# Once you go "L" you'll never go back....



## brought1 (Oct 4, 2012)

Ok...This is more of a rant than anything....so here goes!

NEVER EVER...EVER...EVER have an amateur, shooting with a different camera brand and very poor quality lenses shoot a wedding with you ( you had sympathy for this person and wanted to help them grow as a photographer and allowed them to assist you, photographing) 

Holy smokes!!! I'm using L glass plus a 5D MK II and in order to get the quality of their picture to something half decent and that looks like a hint of my pictures, talk about POST POST POST...Geesh!

They were using a Pentax K-X and a Tamron AF-70-300. Now before everyone jumps on my case, I did provide a canon 40D with Canon Lenses ( NON-L) for him to use, however, it was sooo different than his own camera, he couldn't figure it out within the few hours he was there.

This is not a rip on the photographer, he actually has a great eye for composition....he just needs a better system....sorry..

Short of great canon (non-L primes) 85 1.8, heck the 50 mm 1.8 Mark 1....I don't know I'll ever buy poor quality lenses...

sorry....more of a rant...lol

Have a good night.


----------



## lucuias (Oct 4, 2012)

Agreed.I had a 2nd shooter using 550D with 18-200mm.End up I didn't even use 1 of his shot.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Oct 4, 2012)

While I probably could have survived going to a 7D when I upgraded a few years ago from my Rebel 450D (XSi), I went right to the 5d2 w/24-105L. Since then, I've only bought L lenses, excepting the 85 f/1.8 which is what I'd say is quite good, and a great value. I don't think I'll ever be able to buy anything that's not at least quite good in terms of quality, even if it's not L build. Otherwise, all L for me!


----------



## Akhiel (Oct 4, 2012)

brought1 said:


> Ok...This is more of a rant than anything....so here goes!
> 
> NEVER EVER...EVER...EVER have an amateur, shooting with a different camera brand and very poor quality lenses shoot a wedding with you ( you had sympathy for this person and wanted to help them grow as a photographer and allowed them to assist you, photographing)
> 
> ...



You had bad luck with the amateur in this.
But it doesn't mean that is has to bad always.
There are good amateurs and bad amateurs. There are good pro and certainly also bad pro's.
If you have a pro gear, is doesn't automatically mean that the photos will be excellent. As news editor I am receiving numerous of photos and I know what equipment the photographers are using. From Tamrons, Sigma's to Canon and Nikon primes. 
What count is the story value of the photo. It depends on for what purpose you want to use the photo. In many cases end user appreciates a photo if they like the story. A photo taken by the best equipment, but without anything special story behind, means almost nothing except filling the space. When it comes to creativity, the pro's and the amateur/hobby photographers are in balance. The difference is probably made by the fact that the amateurs earns by washing cars or whatever and the pro by fulltime photographing.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 4, 2012)

brought1 said:


> Ok...This is more of a rant than anything....so here goes!



To me, this is a bit simplistic because L glass has been around for a long time and old lenses aren't that stellar.

The main advantage is build quality and sealing (if it rains in the church ). I'm really all in favor of L by now, too, because it's more dust-resistant and my old non-L macro broke down twice for this reason, but iq-wise lenses like the 100 non-L are practically on par with the L versions that double the price. And some ef-s lenses have very good iq, too - if somebody shot _in_good_light_ with a 18mp aps-c and the ef-s 17-55 or 15-85 you'd say it's just fine.


----------



## gferdinandsen (Oct 4, 2012)

brought1 said:


> Ok...This is more of a rant than anything....so here goes!
> 
> NEVER EVER...EVER...EVER have an amateur, shooting with a different camera brand and very poor quality lenses shoot a wedding with you ( you had sympathy for this person and wanted to help them grow as a photographer and allowed them to assist you, photographing)
> 
> ...




Having owned both the 100 macro's, I would say the both are just as good for IQ...then again you did mention primes. No, I would not trade the bulk and weight of carrying around my L Series lenses for a lighter weighter version. I've been shooting with L series since I got my first SLR (the venerable 1V) and nothing beets them.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 4, 2012)

I've been shooting some weddings along side a pro and he doesn't have any problem with my shots. I'm mostly using 100mm macro non-L and 50mm F1.4 which I borrowed from him. I think not all good lenses are L.


----------



## CanNotYet (Oct 4, 2012)

I think that is probably a really good idea. Let the person that helps you out only use primes. They usually have way better Aperture and sharpness at a lower price point. They also help the budding photographer to become a better photographer, just because the fixed zoom. 
A Rebel with a nifty fifty could probably provide really nice backup shots, and at 80mm eq. it would work pretty nicely for candids and fullfigure shots at a distance. Combine/replace it with a wide lens (Sigma 10-20/3.5? Primes that wide for crop are EXPENSIVE) for group shots.


----------



## birtembuk (Oct 4, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> brought1 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok...This is more of a rant than anything....so here goes!
> ...



