Stuck On Lens Choice

I'm stuck on choosing a pair of lenses and am keen for advice. I am buying a Canon 60D to replace my Samsung GX 1L (I know, way out of touch) but I'm stuck on what lenses to get. Here is what i am looking at-

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens and an CANON EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Or

EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and an Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens

I need a walkabout lens and I am going to start doing weddings and other forms of employable Photography. BUT I really like wildlife photography as a hobby. One thing that I'm not sure of is weather or not the sharpness of the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM will allow me to crop enough of my pictures to give that close up look?

I can only afford these lenses in the order I have them in the order they are in and can't find the money to do them in any other order.

I await your reply.

MoNkEy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuNkEyMoNkEy

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens and an CANON EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Or
EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and an Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens

I need a walkabout lens and I am going to start doing weddings and other forms of employable Photography. BUT I really like wildlife photography as a hobby. One thing that I'm not sure of is weather or not the sharpness of the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM will allow me to crop enough of my pictures to give that close up look?

---

The 18-135mm STM lens isn't readily available yet, so the jury is still out on sharpness. The older non-STM version is similar to the 18-55mm kit lens - decent when stopped down a bit, not so good wide open.

Having a 50mm lens as your widest is not going to be ideal - on APS-C that's a short telephoto lens, meaning you'll have no normal or wide angle focal lengths. Bad idea, IMO. But...135mm (even on APS-C) is often not long enough for wildlife in the wild, where you can't get very close.

I'd say go with the 18-135mm and 50/1.8.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuNkEyMoNkEy

I am going to start doing weddings and other forms of employable Photography

---

I did cringe a little when reading this - a 60D with 18-135 and 50/1.8 is likely not going to cut it for paid wedding shooting. Shooting for fun when there's a paid photog doing the work is one thing. What if your 60D breaks as the ushers are seating the guests? IMO, you need two bodies to shoot a wedding professionally, and ideally, fast lenses more suitable for portraits and low light work (135mm f/5.6 with APS-C would likely not deliver decent results in a dim church where flash is prohibited, for example).

I'm going to agree with neuroanatomist.

For wildlife photography I suggest renting a lens as required.
my choices are 70-300L or 100-400L both rent locally for about $40 for the weekend, sure beats $1400+ each to buy them.

Considering the budget was the non-L 70-300 and a nifty fifty, I don't think they can get a quality wildlife lens.

If that's their budget, they should look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC (it's sharper). It will work for their wide to normal end, at a fast aperture, at a reasonable price. They should hold off on a wild-life lens until they've got the $1500 to dedicate to one that's worth it, or get a cheap 55-250mm lens to tide them over.

I have decided to go for the CANON EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and sacrifice the flash I had intended to get with part of my budget with a view to buy the flash and 50mm later. but am getting a 650D instead of the 60D I had originally planned for. As for weddings, you might be right about a second camera and so will get a second hand 1000D for good measure. I cant see both of them failing in the same day, can you?
According to Scott Kelby, a cheap inexpensive fifty mill and a portrait lens would be enough of a basic kit for a wedding shoot and I intend to under cut the competition and then it is up to the customer whether or not they want a cheap photographer with a basic kit or a more expensive photographer with an expensive kit. I think the price will tell. Besides imo composition, direction and knowledge makes for a good photographer, experience will come with practice. I'm not going to get any where without trying my hand at it, and I could always do the first few free with an explanation of needing to learn the ropes.

BTW thanks for your replys, it gave me something to think about and any advice would be welcome.

MoNkEy.

In the business of photography equipment cost is a tiny percentage of total lifetime revenue of the equipment. Divide the total cost of equipment by the total number of weddings/ or revenue you expect to earn from doing weddings, etc. Then double your equipment cost and then double it again and calculate the average cost of the equipment per wedding/revenue of the expected life of the equipment. It just isn't that much, missing a job or two because of "non professional" gear, or worse yet getting a reputation for producing substandard results - no matter how cheap - will cost you much more overtime. I would suggest renting "the typical pro gear" for you first couple of engagements - make sure what your produce is yours, vs. equipment limited. The cost of equipment isn't the reason why someone will charge more or less for a shoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuNkEyMoNkEy

I have decided to go for the CANON EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and sacrifice the flash I had intended to get with part of my budget with a view to buy the flash and 50mm later. but am getting a 650D instead of the 60D I had originally planned for. As for weddings, you might be right about a second camera and so will get a second hand 1000D for good measure. I cant see both of them failing in the same day, can you?
According to Scott Kelby, a cheap inexpensive fifty mill and a portrait lens would be enough of a basic kit for a wedding shoot and I intend to under cut the competition and then it is up to the customer whether or not they want a cheap photographer with a basic kit or a more expensive photographer with an expensive kit. I think the price will tell. Besides imo composition, direction and knowledge makes for a good photographer, experience will come with practice. I'm not going to get any where without trying my hand at it, and I could always do the first few free with an explanation of needing to learn the ropes.

BTW thanks for your replys, it gave me something to think about and any advice would be welcome.

MoNkEy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuNkEyMoNkEy

...it is up to the customer whether or not they want a cheap photographer with a basic kit or a more expensive photographer with an expensive kit. I think the price will tell. Besides imo composition, direction and knowledge makes for a good photographer, experience will come with practice. I'm not going to get any where without trying my hand at it, and I could always do the first few free with an explanation of needing to learn the ropes.

