So I've decided to spend the $ and start photography

[DisgruntledVirus]

Well, the gf has a photography business and we have talked about me getting a camera to help her as a second photog and/or do a partnership deal with my own business. I've enjoyed photography for many years, but never had the money or time to get into it (or the motivation my gf has given for me to) until recently. So, I've started doing research and trying to figure out the best route to go. For now, I am able to use my gf's 5D Mk 1 to work on building a portfolio and taking pictures to gain experience from so it's not something that needs to be done quickly. Also, budget is flexible (don't want to spend more than say ~$3,500 though for body+glass though). Also, since my gf has a Canon 5D I want to stick with Canon so we can use "communal gear" so to speak. Her lenses are a: Canon 28-90 (I believe it's a kit lens), Canon 50 mm F1.8, and a Canon 75-300 (also a kit type lens AFAIK).

So, right now I am looking at the 40D, 50D, 5D Mk I, and 5D mk II and leaning to the 5D lines because of their FF sensor. The 40D is older, but based on reviews doesn't lack too much compared to the 50D. The 50D has better processor (Digic IV), but due to the pixel density the 40D has better PQ. Yes, the 50D has Live View and movie mode, but really I don't care or need either (although both would be "cool"). The 5D mk II is basically a 1Ds Mk III for 1/3 the price (since they use basically the exact same sensor), which is amazing. The 5D is a great camera, and still is a very relevant camera in the current market (since it's only a few hundred more than the 50D).

The current options I can see:
50D ($1,100)+24-70 F2.8L ($1300) OR 24-105 F4L ($1200)+70-200 F2.8L ($1200) OR 70-200 IS F4L ($1200)=~$3500

40D ($800)+24-70 F2.8L ($1300) OR 24-105 F4L ($1200)+70-200 F2.8L ($1200) OR 70-200 IS F4L ($1200)=~$3300

5D Mk I ($1700)+24-70 F2.8L ($1300) OR 24-105 F4L ($1200)+70-200 F4L ($600)=~$3600 (although I might not get the 70-200 yet spending ~$3000, and use her 75-300 until I can get the 70-200 F2.8/IS or IS F2.8)

5D Mk II ($3,000, but $3500 with the 24-105L kit)=$3500

I'd buy a camera bag, flash, filters, etc on top of that, so this is just for lenses+body. Also, I know this is a lot to spend starting off, but it would also let my gf use the lenses for her business which would be cool as well.

So, anybody have any suggestions for the body and lenses? I am open to alternatives (especially in the lens department), but due to the fact she has a Canon already it would make sense to stick with Canon. The pictures being taken will be portrait, wedding, and others but very rarely sports/action that something like the D300/700 would be better suited for.

 

[jpeyton]

First order of business: sell the three lenses your GF owns. As a professional wedding/portrait photographer, she won't be using any of them.

Now your budget is $3500 plus whatever you made on those three lenses.

Get another 5D used; they are readily available from photographers upgrading to the 5D2. Don't pay more than ~$1200 for one.

You should still have ~$2400 left for lenses.

Get a

70-200 f/4L (you need the telephoto length for portraits; around $550 used)

24-70 f/2.8L (I've seen these for $900 used; paying $1300 for a new one seems like a waste)

50mm f/1.4 ($300, or go for the Sigma which is sharper wide-open)

Either sock away the remaining ~$600 to put towards a 16-35mm f/2.8L, or buy a 17-40mm f/4L.

If you buy used versus new, that's another 1-2 lenses you can add to your bag on the same budget. But it takes patience; you might not find every lens you're looking for in one week, but you might find everything over 8 weeks.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
First order of business: sell the three lenses your GF owns. As a professional wedding/portrait photographer, she won't be using any of them.

Ideally, that would be great. Unfortunately, it's not an option for a few reasons. First off, we have talked about doing weddings together (i.e. 2 photogs) in which case we need her current lenses (yes we know they aren't ideal, but they do work and we can't afford 2x L glass lenses). Secondly, we aren't married yet and until that happens we don't want to do too many "joint" things just in case we don't work for whatever reason. While neither of us expect that to happen, we don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot so to speak if we don't work. Finally, she has used them for weddings/portraits, and while L glass would have done better she did a great job (based on feedback from the clients).