Well, for sure there are "good" efs lenses, as e.g. the ones you mention. Yet, and imo, comparing L and non-L is like comparing good and great wines (that's all I could find...). To many, it's unrealistic to say that one is worth 10 times more than the other. Nobody says that "good" wines are crap. But once you have put some "great" - say one of the 30 greatest - in your mouth, you get it. Not easy to explain. It's far from being sealing or IQ only. For me, it's a matter of depth, texture, volume, feel of the pictures. I sold my 15-85 some time ago but still keep a 10-22 for some uwa shots I happen to take. I know some can extract the best from their efs lenses, but for me, I need to spend more time to process the pictures which I find a bit "flat" for my taste. To try giving them the oomph I find them lacking. Just my 2 cts, but for sure, I'm in L, I'll stay in L.


----------



## Yedija luhur (Oct 4, 2012)

I couldnt agree with the title "Once you go "L" you'll never go back...."

I study photography with 450D from my friend, but my first camera was 7D and 24-105 L.. 1 year i use the lens was very happy then, it have good contrast, color rendition, and sharpness was superb... 

Someday after i take thousands of picture ( i take for wedding and fashion modelling ) i realize that 24mm isnt wide enough for my crop body.. After i took many times to think, i finally sold my 24-105 L and instead i bought 
35 f2, 
85 f1.8
50 1.8 and
tamron 17-50 f2.8

I am very happy right now, for general shooting i always shoot with my tamron.. Beside that i love my other lenses very much especially for shooting portraits. Now i can do much with my lens line up rather than with one L lens... Eventhough I hope for upgrading my lens to L if i have sum of money..


----------



## funkboy (Oct 4, 2012)

My brother does some for-money work as well as a bunch of not-for-money work. He doesn't have a lot of cash so he uses what he's got, which is a 400D and mostly plastic lenses. But his technique and composition are really good & he knows that he needs to stop down like crazy and/or crop a lot for anything that matters, so his clients are always happy with the result.

Only a bad carpenter blames his tools. Teach your friend how to work around the limitations of his gear...


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 4, 2012)

funkboy said:


> Only a bad carpenter blames his tools. Teach your friend how to work around the limitations of his gear...



But all carpenters use quality, sturdy tools - though they certainly don't always buy the newest laser-guided solar-powered gear. As always, "it's up to the photog" goes with out saying, and of course Canon is in the business of making people feel more secure when using the L-atest stuff.

But still, *if* you don't downscale and *if* there is movement in the scene and *if* the light is rather low or high contrast and *if* you cannot use flash/ want the background lit and *if* there climate is wet/dusty *then* a sturdy/fast lens with a capable sensor surely still skips limitations that aren't photog-dependent.


----------



## jthomson (Oct 4, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> But all carpenters use quality, sturdy tools - though they certainly don't always buy the newest laser-guided solar-powered gear.



http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/hammerforum-com


Personally I use an old claw-hammer that I inherited from my grand-father. Never seen any need to upgrade, it drives a nice straigth nail. ;D


----------



## rhommel (Oct 4, 2012)

so, you knew he had a 'consumer' camera/lens, and yet you still hired him? or was it a FREE gig?

:: if you paid him, then it's on you. you KNEW the quality of the photos you will get and you still hired him and then rants about it

:: if you didn't pay him, what's the big deal?


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 4, 2012)

Yes but he was the one who got the boudoir session with the bride.


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 4, 2012)

Usually when I shoot with a second shooter, I tell them exactly what I expect them to shoot and how I want them to shoot... My last wedding, amateur, good but not great photographer... He shot 7d and 5d2 and used 135L and 24-105.... It was slightly low light and 90-95% of his 5d2 shots were unusable and he had a slightly better keeper rate with the 7d... Long story short, despite telling him exactly what I wanted, I shot similar stuff just in case, and for the most part, I ended up using only a handful of his shots and most of mine... It was a great learning experience for him and I sat down with him afterwards and critiqued his shooting with him no bars held... He learned quickly... the second shoot I had with him, it was an outdoors event and better lighting, but his keeper rate was much much better... In the end, gear can be crucial, but also you much teach your second shooters, talk to them, and guide them... If they dont know why what they did was wrong or doesn't work, then they would never know and wont improve...


----------



## UrbanImages (Oct 4, 2012)

Actually I agree with this to a point. I own non-L primes such as the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 2.8 macro and they are on point. I also have the 28-135 and that lense is sharp as well. I'm picky when it comes to lenses, the only non Canon one I own is a Sigma 15mm fisheye. For me it's all L from here on in for zooms. In the end it's the creativity and knowledge of the photographer. But top shelf well chosen tools make this easier.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 4, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Usually when I shoot with a second shooter, I tell them exactly what I expect them to shoot and how I want them to shoot... My last wedding, amateur, good but not great photographer... He shot 7d and 5d2 and used 135L and 24-105.... It was slightly low light and 90-95% of his 5d2 shots were unusable and he had a slightly better keeper rate with the 7d... Long story short, despite telling him exactly what I wanted, I shot similar stuff just in case, and for the most part, I ended up using only a handful of his shots and most of mine... It was a great learning experience for him and I sat down with him afterwards and critiqued his shooting with him no bars held... He learned quickly... the second shoot I had with him, it was an outdoors event and better lighting, but his keeper rate was much much better... In the end, gear can be crucial, but also you much teach your second shooters, talk to them, and guide them... If they dont know why what they did was wrong or doesn't work, then they would never know and wont improve...



awin…just for kicks, what were some of the mistakes he made the first time around? Metering? AF? WB?


