending the extra $500 and getting the canon L straight off the bat!

Thanks for the info!

 

[Kronie]

You guys are going to have a loooong wait for your 24-70 IS MKII.

OP, If I was in your shoes I would get the 24-70, 16-35 and the 70-200 MKII for weddings.

Yes the 70-200 MK II is a bear. So much that I actually returned mine and kept my 70-200 F4 L IS....BUT I don't shoot weddings and I have a 100L and a Sigma 50 1.4 if I need low light or portraits.

You can get away with the f4 and bump up the ISO to a point but there will be times you wish you had the 2.8.......

.....my 0.02

 

[luminosity]

Any word on that?

It's like the 85/1.4G was for Nikon: Always just around the corner. Eventually it will be released. The original was put out in 2002, so it's due to be replaced.

 

[Apple Corps]

The current 24 - 70 f2.8 L is an outstanding lens - many positive reviews.

A word of caution on newer is better. The new 70 - 200 f2.8L shows better contrast and sharpness - but DESTROYED the wonderful bokeh of the version it replaced.

Pixel peepers worry about the charts & specs.

Others focus on the image (as do customers).

All about informed trade-offs.

 

[Phrasikleia]

The current 24 - 70 f2.8 L is an outstanding lens - many positive reviews.

A word of caution on newer is better. The new 70 - 200 f2.8L shows better contrast and sharpness - but DESTROYED the wonderful bokeh of the version it replaced.

Pixel peepers worry about the charts & specs.

Others focus on the image (as do customers).

All about informed trade-offs.

I think the 24-70 is a fine lens, but I really want something with IS. I do a lot of photography where tripods and flash are forbidden and the subjects don't move. The rumors of a forthcoming 24-70 with IS have been persistent enough to keep me patient. In the meantime, I have the 17-40 and the 17-55+7D to hold me over.

 

[Kronie]

Any word on that?

Yea, Photokina 2010! oh, wait I mean spring 2011, still waiting? Oh OK then it gonna happen Photokina 2011!......or is it 2012....

 

[Phrasikleia]

Yea, Photokina 2010! oh, wait I mean spring 2011, still waiting? Oh OK then it gonna happen Photokina 2011!......or is it 2012....

It's true, these rumors have been carrying on for some time now, but I have no trouble believing that Canon would revise a lens that is selling well if for no other reason than to get current owners to upgrade to something newer. The 70-200/2.8 Mark II comes to mind, for example.

I think anyone who has those focal lengths covered or partially covered by a different lens (or camera/lens combo) should consider being patient for a while longer.

 

[HBOC]

You could ask this question here.

The rumours of the 24/70 IS have been around for years..

 

[luminosity]

The current 24 - 70 f2.8 L is an outstanding lens - many positive reviews.

Optically speaking, no it is not. It's merely "okay." The Nikon 24-70 blows it away, and being released five years after the Canon version certainly helps. It's the same deal with the Canon 135/2, which is much better than the Nikon version.

 

[Kronie]

I would rather have a 24-105 F/2.8 IS but wouldn't like the $2,500 price or the weight.

 

[MattSepeta]

Ok, so after reading up a bit more on the matter, I think I will keep the 17-55 f/2.8IS to keep it on my 50D. I shoot mid-range less than I shoot Wide or Tele, especially for weddings it seems, so I have no problem keeping the that GREAT lens in play, even though it will be on the 50D.

I also am leaning towards the 17-40 f/4, because with the UWA aspect (Wider you go, the slower you can go) on top of the High ISO aspect of the 5DKMII, I am not worried about losing the 2.8 offered by the 16-35. The additional 5 mm reach would be nice too, letting me use the 17-40 as more a UWA / short mid-range on the 5DMKII.

Kronie- I think you are right. The 70-200f/4 would be great on the 5dmkII, but the 2.8 would be AMAZING. I think I can stomach the extra $400 or so and buy a used 70-200 f/2.8L IS 1st gen. From what I understand, the 2nd gen is slightly optically superior, but the bokeh became worse? I am not concerned with IQ tests or pixelpeeping, so I would rather have the superior bokeh look and cheaper price over the new version. Thoughts on that?