Now your budget is $3500 plus whatever you made on those three lenses.

Get another 5D used; they are readily available from photographers upgrading to the 5D2. Don't pay more than ~$1200 for one.

Thought about that, but don't know how I feel about used photography equipment. I don't know what to look for to see if it's been well taken care of or abused (outside of physical damage to the body). I'm not against this idea at all however. Especially since it means that the 5D is about the same as the 50D, and significantly better camera.

You should still have ~$2400 left for lenses.

Get a

70-200 f/4L (you need the telephoto length for portraits; around $550 used)

24-70 f/2.8L (I've seen these for $900 used; paying $1300 for a new one seems like a waste)

50mm f/1.4 ($300, or go for the Sigma which is sharper wide-open)

Either sock away the remaining ~$600 to put towards a 16-35mm f/2.8L, or buy a 17-40mm f/4L.

Why wouldn't I get the 70-200 F2.8L instead so it can be used for weddings as well (or low light)? Yes it's about double the price, but I would think it would be well worth the increased price.

I'll keep my eye open for a used 24-70. A $400 savings on that lens would be enough to offset the 70-200 going to F2.8 instead of F4.

About how much is the Sigma? About the same price I'm assuming?

I'd prefer the 16-35 for the F2.8, and IIRC it's the sharper lens (I might be mistaken here though)

If you buy used versus new, that's another 1-2 lenses you can add to your bag on the same budget. But it takes patience; you might not find every lens you're looking for in one week, but you might find everything over 8 weeks.

I don't mind buying used, but don't know where to go to look for used equip or what to look for when looking at used vs new (to make sure it wasn't abused). Also, buying over time isn't a big deal, except the body would be the first requirement obviously (granted most likely the easiest to find due to the 5D Mk II).

Thanks for your help, it's much appreciated

 

[angry hampster]

photography-on-the.net/forum for used Canon gear.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
photography-on-the.net/forum for used Canon gear.

Thanks!

Found:
70-200 2.8 L IS $1500
24-70 2.8 L $900
17-40 4 L $600
16-35 2.8 L $900 (would much prefer this over the 17-40, but the high costs new are prohibitive)
70-200 2.8 L $1100
17-55 2.8 IS $800 (instead of the 16-35/17-40)
Any other lenses I should be looking at?

5D Mk II $2,850 with grip (although I found a 5D Mk II body for $1800 which seems low for NIB)
5D $1050 or $1400 with grip (could maybe find this cheaper, or buy the grip seperate for less than $350)

So, 5D ($1050)+24-70 ($900)+70-200 2.8L ($1100) OR the IS version ($1500) is right around the $3000 mark.

 

[xchangx]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: angry hampster
photography-on-the.net/forum for used Canon gear.

Thanks!

Found:
70-200 2.8 L IS $1500
24-70 2.8 L $900
17-40 4 L $600
16-35 2.8 L $900 (would much prefer this over the 17-40, but the high costs new are prohibitive)
70-200 2.8 L $1100
17-55 2.8 IS $800 (instead of the 16-35/17-40)
Any other lenses I should be looking at?

5D Mk II $2,850 with grip (although I found a 5D Mk II body for $1800 which seems low for NIB)
5D $1050 or $1400 with grip (could maybe find this cheaper, or buy the grip seperate for less than $350)

So, 5D ($1050)+24-70 ($900)+70-200 2.8L ($1100) OR the IS version ($1500) is right around the $3000 mark.

sounds like a winner to me

 

[lsman]

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L
Its as good as can be.
I don't know if you are willing to carry the weight... its heavy..

But IS is a must, I will rather get a f/4 IS ...

I am happy with my 24-105L too..

as well as my Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 which cost US$200....


get a prime lens for low light...

also, I found "FM forum" price sometimes lower than those post on POTN...

I got the 24-105L new for $850 (its a kit lens)

 

[ghostman]

yes we know they aren't ideal, but they do work and we can't afford 2x L glass lenses

I'm very surprised if she can pull off using kit lenses for an indoor wedding. It's not impossible with enough windows and assorted strobes or with a high ISO, but some fast lenses is essential for this kind of business.