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 4, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Usually when I shoot with a second shooter, I tell them exactly what I expect them to shoot and how I want them to shoot... My last wedding, amateur, good but not great photographer... He shot 7d and 5d2 and used 135L and 24-105.... It was slightly low light and 90-95% of his 5d2 shots were unusable and he had a slightly better keeper rate with the 7d... Long story short, despite telling him exactly what I wanted, I shot similar stuff just in case, and for the most part, I ended up using only a handful of his shots and most of mine... It was a great learning experience for him and I sat down with him afterwards and critiqued his shooting with him no bars held... He learned quickly... the second shoot I had with him, it was an outdoors event and better lighting, but his keeper rate was much much better... In the end, gear can be crucial, but also you much teach your second shooters, talk to them, and guide them... If they dont know why what they did was wrong or doesn't work, then they would never know and wont improve...



here i am trying to learn. let me know as if you think that what i think is right (thanks in advance). i am not sure what he paired his set with. as for me i would go with:

1. 5d mark II with 135L (iso 6400, open wide)
2. 7d with 24-105mm (iso 6400, open wide). must use flash on this one a long with -1 and 1/3-2/3 flash power)

7d pair with 70-200mm is II is perfect in low light situation. if light situation is too low, search for spot light assist such as shooting closed to video man...  kinda cheating huh (having been using this pair in low light number of time, not really having problem with it eventhough i have violated speed all the time (down to 1/50), but thanks to canon IS system...


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 4, 2012)

"Once you go "L" you'll never go back.... " 

+1....it's hard to go back to non L. I really enjoy 24-70 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II results. The only lens left in my bag that is not L is 50mm f1.4. I'm thinking selling it and will get the 35mm L this coming x-mas.

I just did lens microadjustment yesterday on my 16-35 II. The results were -5 @ wider end and +3 @ near end. The lens now is a amazing.


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 4, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Usually when I shoot with a second shooter, I tell them exactly what I expect them to shoot and how I want them to shoot... My last wedding, amateur, good but not great photographer... He shot 7d and 5d2 and used 135L and 24-105.... It was slightly low light and 90-95% of his 5d2 shots were unusable and he had a slightly better keeper rate with the 7d... Long story short, despite telling him exactly what I wanted, I shot similar stuff just in case, and for the most part, I ended up using only a handful of his shots and most of mine... It was a great learning experience for him and I sat down with him afterwards and critiqued his shooting with him no bars held... He learned quickly... the second shoot I had with him, it was an outdoors event and better lighting, but his keeper rate was much much better... In the end, gear can be crucial, but also you much teach your second shooters, talk to them, and guide them... If they dont know why what they did was wrong or doesn't work, then they would never know and wont improve...
> ...



A lot of his downfall, especially the first shoot was technique... too slow of shutter speeds in certain situations would lead to camera shake, Shots of the bride walking down the isle the 5d2's AF couldn't track or keep her in focus... I had him in front of the bride near the groom and I was in back getting the entrance portraits and got her walking down the isle from the back... his 5d2 just wasn't up for the task. He tried the 7d and 135 and shoot around 1/100 and 1/125 but would get camera shake where you can tell he got a good shot IF it was in focus. Metering, he was alright for the most part but wasn't quick enough with his reciprocals to compensate for a faster shutter... Then in the reception, I slapped a 580 on his cameras, and he shot the ambient too close to normal, and so he was nearly at 1/15 or so shutter at F4 and ISO near 5000-6000 give or take (reception they practically turned off the house lights and had these funky neon accent lights lighting the room) and the shutter was too slow so he would have the properly exposed subject and then a ghost of the motion blur of the regular exposure... Going into it, I knew his skill level and knew I was the primary and treated it as a thing where anything he can add to my product would be considered gravy and I didn't let myself get complacent in thinking "he will get the shot so I dont need to worry"... He did get a few really cool detail shots I missed and all in all, I think I was able to deliver a solid product to my clients, and as i can train and get his technique down, he can be a really good second shooter.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 4, 2012)

Except for the 40mm 2.8. That lens is rad!


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 4, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Usually when I shoot with a second shooter, I tell them exactly what I expect them to shoot and how I want them to shoot... My last wedding, amateur, good but not great photographer... He shot 7d and 5d2 and used 135L and 24-105.... It was slightly low light and 90-95% of his 5d2 shots were unusable and he had a slightly better keeper rate with the 7d... Long story short, despite telling him exactly what I wanted, I shot similar stuff just in case, and for the most part, I ended up using only a handful of his shots and most of mine... It was a great learning experience for him and I sat down with him afterwards and critiqued his shooting with him no bars held... He learned quickly... the second shoot I had with him, it was an outdoors event and better lighting, but his keeper rate was much much better... In the end, gear can be crucial, but also you much teach your second shooters, talk to them, and guide them... If they dont know why what they did was wrong or doesn't work, then they would never know and wont improve...
> ...



