it is really not the same, because you cannot maintain eye contact and you look funny for them.
it is of course not meaning that falling on floor to get a shot is a bad thing (i do it all the time), you just get another type of photos, more detached, real, sometimes easier in tight situations. i often dance with the people and shooting waist level with OCF. they dont even know i am shooting
AgentM wrote:
Interesting points you make....shooting waist up. If I want to get a lower angle I usually
simply bend my knees? Isnt that the same?
I think the canon 24-70MKI is horrible, I'd probably shoot with a 50mm 1.8 before even contemplating using it for a paid assignment. I wonder if the new one is any better.
david1234 wrote:
35L
sell the 24-70 youll thank me
This- if you're shooting 2 bodies the 35L will give your work a new look- a look that you'll love. Or if you can afford- just buy 35L and give it a try.
Pentax 67 with the 105mm lens (should run you around $500).
Seriously though, you got to have a "look" in mind that you're going for and then buy a lens that does that. To just get a lens that will do something "different" without really knowing what you're going for seems kind of silly.
Of you want to do something that will up your ante do what ms. Kitty said. Shoot an entire wedding at one focal length at f/8 (or some other arbitrary limitation).
ditch all your zooms and go all prime. It will definitely get you a different look. We used all zooms years ago. Then in 2009 we found ourselves using our 2 primes more. So then we ditched all of our zooms and went all primes. With the exception of the 70-200 and 12-24. But all primes now. 28, 35, 50, 85, 135
It makes you think more and in the end gives you a look and style you dont always get with a zoom because they make you lazy
What others have said, 35 and 50 are primo lenses to have. I shot a whole wedding with my 35 before and I have used my 50 once for a whole wedding. I just shot a senior session with only my 85 too.
What everyone is saying regarding zooms versus primes has me thinking.
I am seriously considering selling the 24-70 and then fill the gap with a prime.
What I will do is keep my 16-35mm for now. But what should my step in lens be?
I can ONLY afford one lens at this time.
If I keep the 16-35 zoom - should I get the 35 first or the 50
I will then later buy the 135L.
The look I want is simply better image quality on my 5d's and much more DOP.
My ideal would then be the following list:
16-35 L
35 L OR 50 L (WHICH ONE?)
85mm 1.8
135 L
70-200 F4 (I had the 2.8 and didnt like it)
Thanks for all the wise input.
paparazzinick wrote:
ditch all your zooms and go all prime. It will definitely get you a different look. We used all zooms years ago. Then in 2009 we found ourselves using our 2 primes more. So then we ditched all of our zooms and went all primes. With the exception of the 70-200 and 12-24. But all primes now. 28, 35, 50, 85, 135
It makes you think more and in the end gives you a look and style you dont always get with a zoom because they make you lazy
What others have said, 35 and 50 are primo lenses to have. I shot a whole wedding with my 35 before and I have used my 50 once for a whole wedding. I just shot a senior session with only my 85 too. ...Show more →
AgentM wrote:
What everyone is saying regarding zooms versus primes has me thinking.
I am seriously considering selling the 24-70 and then fill the gap with a prime.
What I will do is keep my 16-35mm for now. But what should my step in lens be?
I can ONLY afford one lens at this time.
If I keep the 16-35 zoom - should I get the 35 first or the 50
I will then later buy the 135L.
The look I want is simply better image quality on my 5d's and much more DOP.
My ideal would then be the following list:
16-35 L
35 L OR 50 L (WHICH ONE?)
85mm 1.8
135 L
70-200 F4 (I had the 2.8 and didnt like it)
Hi, just wanted to share my experience. I had similar lens collection as yours. I sold my 24-70 this summer and bought a 35 L. 24-70 is very versertile for sure but the images produced by it are a bit boring. Also, it is too big and heavy for me. I used 35 L along with 50 1.4 for the weddings I took this summer. I love the images from 35 L very much. But sometimes I do miss the flexibility of the zoom and I hate to change lens constantly. I am not a prime lens guy, I love zoom, especially my 70-200 2.8 IS II. I sold my 85 1.8 and 135 2 after I got 70-200. For you, you may consider to add a 50 L since you already have a 16-35 (I had 17-40, but I rarely use it) as other people suggested. But I think the images from 16-35 and 35 L will be different, IMO.
AgentM wrote:
If I keep the 16-35 zoom - should I get the 35 first or the 50
I will then later buy the 135L.
The look I want is simply better image quality on my 5d's and much more DOP.
My ideal would then be the following list:
16-35 L
35 L OR 50 L (WHICH ONE?)
85mm 1.8
135 L
70-200 F4 (I had the 2.8 and didnt like it)
You want a "new look" to your photos?
Your sig says you shoot a 10D and a 20D. Is this accurate?
I know not everyone updates their sig.
If so, go full frame, it will give the lenses you have a "new look"
I just got a 35L (first L lens!) and I love it. I always used a 50 1.4 prior to that. I love my 35L, sharp and has that pop. I've used my friend's 24-70 a few times, its a great lens but I'm a prime kind of guy.
Tony Hoffer wrote:
You obviously haven't used the crappy Canon version
I've heard Canon peeps say that all the time, even while I shot Canon. I never had an issue with that lens. I did have an issue with the 50/1.2. It was never sharp and I tried 3 different copies. If you want to get different looks try adding light to your images ( I haven't seen your work so you may already be doing this). Speed light on a stick, California sunbounce held by an assistant.
If you're lusting for a lens I'd go for the 35. Tilt shifts are cool to. If you like the look of the selective DOF you can achieve this in PS. It's not as good as a TS but I really don't think a client would be able to tell.