So, 5D ($1050)+24-70 ($900)+70-200 2.8L ($1100) OR the IS version ($1500) is right around the $3000 mark.

That is an excellent selection. Much better than what your GF is using. You're well on your way to getting your the holy trinity zoom lenses (you still need the 16-35). When budget permits, look into the holy trinity primes.

I'm not sure if flashes are in your mix of photo goodies, but I think they definitely need to be. Get come Cybersyncs and either some portable flashes or some studio strobes, then practice on lighting subjects. Get a reflector, an umbrella, light stands and swivel brackets while you're at it - they are cheap compared to lenses and will go a long way in giving you good light.

 

[ElFenix]

last wedding i went to one of the photographers was carrying around the 100-400L, and it isn't a particularly fast piece of glass. no faster than the 70-300. the exchanging of vows and rings is almost always very well lit, from the weddings i've been too.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: lsman
I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L
Its as good as can be.
I don't know if you are willing to carry the weight... its heavy..

But IS is a must, I will rather get a f/4 IS ...

I am happy with my 24-105L too..

as well as my Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 which cost US$200....


get a prime lens for low light...

also, I found "FM forum" price sometimes lower than those post on POTN...

I got the 24-105L new for $850 (its a kit lens)

I prefer the 2.8L vs 4 IS L on the 70-200. Maybe I'm wrong with selecting that 2.8 over IS, but the wider lens would be more beneficial in low light correct? Maybe not. It is heavy, but would be used with a tri/monopod fairly often. When that's not possible, it can be hand held for a little bit at least.

I've looked into the 24-105L as well, and it looks like it's a nice lens but for $900 I think the 24-70 is the better lens (from an IQ stance). I like the wider focal ranges on the 24-105, but the F2.8>IS for wedding settings correct?

I may look into the Sigma as well. Thanks for the suggestion.

Primes are better IQ, but the zoom beats that out for most situations in my book. I'm sure I'll pick up some primes eventually, but zooms are first.

Thanks for the FM forum info, I'll keep my eye out on there as well.

Originally posted by: ghostman

yes we know they aren't ideal, but they do work and we can't afford 2x L glass lenses

I'm very surprised if she can pull off using kit lenses for an indoor wedding. It's not impossible with enough windows and assorted strobes or with a high ISO, but some fast lenses is essential for this kind of business.

So, 5D ($1050)+24-70 ($900)+70-200 2.8L ($1100) OR the IS version ($1500) is right around the $3000 mark.

That is an excellent selection. Much better than what your GF is using. You're well on your way to getting your the holy trinity zoom lenses (you still need the 16-35). When budget permits, look into the holy trinity primes.

I'm not sure if flashes are in your mix of photo goodies, but I think they definitely need to be. Get come Cybersyncs and either some portable flashes or some studio strobes, then practice on lighting subjects. Get a reflector, an umbrella, light stands and swivel brackets while you're at it - they are cheap compared to lenses and will go a long way in giving you good light.

Well, luckily so far she has been able to use flashes or was outside for a lot of the weddings. She hasn't run into that issue yet (she is just starting doing weddings this year and hasn't done many yet). I'm not a huge fan of the lenses, but they work for now (and she is working on paying down stuff not spending more $ lol). She does plan to upgrade lenses at some point, just not sure when that will be exactly yet.

Since we most likely wouldn't be doing stuff at the same time, with the exception of weddings and maybe some senior pic shoots, whoever is doing the shoot is able to use the better glass that I'm looking to buy. The 16-35 would most likely be the first lens I buy after the initial buying of stuff.

She has a 480 EXII flash right now, and I'd be looking to buy a flash as well. That would be a seperate budget though and not included in the initial $3k or so. I plan to buy case/bag, flash, cards, strobes, reflector, umbrellas, light stands, swivel brackets, etc as well. My dad has some of that stuff which I might talk to him about getting (I don't know if he still uses any of it, and while it's like 15+ years old I'm sure the non-flash stuff should basically all still work correct) from him. I'm also going to pick up some books on the camera, flash (whatever I end up getting), and wedding photography to learn as much as I can. Obviously I'll be going out and actually taking pictures, but it will be nice to have books to learn about it from pros as well

Thanks for the input everybody.