---

Look at the websites of several wedding photographers - do they showcase their gear, or their images? I don't think most clients will really care what gear is used - they will care about results. To me, cheap prices don't necessarily mean cheap gear, I'd be more inclined to doubt the quality of the product.

The best way to try your hand is probably not to go it solo. Rather than offering to shoot weddings for free by yourself, I'd really recommend finding a wedding photographer who's work you like, and try to sign on with him/her as a second (or third) shooter. Request permisson to use some of the images you shoot to promote your business later on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuNkEyMoNkEy

According to Scott Kelby, a cheap inexpensive fifty mill and a portrait lens would be enough of a basic kit for a wedding shoot

---

I like Scott Kelby's tips for Photoshop ('nuff said). FWIW, on APS-C, an inexpensive 50mm lens is a portrait lens. You need something wider for group shots, and probably something longer for ceremony shots.

For a good (and somewhat humorous) viewpoint, check out the FWIGTEW blog by Roger Cicala, who runs lensrentals.com.

I find myself agreeing with neroanatomist again.

I am a hobbyist and only this year really started really using my camera. I have a 550D (t2i) , so similar to your new purchase. you can get great pictures with that camera body. Consider renting a L series lens for special events, you will see the difference.
A wedding is a huge event for many people, and I'm sure there are some without budget to hire a pro. I think there will be a market for people that would be happy to have anyone at their event. But it would be a really good idea to work as a second or third shooter for a while, even if all you get out of it is experience.

Kombi and Neuro have provided great wisdom in their suggestions.

Good advice so far;

Shooting weddings a must watch "how to" video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6BPk5KWVR0

Right, I have taken your suggestions on board and you are right about the weddings and I have decided to push the boat out and get all of the lenses. FYI the 70-300 has got some great reviews and has been classed, by some, as a hidden L lens, and the STM, from the limited reviews I could find, is sharp throughout the whole zoom range.
I have joined a photography club in my area and have met a few pro's that I will ask to work with as a second or third.
Any more advice that you have would be greatly appreciated.

MoNkEy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuNkEyMoNkEy

FYI the 70-300 has got some great reviews and has been classed, by some, as a hidden L lens...

---

Who's reviews? Let's compare the 70-300 with an L lens covering the same range: at 70mm, the difference in the center isn't huge, although away from the center is another story; at 300mm, the center is worse, and the mid frame (corners on APS-C) is much worse. Hidden L lens? Maybe hidden behind a layer of vaseline smeared over the front element of an actual L lens... :p

Ok, I exaggerate a bit - if you stop the 70-300 down to f/11 at 300mm, it's great...no, wait...it's not, even then the corners are mushy mess and the mid-frame isn't much better. Ok, I keep exaggerating. Actually, if you stop down to f/8 and keep it under 200mm, it's ok. But hidden L lens? I think not...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuNkEyMoNkEy

FYI the 70-300 has got some great reviews and has been classed, by some, as a hidden L lens, and the STM, from the limited reviews I could find, is sharp throughout the whole zoom range.

---

Did you find this review;

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

This was the first lens I bought, you could get it at a discount when you bought it with the 50D 28-135mm kit. For the 50D kit it was a fine lens, and performed better than the 28-135mm. It is no where close to being an L lens, and if I were reading someones review that said it was I couldn't give them any credibility whatsoever.

Again it is a nice lens for the price. Not in the same class as the equivilant L. I wouldn't call it sharp through the range.

x3 perhaps reread that review.. it may have been a review of the 70-300L a hidden gem among L lenses.

Right, I have taken your suggestions on board and you are right about the weddings and I have decided to push the boat out and get all of the lenses. FYI the 70-300 has got some great reviews and has been classed, by some, as a hidden L lens, and the STM, from the limited reviews I could find, is sharp throughout the whole zoom range.
I have joined a photography club in my area and have met a few pro's that I will ask to work with as a second or third.
Any more advice that you have would be greatly appreciated.

MoNkEy.

You're busting balls here Monkey:p Whatever you decide to do is up to you, but if you're serious about doing weddings...I wouldn't vote for the lenses you opt for.
My advice: Buy whatever camera you like(camera is less important than a lens for quality images) and combine that with good quality (cheap/within budget)lenses.
For wedding the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 is a very nice(if not the best option in your budget) lens to start with. It will be able to do 75% of the important shots easily(example number, because it relies on different factors: weather, inside/outside, lighting etc). The other percentage would be low-light shots. Therefor I would pick a fast prime. The 50mm f1.8 is a good start. The 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.8 are also good valued lenses. With that combo you could meet the pro-grade levels of image quality in a payable package.

If this is not an option, you should seriously consider renting. Yes it does cost money, but it's only a fraction of the price you'd pay to own the best lenses. In weddings, you could easily calculate these costs in the price. And you'll be able to save for better equipment fast if jobs go well.

Bottom line, a lens with an f5.6 max aperture and a lowly build/quality will not likely give you good results. Well perhaps if you're only doing all outdoor weddings on a sunny island you've got some chances. The (cheap) photographer on my sisters wedding was limited by an f5.6 lens and it definitely shows in the results. These days you'd post that stuff and your opinion about the photographer on facebook and BOOM half of the chances for new jobs fly out of the window if the message is bad.
Be smart about this. If you're truly serious about wedding-photography, don't push your boat out too soon and really consider your options. Making good photos isn't hard, but making a living out of it definitely is.

I'm not saying it's impossible to make good shots with the lenses you mentioned, but you'll never get as good results(lens-constraints) as with the better made lenses. Also an experienced photographer will have less trouble dealing with gear-limits than a starting fresh amateur.