Stuck On Lens Choice

[FuNkEyMoNkEy]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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...

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...

[HDNitehawk]

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.

[Kombi]

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

[FuNkEyMoNkEy]

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.

[Sheiky]

You're busting balls here Monkey 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.