Assuming upgrading cameras to the 5d3 is out of the question... I would almost swap the two lenses... put the 135 on the 7d and 24-105 on the 5d2... 6400 on a 7d can get quite ugly very quickly and usable shots may not be easy to find... I would have the 7d and 135 on as a detail camera... tell the second shooter (assuming he's shooting the 7d) to get accent shots that would naturally be filler in your album such as but not limited to a nice close up of the mother and or father of the bride tearing up, grooms expression as the bride walks down the isle, settings, tables, silverware, food, people laughing/crying... hugs/kisses/etc... emotional stuff sells well. then use the 5d2 and 24-105 to get overalls, groups, The main story telling camera... details if you can... I would use a 430 or 580 even if you use it just for AF assist as you will need it with the 5d2 in low light. 

With my 5d3, I was able to shoot around ISO 16000-20000 during the ceremony (no flash) and even on 11x14's you can barely see any noise... blew my mind. If you do a lot of weddings, I would save up every penny possible to get the 5d3 if I were you, but with that 2 camera set-up, that's how I would run things...


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 4, 2012)

brought1 said:


> Ok...This is more of a rant than anything....so here goes!
> 
> NEVER EVER...EVER...EVER have an amateur, shooting with a different camera brand and very poor quality lenses shoot a wedding with you ( you had sympathy for this person and wanted to help them grow as a photographer and allowed them to assist you, photographing)
> 
> ...



I have a 2nd shooter assignment this saturday but I wouldn't bring anything less than my Best.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> "Once you go "L" you'll never go back.... "
> 
> +1....it's hard to go back to non L. I really enjoy 24-70 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II results. The only lens left in my bag that is not L is 50mm f1.4. I'm thinking selling it and will get the 35mm L this coming x-mas.



I have a couple of non-L lenses - the 40mm f/2.8 pancake and the MP-E 65mm. I have no real interest in any other non-L lenses...


----------



## keithfullermusic (Oct 4, 2012)

The 50mm 1.4 & 100mm 2.8 have got to be some of the sweetest lenses out there, and neither are L. But, there are no other non-L lenses that I have my eye on.


----------



## picturesbyme (Oct 4, 2012)

“All generalizations are false, including this one.”


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 4, 2012)

picturesbyme said:


> “All generalizations are false, including this one.”



Except when it isn't, haha =)


----------



## bkorcel (Oct 4, 2012)

I only have L lenses now. I've looked back at some older non-L shots as well as used an associates non-L lenses for a bit and I can say I am honestly spoiled. No going back now. As soon as the Hubble Space Telescope goes up for sale, I will place my bid.


----------



## Hagen (Oct 4, 2012)

And just _exactly_ how were these images insufficient? 

Nice rant, but how do you expect us to communicate intelligently without _facts_? So, facts please.

I agree about the L glass, but if you think all non-L is insufficient, you are incorrect.


----------



## picturesbyme (Oct 4, 2012)

Most of my lenses are L too but just because it's an L doesn't mean it is better then a newer non L lens.
I know it should be (usually the price indicate that, right? That's enough for most people..). I think several new lenses give an exceptional performance.
I wonder how canon deal with the "let's make a new lens but make sure it won't be better than the 20 years old L" dilemma  

I still have a 60D and beside that I needed a backup, the size, same battery, good quality under ISO800 (for me) flip screen ...etc.... the 67th  reason to keep it was that I love the Canon EF-S 60mm macro for its image quality, size, price. I also use the Sigma 8-16mm UWA a lot on it. 
It's a beautiful threesome


----------



## nvsravank (Oct 4, 2012)

I just recently had a friend of mine assist in a dance shoot. I actually provided him with the 24-105 L for him to use on his T2i. His timing was great. His crop was good. He was let down by equipment. No having the F 2.8 and not having that great low light meant higher ISO and more noise than I could tolerate. For some shots that were towards the back of the stage i had him use his 55-250 mm lens.

While I knew that the photos wont be of the same quality as my 5D Mark III, I still expected decent shots and I was surprised at the amount of post i had to do, the loss of photos due to poor focus, the loss of photos due to shake.

I told him - I will get him better equipment next time.


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 4, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > ishdakuteb said:
> ...



Each person is going to have their own tolerances and expectations... Your images, they look good, however it's hard to judge on a res'd down image, and at 100%, assuming there is NR applied, you do lose that crisp focus that you would get from a naturally low ISO... The lower the ISO, especially if it's 1-2 stops, which the 135 would buy you, would and could make a big difference in whether a print would look as good as a 30x40 or only sellable as an 8x10. The 135 with my IS does suck, but one thing I am implementing in my studio is requiring all photographers who shoot with/for me use monopods... More convenient that tripods, a lot more stable than handheld, and you can get 2 different manfrotto monopods with feet and or legs... while not as sturdy and secure as a tripod, and I would never in a million years recommend leaving your camera unattended on it freestanding, it does give you that stability you wouldn't have any other way, and to take it one step further, it gives even more stability if you wish to incorporate fusion video as a product to your clients and you dont have to worry about shaky video... So the extra speed the 135 buys you, stability of a monopod, you can get intimate shots you probably would miss or couldn't get tight enough to capture going the other route... We can also go into the focusing systems, wide angle giving more DOF than shallow and the 7d/135 taking the most advantage of that, etc... but anywho personally that's how i'd do things, but each has their own preferences...


----------



## larams67 (Oct 4, 2012)

If I did have a 2nd shooter with me I would not choose an amateur to help in a professional job situation. I think that is a setup for failure right there. 

