longer zoom or prime
 

Hi guys im sure its been covered but been asked to do a photo shoot/disc as well as the video and probably need some kind of longer focal length lens. Already have canon 60d,11-16 tokina, 17-50 tamron, 30mm sigma, and need i presume some kind of 50 to 250 for ceremony, would i be better getting a prime 85mm 1.8 or a sigma 70-200mm, would a 85mm prime get me near the action, dont know what the church like yet, but remember 50mm end of the tamron not close enough, money tight at the moment but i defo need around 1.8, 2.8 as i dont think f4 could do it in church unless someone can enlighten me. cheers guys steve

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

I don't think you'll find any zooms at F1.8 - or if you did - that you could afford them!

I only know about Canon lenses really so I'd suggest you consider the older Canon 100mm Macro (the one without IS) which may fit your budget/you might be able to get one second-hand. It's supposed to be a cracking good lens - and will behave as a 160mm on a crop body Canon of course. (Note: I have the newer Canon 100mm Macro, with IS, it's superb - but not a cheap lens!) Both are F2.8.

This link has some useful info about lenses in the range you're after (Canon and other brands) so take a look at it and see if that helps you narrow it down. Post 6 is good.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...budget-1k.html

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

Hey thanks Andy

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

Andy do you know the difference between the 100mm f2 to the macro 2.8, there are two of them?? steve

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

I find one of the best resources on the web for reading about Canon lenses is The Digital Picture website. Sure its from a stills photography viewpoint but invaluable. Just Google it and read away - as I'm not sure if its OK to post a direct link (takes eyes away from DVinfo and it's sponsors ads.... I think).

Anyway, every lens Canon makes/made is there (or so it seems), critically reviewed (and lots of other makes too).

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

The Canon 100/2 is a portrait lens, the 100/2.8 is a macro lens.

The main difference is that the 100/2.8 can focus much closer, but is also much slower in AF.

As for covering a wedding on a budget, a Nikon, M42 or Oly mount 135/2.8 can be found cheaply, and most are quite sharp.

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

cheers kin, just reading up on stuff, the 100mm canon f2 seems to be coming out tops, the macro i probaly wont use, im just wondering if a 135 maybe to long?? steve

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

I don't think 85mm or even 100mm is going to get you close enough. My preference would certainly be for a 70-200.

I use the Tamron version and it is my main workhorse lens throughout the ceremony. It helps to have a zoom so you can get a CU of just the bride or groom or a wider shot with both of them and the celebrant. The last thing you want to be doing is changing lenses during a ceremony so for me that means I'd only consider zooms.

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

Steve.

I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 with Image Stabiliser. I love it and regularly use it alongside a colleague's Canon L version, against which we can't tell the difference in image quality if we're perfectly honest. The only downside to the Sigma is the lack of weatherproofing.

I think you need flexibility when shooting most video work - and, alongside my 17-55 IS, the Sigma is my principle go-too lens.

Tomorrow we'll be filming Imelda May, Brett Anderson and the Kooks - and the 70-220 will be my "lead singer" lens.

Ben.

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

Ok thanks Ben + John i think that settles it, the sigma seems to be coming out tops the past couple days... Having said that the tamron has good results also...I cant afford to mess around, i think that settles it, thanks again.... guys

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

The Canon 135mm F/2L is a cracking good lens too. Very sharp, lovely bokeh & it's an F/2. Use the 2X teleconverter & you have a 270mm F2.8. I just bought the V2 version of the 2X teleconverter as it is reduced in price by 1/3 now that the V3 has is on sale.

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

Ok so about to order the sigma 70-200 2.8 hsm for £600. or should i pay £845 for the stabilzer one the OS?? bear in mind wedding video is my main but have a couple of photogs jobs and maybe more next year...or just get a 100mm prime or 135 f2 prime, till next year...Am i waisting money on the beast sigma? how many times will i use it for video and stills? some people say it does not justify the prices?? enlighten me someone??

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

Just purchase it, and you'll never look back! I use my 70-200 for everything from portraits to surfing to weddings. It is the most used lens I own.

I can't answer the OS question though because I have the Tamron (no IS available) so don't know how much difference IS would make. That said, I've never felt the need for it either.

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

Don't get any lens over 16mm without IS, in my opinion - saving on that is a false economy.

I used my Tokina 11-16 hand held in a rush the other day and the vibration was noticeable and ruined several shots (I was tired at the end of the shoot and we were snatching some audience cutaways while the band played another track for us.) I can usually get good smooth shots with it in a more considered atmosphere, but I do think IS is essential on anything longer for HD video shooting.

Ben.

Re: longer zoom or prime
 

Ben, far better advice would be to always stabilise your camera appropriately. Whether with a tripod, steadycam, monopod or shoulder rig, it is far more reliable to have proper support than IS.

For the 17-50mm range (wide to standard) IS would certainly be helpful as these are the most common focal lengths to handhold at. At 200mm, I would never dream of handholding and can't picture anybody with even the steadiest hands doing it very successfully, even with IS.

If you have the budget, then sure, get the IS version so you have it available as an option. But do not blindly purchase IS lenses expecting them to solve all issues with image shake that you might have.