 

[jamesbond007]

I do wedding and portrait photography as a (second) main source of income.

I really enjoy the 5D and 5D Mark II. The length and aperture changes between your 40/50D crop bodies against a full-frame (5D/5D2/1Ds3) is just insane. One thing you should note is that the 17-55 IS is an EF-S lens, meaning it will be useless on the 5D or 1-series bodies. (they support only EF mounts)

Personally, I'd rather have the ability to shoot f/2.8 over an image-stabilized f/4 lens. (regarding the 70-200 choices) IS will only do so much, but f/2.8 lets in a full stop of light - anyone who does wedding photography will know how valuable this is, especially on a camera body that handles high ISOs without problems. IS will reduce your camera shake, but doesn't do jack to stop a moving bride down the aisle. (you will get sharp images of a blurry bride)

The 24-70 f/2.8 is awesome, but on a FF body, I tend to find it a bit short and prefer the 24-105 IS on my FF instead. The 16-35 MK2 is one of my most-used lenses, alongside the 135L and 50 1.4. Your shooting style will dictate what focal lengths are right for you and should ultimately determine what you should purchase. Some people shoot a lot of wide, big aperture shots, but I prefer a tighter and more intimate aspect of photography.

EDIT: The golden rule of wedding photography is to bring things in pairs. Have two flashes, more memory than you'll ever think you need, multiple bodies, multiple strobes for formals, extra light stands, insurance, etc. You can almost never have enough. As for books, I highly recommend Understanding Exposure.

 

[lsman]

something I come across recently when looking about flash
http://www.planetneil.com/tang...natural-looking-flash/

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: lsman
something I come across recently when looking about flash
http://www.planetneil.com/tang...natural-looking-flash/

Great site. Awesome info on there for taking great flash pictures

Thanks!

 

[virtuamike]

If renting is an option, then consider it. Just make sure your insurance policy provides enough rental coverage so that you don't have to put deposits down. It's smarter to rent where necessary rather than putting such a huge initial investment into lenses, especially with longer lenses that don't get as much daily usage.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Well, after browsing for a few days it seems like I can get it around the $3k mark for body+glass.

5D body (with grip, 2 batteries, good condition, 50% actuation life aprox)= $1300
24-70L (good condition, obviously used but don't see any visible issues)= $900
70-200L 2.8 IS (good condition, but price varies widely on these)= $1200

About $3400 shipped and paypaled. I've seen prices vary though, and absolute best price I've seen was $3200 for everything. I am debating about just picking up the 24-70 now and waiting on the 70-200 for a bit though (using my gf's 70-300 for the time being). Any thoughts?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Well, after browsing for a few days it seems like I can get it around the $3k mark for body+glass.

5D body (with grip, 2 batteries, good condition, 50% actuation life aprox)= $1300
24-70L (good condition, obviously used but don't see any visible issues)= $900
70-200L 2.8 IS (good condition, but price varies widely on these)= $1200

About $3400 shipped and paypaled. I've seen prices vary though, and absolute best price I've seen was $3200 for everything. I am debating about just picking up the 24-70 now and waiting on the 70-200 for a bit though (using my gf's 70-300 for the time being). Any thoughts?

This is a pretty decent start. I would go for it. It's good that you're investing in full frame early on, rather than going crop frame and getting a load of crop lenses that you'll have to offload in the future for full frame.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Well, after browsing for a few days it seems like I can get it around the $3k mark for body+glass.

5D body (with grip, 2 batteries, good condition, 50% actuation life aprox)= $1300
24-70L (good condition, obviously used but don't see any visible issues)= $900
70-200L 2.8 IS (good condition, but price varies widely on these)= $1200

About $3400 shipped and paypaled. I've seen prices vary though, and absolute best price I've seen was $3200 for everything. I am debating about just picking up the 24-70 now and waiting on the 70-200 for a bit though (using my gf's 70-300 for the time being). Any thoughts?