If I had a situation where I felt it was ok to have an amateur with me. I think I would expect them to not have L lenses.


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 4, 2012)

larams67 said:


> If I did have a 2nd shooter with me I would not choose an amateur to help in a professional job situation. I think that is a setup for failure right there.
> 
> If I had a situation where I felt it was ok to have an amateur with me. I think I would expect them to not have L lenses.



Agreed but it also goes to knowing what your getting before hand and preparing accordingly...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Oct 4, 2012)

Interesting, because this not only deals with lenses, but camera bodies and second shooters!

interesting, i have not checked pentax specs so fun fun fun it has in camera IS...

so, here are some thoughts.

By the end of this weekend I will have shot 9 weddings as a second shooter and 4 as primary (2 of which I had second shooters on). So I kind of feel that that puts me in a unique place (cause I'm living on both sides of the fence as it were).

Gear --- as the beginning of the season I was running with a 7d, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 (the non-IS version). I felt like I was of good use outdoors, and for the ceremony (though the noise on the 7d really got on my nerves above ISO 2000, and with the 70-200, especially at the long end camera shake was an issue if I went below 1/80th - for ceremonies I try my best to go natural light only.

At that point though I was also bring a set of AB-800 with me, and 2 speed-lights. So gear wise I was good. then I snagged a mk3 and was bringing 2 bodies to bear. 

It's interesting too because over the course of these 9 second shooter experiences i've worked with 6 shooters each who were at differing levels of experience (from lots of time and exp on me to same as me to one with less exp). One for this weekend is so nervous that she is seriously leaning on me for the ceremony especially). So it's just neat to see the differing levels of wants and needs (and correspondingly pay - from $100-500).

with all that said, and mentions of gear ---I can say L is awesome, but yeah I have gone back!!!!! LOl

with my 7d, I had the 2 L lenses, but for crop the options for ultra wide are slim. So, I snagged the 10-22 canon. and later on, after the mk3 purchase, as a means of trying to get my 7d to do some neat things, I snagged a 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 ---LOL...I love em both but in the last wedding I ended up using the 24-70 and the 10-22 on the 7d. LOL, so I went back to non L, then back to L... The 85 1.8 is really nice though, in fact...i love the way both primes work on my mk3...lol so the 7d ...uggg... I used to love it but its hard to love it next to a mk3.

back to the OP...

I think that this is really where the good old gear vs skill debate gets really interesting. This second shooter with his current setup would be good for outdoor ceremonies, and well lit receptions (the pentax claims ISO range to 6400, but if the 7d is anything like it, 6400 is just plain old ugly!!!!)

What I would do with that shooter for receptions is set him up with some off cam lighting - lower ISO and higher shutter speed (going below 1/60th when people are in motion...camera shake is trumped by motion blur. Prime lenses sound nice for that, but with DOF being so extreme, the focus system has to be dead on to get keepers at 1.8 with people in motion. Other than that, if your willign to accept hit or miss shooting from him until he can make his own upgrades, then that's up to you (you're in a much better place to judge his potential, is training him worth the investment in time?)


----------



## sdsr (Oct 4, 2012)

funkboy said:


> My brother does some for-money work as well as a bunch of not-for-money work. He doesn't have a lot of cash so he uses what he's got, which is a 400D and mostly plastic lenses. But his technique and composition are really good & he knows that he needs to stop down like crazy and/or crop a lot for anything that matters, so his clients are always happy with the result.
> 
> Only a bad carpenter blames his tools. Teach your friend how to work around the limitations of his gear...



That's true, of course, up point. But some gear has a lot of limitations to work around. You can take good photos with a Pentax K-x (I briefly owned one as a back-up for a K-5 before switching to a 5DII), but it isn't very impressive in low light and won't win any prizes for focus accuracy (notoriously, it doesn't even have visible focus points in the viewfinder!); pair it with a rather slow Tamron zoom lens and taking photos becomes rather a gamble. Last January the other half and I were on a boat on Lake Lugano for the first (and, for all I know, last) time, one of us with the K-5 and a Pentax zoom, the other with the K-x and a Tamron zoom; at a crucial moment (fleeting light and scenery/architecture) the effing Tamron seized up (it wasn't cold) and stopped focusing and wouldn't work again until I turned the camera off, removed the lens and put it back on, by which time it was too late. (No Canon lens has ever done that to me - yet - nor did any of my Pentax lenses.) I don't know about the 70-300, but that particular zoom - a fairly well-regarded 18-250 - wasn't reliably accurate at focusing anyway....


----------



## brought1 (Oct 5, 2012)

Hey guys.....Brought1 here...the originator of this thread....

Wow...I love the comments! Thank you everyone for your imput. With that being said, here's my follow-up - 

Early on someone posted about - "Regardless of the equipment, ultimately it's the image that matters." This is very very true. 

NOW THE BUTT...lol

A little more info on this wedding - 

This was a paid gig. I knew that he was an amateur and "More than likely" would have issues with the varying lighting conditions. He was not there the entire time, just through the First-look...ceremony....and part of the reception. 