I am also going to be getting another flash unit, probably a 580EXII, unless there is any reason to go with another 430EX, 430EXII, or 580EX I.

SO----When all is said and done-

-----5DMKII
- 70-200f/2.8L IS I
- 17-40 f/4L
- 100 f/2.8L IS
- 580EXII

-----50D
- 17-55 f/2.8 IS
- 430EX

Just got back from NATCAM, and first laid hands on the 5DMKII. I am amazed at how similar the layout is to the 50D. Phwew. Going from the xTi to the 50D was like relearning cameras, so this should be an easier transition!

Also, Canon is offering some rebates when you buy lenses along a new body. I am tihnking I will need to buy the brand new 5dMKII and the 100mm macro and the 580EXII there. If I bundle them it gets me about $200 in rebates from canon. I figure I will buy the rest used from craigslist or amazon fulfilled used.

Another, more random question--- I am yet to use a tripod at a wedding. Does anyone use them? I used a monopod a few times when I could not get the IS tele rented, and it was a huge pain. Any of you guys shoot weddings with tripods? I am thinking of getting a nice manfrotto setup finally. I am not too keen on having my new gear fall off a cheap tripod.

 

[chrono1081]

The current 24 - 70 f2.8 L is an outstanding lens - many positive reviews.

A word of caution on newer is better. The new 70 - 200 f2.8L shows better contrast and sharpness - but DESTROYED the wonderful bokeh of the version it replaced.

Pixel peepers worry about the charts & specs.

Others focus on the image (as do customers).

All about informed trade-offs.

Agreed. The 24-70 2.8L is an excellent lens. I use it on the 5D2 all the time.

I haven't shot weddings in awhile (I hate it and only do it for broke friends who have no other options) but I used my *gasp!* 16-35 Mark I most of the time. That being said I now have the 16 - 35 Mark II and it was worth every penny and was an amazing upgrade.

The "holy trinity" of zooms + 1 prime (my favorite is the 35 1.4L) is a popular choice for weddings, however most wedding photogs use the 135mm prime verses the 35 1.4.

 

[MattSepeta]

Agreed. The 24-70 2.8L is an excellent lens. I use it on the 5D2 all the time.

I haven't shot weddings in awhile (I hate it and only do it for broke friends who have no other options) but I used my *gasp!* 16-35 Mark I most of the time. That being said I now have the 16 - 35 Mark II and it was worth every penny and was an amazing upgrade.

The "holy trinity" of zooms + 1 prime (my favorite is the 35 1.4L) is a popular choice for weddings, however most wedding photogs use the 180mm prime verses the 35 1.4.

Holy Trinity of Zooms is the UWA (17-40 or 16-35,) the 24-70, and a 70-200, correct?

Regarding the prime, it is quite the difference between a 180 3.5 and a 35 1.4..... What would the appeal of the 180 be for weddings? I don't understand?

If I was to buy a prime, I think it would be the 135f/2L. I rented one, and it was GREAT.

 

[luminosity]

The Canon 180 is different from the Nikon 180, but if I shot weddings, you better believe I'd be using my 180/2.8 (my favorite lens) and not a 70-200.

 

[MattSepeta]

The Canon 180 is different from the Nikon 180, but if I shot weddings, you better believe I'd be using my 180/2.8 (my favorite lens) and not a 70-200.

So if you shot canon and had to chose between using the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and the 180 f/3.5 you would chose the 180? Even with the slower speed and the lack of IS?

Is this simply because of the prime sharpness? I cant imagine myself giving up almost a full stop and the virtual stops afforded by the IS on the 70-200...

Speaking of which... The 70-200f/4 IS has the 4-stop IS. Does anyone know what stabilizer is on the f/2.8IS 1st gen?

 

[jampat]

I have played with a 5Dii at a few weddings and with an f4 lens on it the autofocus didn't cut it. It was just crap, hunting all the time and rarely locking on. The high ISO caught the shot if it could focus, but most of the time it couldn't find focus. I was ready to smash it the first night I used it. My 20D snapped into focus much more quickly with the same glass. With a fast prime on the 5Dii, it is an entirely different beast. It snaps into focus and is a delight to use. Our current MO is fast glass to keep the focus happy, stopped back to f4 or so to have some DOF and let the ISO of the camera creep up.

