Got the chance to work with 2 couples on Saturday, last day I was in town and working . . . well I guess I'm still working now (workaholic I guess). Anyway, 2 e-sessions with the twins (5D2x2) and absolutely love them. Lot more of natural light shooting with these couples, lot of inspiration from Kaiser, Sam, Gabe, etc . . .

Anyway, fun session, cool couple, perfect weather (65 degrees and bright and sunny all day!).

Would appreciate some C&C very much.

NOTE: I'm working from my laptop, so WB might be a little cool, but hopefully I'm pretty close. All are straight out of LR, no additional edits. More on blog.

kit: 5D2x2, 24L, 50L, 85L, 100 macro, 70-200

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Love the set brother... sick stuff as always. =o)

Loving the feeling on 6 and 11... good job Spence!

-tmiller
Red Vine Studios
http://redvinestudios.com

Very nice stuff and great colors!

-Zach

Is number 6 the Homestead TRA Revenge pack?

-tmiller

Out of curiosity which were the 24L? Thinking about buying one.

tmiller wrote:
Is number 6 the Homestead TRA Revenge pack?

-tmiller

All processing is straight out of LR. Presetopia.com

sboerup wrote:
tmiller wrote:
Is number 6 the Homestead TRA Revenge pack?

-tmiller

All processing is straight out of LR. Presetopia.com

Looks really close... nice job.

-tmiller

13 is a sweet set up. Do you scout out locations like that? Classic Spencer along with 5 and 7. These kick butt. I also like the natural light in your work. It looks.......natural. 5DII looks good on you. I bet it really sings when the lights go out.

**note, I owe this dude huge for a heads up on a 5DII for me. Coming Christmas Eve bud. THANK YOU!! Fruitcake headed your way man.

~Sam

Really like 1,2,11. nice set!

Rich

I love the colors on #1.

13 = awesome.

Beautiful work Spence! I'm really digging #'s 1, 11a, 12, 14. Everytime you tell me to get a lens (in this case the 85L) you go and show it off to try to force my hand. I'm not liking you at the moment, sir.

My critique: I think she looks really pretty when she's smiling, but I don't think the 'no smiling' thing works as well for her. So on shots like 3 & 4 I don't think she looks her best.

Nice job bud!

Beautiful series, Katie and Dennis looked like they had a good time too

Thanks all for the comments and critique, always appreciated!

j_ambrose: 7, 9, 11a, 12, 14

Sam, I've been to both locations before, but there's always something different to find each time. All natural baby, swing low sweet chariots . . .

Tony, thanks for the words. 85L is just dreamy. I'm sure you need more year end deductions . . . I agree with you on some about her "non-smiling" ones, sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't work as much, maybe because her smile is just so contagious!

Thanks Stephanie, Zach, Pittman, littreal, mineymole.

Spence:

Great photos- I wanted to talk about equipment for a sec. Other than in #4, I don't see the advantage of the 24/50/85L's over their inexpensive counterparts, at least for these photos. Sure, they are sharper at 100% and probably have less CA, but at least for bright daytime pics I'm not seeing the cost advantage. Just sayin'. Some of these lenses may have an advantage in low-light, however with the 5DII and ISO6400 (which is TOTALLY usable BTW, almost no detectable grain in a 4x6 print), even the 24-70L can attain shutter speeds that a 24L on the original 5D could in the dark.

Really great set, Spencer. I, too, am loving the natural light. You are really tearing it up. Favorites are 14 and 9.

I have too many deductions this year, but I want to get the presets from your site. Maybe Jan 1?

Quick question- - do you find the calibration on your laptop off? I have problems calibrating mine -- all my black&Whites show up cool -- and I'm using a warm split tone, so I know something's off. I just recalibrated last night and it still looks the same. I guess I'll just have ot work solely on my monitor.

Andrew Welsh wrote:
Spence:

Great photos- I wanted to talk about equipment for a sec. Other than in #4, I don't see the advantage of the 24/50/85L's over their inexpensive counterparts, at least for these photos. Sure, they are sharper at 100% and probably have less CA, but at least for bright daytime pics I'm not seeing the cost advantage. Just sayin'. Some of these lenses may have an advantage in low-light, however with the 5DII and ISO6400 (which is TOTALLY usable BTW, almost no detectable grain in a 4x6 print), even the 24-70L can attain shutter speeds that a 24L on the original 5D could in the dark.

Well you've already listed 3 reasons (sharpness, CA, low-light). To that I'll ad the extra stops of background blur. A 24L can blur a background whereas a 16-35 at 24mm really can't do much.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way though. I've taken tons of shots with my 70-200 2.8 IS that I could've easily taken with a 70-200 f4. But I've also taken tons that would've been a blurry mess with the f4.

Does that mean its worth it? I guess it depends on how and where you shoot and how much money you have to spend on lenses.

Spencer, how do you balance usage of the 50L and the 85L. I tried this combo once and found myself either using one lens or the other most of the time. They seem awful close in focal length to me.

Andrew, about the equipment. I agree, for the most part if I'm outdoors, most lenses will perform admirably and quite comparably. The 24 2.8 will be just as sharp, less DOF, and many other reasons why cheaper lenses aren't in my bag. As you understand a lot of my work is with weddings, and I need fast glass for reception work. I don't necessarily buy them because they are fast (but of course, the 24/50/85 are the main purpose I bought them), but other than being fast, they are: sharper, better bokeh (quite significantly so on the 85 and 50L, the bokeh is unlike any other lenses), accurate AF, build quality, residual value, etc . . .

I could get cheaper, but I will still need fast 1.2 / 1.4 glass anyways, so no point to having 2 sets of lenses. I prefer primes over zooms, but both find their need in my bag. 17-40 is an excellent lens, and great value as well.

I used to buy and sell lenses like an addict . . . I was always trying out new gear and selling the stuff I didn't find I particularly liked. If it's in my bag, it's deserved it's space there . . . and all my lenses have been well tested and compared to many other lenses (including Tamron and Sigmas) and I kept these ones because they were the best for my needs.

Now that the 5D2 allows you to shoot at higher ISO without so much thought about more noise (even at 1600), but the lower ISO the better for me and my style. Prime lenses arent so much needed anymore, but, my 24 1.4L stopped down to 2.8 is almost as sharp as the 85L (which I just discovered how good it was). I never cared for the 24-70 . . . the sharpness, bokeh and speed of the primes is leagues ahead in my book.

deepbluejh wrote:
Spencer, how do you balance usage of the 50L and the 85L. I tried this combo once and found myself either using one lens or the other most of the time. They seem awful close in focal length to me.

I think they compliment each other very well. I had the 35L/85L, but sold the 35 to get the 24/50, which I'm extremely happy with. 50L is a great walk around lens, great for receptions and "getting ready" shots, but the 85L just has a bit more reach when I need it. The AF isn't as fast, so the 50L gets used a little more in close.

Deb - There is going to be a holiday sale tomorrow on the LR presets, but they will still be around in January!

I use the EyeOne Display 2 for calibration, and it seems pretty close. Might be a tad cooler IMO . . . this is on a MBPro . . . but the Mac standard calibration is what I used and it is very close as well.