With that being said...Somebody mentioned that I should've set him up with one of my canon bodies with primes. Honestly, it didn't even cross my mind to do so. I'm very touchy with my Nifty-fifty mark 1, just because it took me a while to find a very good one...( Sorry - I prefer the metal mount) 

ALL BESIDES THE POINT. He did great! No question about it. He was respectful...did as I asked...took the shots I requested and did them quite well. 

The way I approach all of my photoshoots, especially when I'm team shooting or have an assistant shooter is as such: 

1. Let me get the shot I have in mind ( the classic...traditional shot) 
2. After that is done...usually in one or two shots, let's get creative. For those of you who will argue with this, please don't. As a working professional, I would rather have 1 shot that is completely usable and sell-able than a bunch of extreme creative shots that are just mediocre and don't capture the "Essence" of the moment.
3. As long as I have achieved step 1..and am happy with my result ( just a quick glimpse to the lcd screen) then I allow the second shooter to step in and try to get what they had in mind. 

This way, it doesn't matter if I have the newest amateur photographer or a seasoned veteran, in the end I have the shot I need!

Around my area, photographers are just brutal to one-another and therefore I don't associate with them ( I try not to) and because I have a teaching-heart, I would prefer to make connections with amateurs with great potential sooo...when I'm in need of a second gunner, I know their style and commitment to the cause.

Sooo..back to the main point. Equipment - 

In college my roommate purchased a 10 thousand dollar trumpet. Did he "Need it"...that was completely up to him. His response to me was.." This is the last trumpet i'll ever buy." He's a professional in England, Ph.d. and is a professor. The point is, professionals know the equipment they need in order to get their best results...

They can still get them with lesser equipment, don't get me wrong, however, if this is your calling, then you ought to get the equipment that will not HINDER your creativeness...what do I mean.

If I have two different cameras that both take pictures, same settings...same everything...however, one of them produces much higher quality images. ( i'm not going to argue about what makes a good picture) stictly talking about overall digital quality...Naturally, I would prefer the camera that achieves the end goal. Whether that be Canon, Nikon...pentax...sony...OK... If you're on the other extreme and prefer the camera that takes poor quality images and can't really tell the difference...then please stop reading and move on to the next thread. 

I need the best tool for the job I'm doing!! If it's a prime, then it's a prime...if a zoom works best..then it's a zoom...T/S...macro...Tripod...Whatever.

He is an amateur so I didin't expect him to have the best or nicest equipment, however, as a working professional, I have a workflow that is 2nd to none...and is customized for my needs. When I have to break my workflow to completely adjust for a poor quality image, it's time consuming and not beneficial. This is why I use the equipment I do.

I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT HIM. I promise. I enjoy working with amateurs....they have spirit and vigor that is lost with some professionals. 

What hit me most...was how different in quality the images are. 

I'm posting two images. 

Thanks.

Here's some exif info on the two pics...

1. Pentax K-x, Tamron AF70-300, 1/1600, F4.5, 148 mm, ISO 400
2. Canon 40 D, Canon 70-200 2.8 L II, 1/400, F2.8, 70 mm, iso 100

These images are untouched out of the camera...After all is said and done...we're really only about a stop 1/2 difference. 

This is about the closest of a shot between us I could find...


----------



## awinphoto (Oct 5, 2012)

Brought1... I think all the nikon fans will soon pipe up saying (look at the DR of the pentax) lol. With that being said, Different camera systems will do that to ya, but even more, depending on the settings and how each camera is shot, 2 different canon bodies could be that different, especially if one was shot jpeg and the other raw... In the end, everything falls under your name and your brand, and if their shots dont meet your requirements for your brand, dont use them... Tough going but lesson learned.


----------



## brought1 (Oct 5, 2012)

awinphoto said:
 

> Brought1... I think all the nikon fans will soon pipe up saying (look at the DR of the pentax) lol. With that being said, Different camera systems will do that to ya, but even more, depending on the settings and how each camera is shot, 2 different canon bodies could be that different, especially if one was shot jpeg and the other raw... In the end, everything falls under your name and your brand, and if their shots dont meet your requirements for your brand, dont use them... Tough going but lesson learned.




Thanks for you comment. As for the "Tough lesson learned..." One thing you may not know about me is short of the unforeseeable, i'm always prepared. So, if you read back through my recent post, you'll see my process of assuring I capture the shot i'm after. And going thru my images, I'm not bothered one way or another about the other photographer's shots. Why...because I already have the images I'm after, without his images. And with the amount of weddings i've photographed over the years, I know better than to completely rely on an amateur assistant. 

( sorry...I know this may come across as being cocky..I promise i'm not trying to be. Early on in my photography career, I was burned by another photog at an important session because of two different systems...) 

As for your different camera systems, Let's start with two different cameras from the same system. 

Yes, chances are they will have a different look. I'll give you that one - even with the same settings. So you designate one camera as your primary and the other as your backup. In my case, my 5D MK II is my primary and one of my 40D's as my secondary. At weddings, I have my 24-70 attached to the 5D and my 70-200 2.8II to the 40D. 

I only use "L" lenses with my 40D because I need the quality of the digital image to be close to my 5D. I don't care so much about the size....I'll crop if I need to. I know my results when I use to use secondary lenses...Terrible - Fringes/CA, less vibrant, less color, less contrast. Also, when I worked as a studio photographer for a local studio, they had a plethora of 28-105 lenses that non-studio photogs would use...and when I would review their images, it was like Night and day.