I haven't used the camera extensively, this is based on a few hours of playing with it. Personally I consider fast glass (minimum 2.8, preferably faster) to be essential to shoot nighttime weddings with the 5dii.

EDIT: I believe the 70-200 2.8 IS gen i has around 3 stops of effective IS.

 

[Phrasikleia]

I am also going to be getting another flash unit, probably a 580EXII, unless there is any reason to go with another 430EX, 430EXII, or 580EX I.

If you'll be using the second flash off-camera and don't need TTL, you might consider the new LumoPro LP160. It has nearly identical specs to the 580EX II and comes with both a PC sync and a minijack port, all for less than half the price. I have one of each now (plus a couple of other Speedlites). It's very useful to have at least one flash that can do TTL for shooting events when you're moving around a lot and have no assistant to hold the flash off-camera for you. However, if you've already got a flash that can do TTL, there's probably no reason to blow extra cash on a second one. Put that extra money towards modifiers instead.

 

[Jason Beck]

I just plunked down and got the 24-70 like 2 months ago and I am happy to say that it has not left my camera since. It produces some tack sharp imagery even@2.8. I have done event work and studio work as well as on location portraiture. It is extremely versatile and performs well in some limited light situations. I enjoy this lens.

I have not been in a situation yet where I wished it had IS. If are aware of your lighting situation then you never have to worry about it lacking IS. As far it optically not being excellent I think that is hogwash. It is a damn fine lens, and worth every penny that it is priced for.

As far as rumors spinning for an IS version. I don't see that happening any time soon. This is a great lens. This, a fast prime and a longer reaching lens would be the staple wedding photographer's package. Well me anyways. I am probably going to buy the 1.2 next. In any case the 24-70L is a great Canon lens. If you have not used it extensively in various situations then I wouldn't pass poor judgement on it. There are cases of defective lenses, but that can be said of any product.

The lens has paid for itself in my case in the photography work I have used it for in the past two months.

 

[Edge100]

Latecomer to this thread, but my $0.02:

In my experience, there are many instances in which f/4 is inadequate at ISO3200 or below. However, in the majority of those instances, f/2.8 would also be inadequate (I'm talking about the not-at-all unusual situation of indoor lighting that is on the order of 1/20s, f/2.8, ISO3200 and you need a focal length ~85mm). In this type of situation, where you really want to be up around 1/80s, you're going to need to gain at least 2 stops of shutter speed. So assuming you have f/2.8 at your disposal, you're going to need ISO 12,800 (i.e. 1/20*f/2.8*ISO3200 is equivalent to 1/80*f/2.8*ISO12,800), which isn't going to be ideal, even on the 5DII.

Now, if you had the 85/1.8 (or, gasp, the 85/1.2L), you'd be gaining 1 1/3 stops of shutter speed right off the bat just by going from f/2.8 to f/1.8, meaning you only need to bump up to ~ISO 5000, which should be acceptable on many modern bodies.

My point is that for a lot of indoor work where flash is not an option, f/2.8 is almost as useless as f/4 (i.e. there is a threshold f/stop, beyond which shutter speeds are simply too low or ISOs too high to get useable images). In this case, I think you absolutely need fast primes, or be prepared to show a lot of your images in B&W (since chroma noise will begin to be an issue). If you have the ability to use on- or off-camera flash, then f/2.8 should be sufficient (and even f/4 will be fine). The obvious limitation here is having shallow DoF, as you mention, but I've never really found that to be too big an issue. Yes, noise is fixable, and I've spoken out about all the concern over high ISO noise in the past, but ISO 12,800 is really pushing the boundaries of what I'd consider acceptable. A slightly soft ISO5000 image is preferable over a "sharp" shot at ISO 12,800, I think, especially since the 12,800 shot isn't going to retain a whole lot of detail anyway.

For outdoor work, f/2.8 is fine.