This is a pretty decent start. I would go for it. It's good that you're investing in full frame early on, rather than going crop frame and getting a load of crop lenses that you'll have to offload in the future for full frame.

That was one thing I wanted to avoid. When I started looking last year I was going to go the XSi/40D route. Now I have spent time researching, looking at used, and spent time with a 5D (and with debt paid off prior to buying it, and being able to pay in cash for everything) I have no issues with the $3k price. It also would help my gf to have access to much better glass than she currently is using (since she is working on making a business out of photography per my other thread).

I'd appriciate any suggestions anybody has to help me learn to improve (besides taking more pictures obviously ). Here are the 5 best from a shoot of my gf for her bio page on her website (especially 5): One Two Three FourFive

I know lighting is obviously an issue, which I'm working on. Any suggestions on what I could/can do to fix it next time would be helpful.

 

[jamesbond007]

DisgruntledVirus,

You really, really, really need to work on your lighting. It's by far the most important aspect of photography and it is really hurting you right now. Better equipment can allow a photographer to take a better photo, but it doesn't mean that better results will yield from better equipment; you have to improve your understanding of light first.

I'd strongly suggest you do more reading online (Strobist, photography forums, etc) as there are thousands of people that can critique your work. Taking more pictures is a slower way to get better. (think trial and error) Understanding photography and lighting before getting behind the camera will net you better results much faster.

I've seen some fantastic results from others who shoot crop bodies, cheap lenses, and such, but they typically use light modifiers (diffusers, reflectors) flashes for fill-light, and getting the available sunlight to work for them instead of against.

I don't mean to come off as abrasive, but this is just the start of your photographic critcisim.

EDIT: I would not use any of the photos provided above for use on my personal website.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
DisgruntledVirus,

You really, really, really need to work on your lighting. It's by far the most important aspect of photography and it is really hurting you right now. Better equipment can allow a photographer to take a better photo, but it doesn't mean that better results will yield from better equipment; you have to improve your understanding of light first.

I'd strongly suggest you do more reading online (Strobist, photography forums, etc) as there are thousands of people that can critique your work. Taking more pictures is a slower way to get better. (think trial and error) Understanding photography and lighting before getting behind the camera will net you better results much faster.

I've seen some fantastic results from others who shoot crop bodies, cheap lenses, and such, but they typically use light modifiers (diffusers, reflectors) flashes for fill-light, and getting the available sunlight to work for them instead of against.

I don't mean to come off as abrasive, but this is just the start of your photographic critcisim.

EDIT: I would not use any of the photos provided above for use on my personal website.

I'm not happy with the lighting in them. I do like the framing, but am NOT a fan of how her face is lit (or lack there of). That was my first shoot, and I was concerned with things other then the camera settings (which I made the mistake of not looking at them or changing them based on the actual picture).

When I did that shoot I didn't understand the relationship between ISO/aperture/shutter speed and how they affected the result, nor did I even attempt to change any of them. I want to go back there with her, and redo the entire thing because I do like the scenery/framing in some just the lighting sucked balls (my fault entirely). Also, I didn't know anything about how aperture affects the DOF until a few days ago.

Since I was handholding with slower, non-IS lenses I should have shot for the fifth picture (correct me if I'm wrong here): a wider aperture (f5.6-f8 give or take a few stops), slower shutter speed (1/focal length which I didn't know at the time, but given those shots would have been ~1/80), and put the ISO in the 400-800 range (estimated). Obviously can't know without being there and seeing at the time, but does that sound like the right idea at least? I'll get the EXIF from those pics tonight if anybody would like to see to be able to compare. I need to get a friend to go up there with to take pictures of them so I can play around some more with how settings affect the image (outside of the textbook/reading stuff. I can tell you on paper, but have yet to translate that to actual shooting time).

 

[jamesbond007]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
I should have shot for the fifth picture (correct me if I'm wrong here): a wider aperture (f5.6-f8 give or take a few stops), slower shutter speed (1/focal length which I didn't know at the time, but given those shots would have been ~1/80), and put the ISO in the 400-800 range (estimated).