I have all of my cameras set to Neutral to begin with and like nikon shooters, I tend to shoot to the right...knowing that Canon does very well in bringing back detail from accidental overexposure....not so much from an underexposed image. ( with nikon...I've found the opposite...They can bring detail out of the shadows better than anyone...sad to say. But an overexposed image was ruined...)

The point i'm trying to make is that I am very happy with the results I get from my 40D when I have superior lenses attached. It really does make a world of difference, even if it's only a 10.1 mp camera. lol 

Someone had mentioned that I ought to place a prime on my other canon 40D and let him hammer out the shots with that. It didn't even cross my mind, as I wanted him to be comfortable shooting, whereas him using my other body...was a wreck. 

And I had good laugh with the DR of the Pentax. Years ago, before I bought into canon, I almost pulled the switch and went with a pentax. Only because they had a button that no matter what settings you had up....if you pushed it, it would give you a decently exposed image. I thought I needed one of those..lol 

Thanks for your comment! Have a good day.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 6, 2012)

brought1 said:


> Here's some exif info on the two pics...
> 
> 1. Pentax K-x, Tamron AF70-300, 1/1600, F4.5, 148 mm, ISO 400
> 2. Canon 40 D, Canon 70-200 2.8 L II, 1/400, F2.8, 70 mm, iso 100
> ...



it is hard for me to believe that the second one is out of camera jpeg... and it is just based on my experience and what i have learned in these months... if you live very close to me and show me that you can capture similar image with your 40d in front of my eyes, i will promise that will work for you FREE in three years (weekend only).


----------



## brought1 (Oct 6, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> brought1 said:
> 
> 
> > Here's some exif info on the two pics...
> ...




Lol...I promise, this is straight out of the camera...How do I know...I'm editing the pictures for this wedding right now. All i've done so far is imported them into lightroom and created a few collections...I haven't even touched the white balance. This picture was pulled straight from the CF Card

The only lens I've found that gives me "To-die-for" images with my 40D's is my 70-200 2.8 II and believe it or not....my 70-210 FD F3.5 to..something lens with an FD to EOS Adapter. 

But please keep in mind...I have found very very few lenses that give me this type of brilliance with 40D's. I honestly think canon screwed up when manufacturing the 40D....IMHO


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 6, 2012)

sorry, i am not and will not believe it though  i do own some L lenses, plus 50 f/1.4, one of them is the one that you were using to take that pic which is 70-200mm is ii. why do i not believe it? very simple to me since i am having been studying about digital zone and lighting (still continue to learn with flash). i do not have that much experience but i might be able to tell what exposure should be used by taking a look at current lighting condition (will force myself more into this area when having more time.)

i am not talking about white balance, i am talking about skin tone of your subject (unless there is a problem with his skin), his outfit and black color on chair makes me hard to believe it.

aiite, i still keep my promise that i am working for you free as if you are living in southern california. you do not have to worry about lens any more since most of my lens are L lenses, along with 30d, 7d, and a 5d mark III... open my eyes with that kinda shot, then i will work for you three years (weekend) for FREE...


----------



## CharlieB (Oct 6, 2012)

L glass never sold a shot that was crap to begin with.... that was the photographer's problem.

L glass never got a bird to turn its head and face the sun so you'd get a nice catchlight in its eye.... 

L glass never forced a bride to give you that cute look that her family enjoys

L glass never cured a pixel peeper of their pixel peepin'

Get the lens that does the job.


----------



## brought1 (Oct 6, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> sorry, i am not and will not believe it though  i do own some L lenses, plus 50 f/1.4, one of them is the one that you were using to take that pic which is 70-200mm is ii. why do i not believe it? very simple to me since i am having been studying about digital zone and lighting (still continue to learn with flash). i do not have that much experience but i might be able to tell what exposure should be used by taking a look at current lighting condition (will force myself more into this area when having more time.)
> 
> i am not talking about white balance, i am talking about skin tone of your subject (unless there is a problem with his skin), his outfit and black color on chair makes me hard to believe it.



Lol...I don't know what to say..lol other than hopefully you find a combo-match the wields the results you're after. As for me, I get this kind of result with my 40D/70-200 2.8 II just about every time. Because of the crop factor, I don't generally use it often as it's too long of a focal range for some of the work I do. Plus, with my 5D, there's no need for me to use it...as my images with the 5D and 70-200 are just brilliant. 

I like Charlie B's comments about L Glass....especially the last part of "Get the lens that does the job" I completely agree...100%

I love using my 70-200 for portraits, however, to be honest, unless i'm trying to impress my clientele or something...I generally stick with my 85 1.8 - and shoot between F2.0 and F4. It's a magnificent lens! It's quality rivals and surpasses just about any "L" lens. Plus, unless I feel the need to constantly use it at F1.2, then there's no need to get the 1.2 and spend an extra 5x's the amount. 


I've been fortunate enough to work as a Studio Photographer and work beside the manager who studied at the Art Institute of Seattle and learn how to approach people and get the facial expressions....the posing...the lighting...everything. However, it was not easy!!! Let me be very clear - here was a lesson on lighting I received:

"Luis - How do I get the lighting to look like this magazine?"