So my point is this: you'll probably need some fast primes; at least a 50mm (I whole-heartedly recommend the Sigma 50/1.4), and probably an 85 and/or 135. You could use them outdoors too, but for the sake of convenience (and backup!), you'll probably also want a f/2.8 wide zoom and an f/2.8 tele zoom. Consider the new Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM, which is slightly cheaper than the Canon, but seems to offer better IQ (make sure you check AF accuracy before you buy, though). You also need a body capable of top-notch high ISO performance. These things are becoming necessities for wedding photographers; but in the end, they're investments in your business.

For me, a good wedding lens/body kit would be (not including a backup body, which you absolutely need):

- 5DmkII
- 35 f/1.4L
- 50 f/1.4
- 85 f/1.8
- 135 f/2L
- 24-70 f/2.8
- 70-200 f/2.8 (IS, if possible)

This gives you fast primes to cover indoor low-light stuff, zooms (for convenience when light is adequate), and good high ISO performance for the times when even the fast primes aren't enough.

Also, I just saw your C&C thread at Fred Miranda, and it also seems that you might want to think about some off-camera flash modifiers (at least an umbrella for each flash), just to soften your light up a bit.

Incidentally, your wedding work is excellent.

 

[Edge100]

If you'll be using the second flash off-camera and don't need TTL, you might consider the new LumoPro LP160. It has nearly identical specs to the 580EX II and comes with both a PC sync and a minijack port, all for less than half the price. I have one of each now (plus a couple of other Speedlites). It's very useful to have at least one flash that can do TTL for shooting events when you're moving around a lot and have no assistant to hold the flash off-camera for you. However, if you've already got a flash that can do TTL, there's probably no reason to blow extra cash on a second one. Put that extra money towards modifiers instead.

This flash has really interested me since it was previewed on Strobist.com a while back. I love the fact that it has an ETTL-compatible optical slave.

For event work, my off-camera stuff is usually a 580EX in manual mode anyway, so this thing gives me all the 580's power (my main issue with the older Nikon and new Vivitar manual flashes is that they're a bit underpowered once you gel them and are firing through a modifier), without the big price. Hmmmm....

 

[luminosity]

So if you shot canon and had to chose between using the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and the 180 f/3.5 you would chose the 180? Even with the slower speed and the lack of IS?

I wouldn't shoot Canon .

If I did, though, I'd use the 135/2, not the 180/3.5. Nikon's 180 is not a macro lens, and Canon's equivalent to it is the 200/2.8. Nikon's 180 is very light, relatively speaking, and the 24-70 outweighs it by 200g. For me, the 180 is magic because of its combination of weight, compact nature and sharpness. I'm also just plain good at using it after a year of shooting with it.

As far as IS goes, I don't have any desire for it or VR or any other lens stabilizing. My lens stabilizer is a fast enough shutter speed to do the job.

 

[MattSepeta]

Whoaaa

Soo many people to respond to! Again, thank you soo much for all the great input. This is going to be a HUGE purchase that I plan on financing with weddings I have booked already, so all of this advice is taken to heart.

first of all, Edge001- Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate them immensely and it is just one more nail on the proverbial coffin confirming that I am putting my money towards an investment that will pay off ten fold in the next few years

I completely understand where you are coming from with the fast primes. I have loved every fast prime I have shot with extensively- Tamron 60 f/2, canon 50 f/1.4, canon 135 f/2. I love them. The sharpness of good primes is something to behold.

However, in a ROI/bang for buck perspective (in my current situation,) I think it would be a more wise decision to get the staple L zooms over and done with. I have been getting acceptable results (at my current budget pricepoint, at least ) with my 50D. Thinking of shooting with a 5DMKII and its ISO ability makes my mouth (and my potential clients mouths) water!

That being said, I am surely planning on adding some fast L primes to the lineup once I get more weddings under my belt and figure out my preferred focal lengths when shooting weddings! I simply think it is a smarter financial/business decision to get the zooms at this point.


Phraisklia- I would actually like to use the 580EXII in auto on top of the camera. I have a Nikon SB-28 that I use often off camera already and two vivtar 285HVs that have broken on me. Maybe I can sell the 430EX and buy the lumopro so I can have two big guns off camera potentially, with one smaller guy (sb-28).

I probably should think about adding the sigma 50 1.4 right off the bat as well, for the mega-low light situations.