Wider aperture = lets in more light = a smaller f/stop. If you were shooting f/5.6, you would want to open up to f/2.8 or around there to start; that would lighten the photo and blow out the background more. (making it more blurred - we call this 'bokeh')

Increasing the ISO would also do it - with today's sensors, I don't hesitate to go up to ISO1600 or more to get the right exposure. Most of my prime lenses (35L, 50L, 135L, etc) do not have image stabilization, but a good rule of thumb is to shoot 1/(focal length) of the lens. This means if you're shooting at a focal length of 200mm, ideally you'd want at least 1/200 on the shutter. If you're shooting at 50mm, you'd want 1/50 or faster. Be sure to take into account for human movement from your subjects as well. If you're shooting kids, you'd really want to stay in the 1/320 or faster shutter no matter the focal length because they always seem to twitch, move their hands, arms, and whatnot.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
I should have shot for the fifth picture (correct me if I'm wrong here): a wider aperture (f5.6-f8 give or take a few stops), slower shutter speed (1/focal length which I didn't know at the time, but given those shots would have been ~1/80), and put the ISO in the 400-800 range (estimated).

Wider aperture = lets in more light = a smaller f/stop. If you were shooting f/5.6, you would want to open up to f/2.8 or around there to start; that would lighten the photo and blow out the background more. (making it more blurred - we call this 'bokeh')

Increasing the ISO would also do it - with today's sensors, I don't hesitate to go up to ISO1600 or more to get the right exposure. Most of my prime lenses (35L, 50L, 135L, etc) do not have image stabilization, but a good rule of thumb is to shoot 1/(focal length) of the lens. This means if you're shooting at a focal length of 200mm, ideally you'd want at least 1/200 on the shutter. If you're shooting at 50mm, you'd want 1/50 or faster. Be sure to take into account for human movement from your subjects as well. If you're shooting kids, you'd really want to stay in the 1/320 or faster shutter no matter the focal length because they always seem to twitch, move their hands, arms, and whatnot.

I mistyped. I knew I needed to allow more light into the sensor, but mistakenly said go up in F stop (which I need to actually go down as you said). Unfortunately her lenses don't permit me to go to F2.8 with the sole exception being her 50/F1.8. That shoot was done with her 20-80ish (forget exact focal ranges) kit lens that IIRC goes from F4-F5.6, and if thats the case then I can't control the aperture too much to allow in more light and have to use ISO to compensate.

That is another reason I want to buy the L glass, is then the limitation is entirely on me and not the equipment. During that shoot, I believe the camera was left in P and I didn't mess with any settings. It was obviously a noob mistake, but I did learn from it so it won't happen again . I am trying to find a friend that will let me go shoot pics of them, but so far no luck with that.

I understand the relationship on paper that light has, and how ISO/aperture/shutter speed affect a picture. I just need to translate that to practical knowledge. It's the book smart vs street smart deal. I understand it in the classroom, but not in actual shooting. I'm working on it though.

Thanks for the help everybody. You have all been a great help

 

[Kelvrick]

I'm late to the thread, but you really need an off camera flash in your budget. What kind of metering did you use while taking those photos?

I also agree on getting her to replace those lenses. Pick up a tamron 28-70 or something.

Sorry if I'm misjudging your experience, but do you already know everything that this guide goes over?
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/index.html

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
I'm late to the thread, but you really need an off camera flash in your budget. What kind of metering did you use while taking those photos?

I also agree on getting her to replace those lenses. Pick up a tamron 28-70 or something.

Sorry if I'm misjudging your experience, but do you already know everything that this guide goes over?
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/enjoydslr/index.html

Yes, I have the 480EX II. Also, this is camera and glass *only* budget. I am going to spend other $ for flash and accessories. The $3,000 or so isn't for flash, bags, filters, etc. It's solely for glass and body.

I know most of that info, but some of it is stuff I understand better now (like different metering modes). Like I said previously, I know the basics. I just have yet to relate them to shooting.

I took some tonight of the sunset at our local airport, and can post them here if anybody would like to C&C them. I know sunsets can be difficult due to the high contrast ratio, and in some of them I was trying to get a plane and the sunset (a few turned out okay, and with some PP might be good).