"J, take this light and put it here....take that light...put a grid on it and place it here...your fill light, flip it around so it bounces off the wall at 1/2 power, place your hair light off to the side...Oh...I'm getting a phone call, Um...J, let's continue this lesson in a few days from now...?


These were my lessons. lol ....So after he left, I would practice that light set-up for about an hour until I achieved the look I was after. And so on and so on...until I realized I didn't need him or anyone else to show me how to light a subject. I could just look at a magazine and instantly know how and what was used to achieve the lighting. 

Now, to get back to the topic....When I would use a non fixed zoom lens, for indoor studio work, the fluctuating FStop between different focal lengths drove me CRAZY!! I wouldn't use a 50mm on a FF Camera, because I would be right up in their face a few feet away to get the same perspective/ on a step ladder shooting down....the 70-200 would've been great except I wasn't just shooting headshots all day long...It was a full Studio...They didn't have an 85....instead they figured EF-S 18-135 lenses would suffice....Don't get me wrong...that's a wonderful lens, however, the fluctuating F stop on that drove me crazy. So until I started bringing my lenses because I couldn't stand theirs....image quality was decent....Once they saw the brilliance in quality with the 85 or heck..even my 24-70 ( I don't care what people say about this lens...my copy is TACK-SHARP) they went bananas. 

Some people take wonderful images with mediocre equipment...and that's OK. But one lesson I learned early on....is that if someone is paying you $2,000 + for a photo-shoot, you ought to have better equipment than the they do. Otherwise...unfortunately, they start telling everyone that they have the same equipment as you and that they should've taken the photos themselves...and saved a few thousand dollars. This happened to one of my friends and they got some bad rap for it. If you're a professional and use mediocre equipment, then make sure your ( you know what) doesn't stink, because I guarantee they will look and hire someone soley based on their equipment. And if you think i'm wrong...than prove it! Take a $400-500 camera to your next $3,000 wedding and see what kind of looks you get. 

Anyways, great posts everyone! I appreciate all the wonderful feedback!

J ( And i'm based out of Washington State.)


----------



## trygved (Oct 6, 2012)

While I love my 24-105, I don't feel it, or any other L lens is required in order to get great results.
It's just required to get the _best_ results.
I recently went to a wedding as a guest equipped with a T2i and a Rokinon 85mm.
While it may not be a low light king, paired with a fast prime it holds its weight just fine.
Sitting around $800 for the entire setup, being less than a single L lens, I consider the results peachy.
Of course it's all subjective; I've attached some downres samples.

While I understand the rant, I feel too much emphasis is being put on the equipment and not enough on the skillset of the photographer. I'm not familiar with the Pentax system, but it seems a flat profile could have made a world of difference. But then again, what do I know.


----------



## brought1 (Oct 6, 2012)

I won't post anymore on this topic....people either understand or they don't. And those that don't, chances are haven't had the opportunity to work with great equipment....So be it...


It's like a race-car driver. The driver wants the best equipped vehicle to win the race. He doesn't want a jalopy and with his magnificent driving technique....and hope that he will win. He wants to win. 

Someone that is not a race-car driver, not driving in the race doesn't care about what type of car he has...because he will drive whatever and be happy. 

More than likely, the non race-car driver will not aspire to be a race-car driver and therefore does not see the merit of having a race-car. 

Look around at your favorite photographers.....which of them use sub-par equipment? If you're unsure about yourself as a photographer, then take a class...hire a mentor....read more books...practice your technique...learn to be a better photographer. 

You'll quickly learn the limitations of your equipment. And if you're happy with them....then so be it....But on the other hand, there are a lot of photographers that require the best for their clients and Sub-par equipment just won't cut it. 

So...Buy "L" lenses... don't buy them...I don't care! I really don't. If you loose customers because you continue to "Get-buy" on your equipment and don't continue to learn your craft as a photographer...then I have no pity for you. 

I'm sorry for being so condescending...and a little snipe...Although everyone is entitled to their opinion....I realize I don't care anymore....I continue to achieve beautiful and beautiful results time and time again....And although my technique continues to get better, I have found that my results are skyrocketing...because of my equipment's ability to physically produce a quality digital image....I have people all over that request one on one's with me and continue to ask about my "Secrets" to achieving a stunning result...and my answer doesn't waiver...

Learn your craft.....use the equipment that will not hinder your ability to achieve the very best results. If you're not sure about how your results stack-up... choose a few of your favorite photographers and compare your results to them. If you're happy...then great...If you feel you have some work....then get to work to be a better photographer....whatever that means to you.!


----------



## funkboy (Oct 6, 2012)

CharlieB said:


> Get the lens that does the job.



You nailed it.



sdsr said:


> That's true, of course, up point. But some gear has a lot of limitations to work around. You can take good photos with a Pentax K-x (I briefly owned one as a back-up for a K-5 before switching to a 5DII), but it isn't very impressive in low light and won't win any prizes for focus accuracy



The point I was making earlier is that my brother has a bunch of cheap gear, but when he does a gig he brings the *right* gear. He knows that he needs to shoot low light with lenses like the nifty 50 and has a lot of experience with it, and gets good (often great) results with the 400D. The kit zoom comes out when there's enough light to stop it down to at least f/8. Would his shots be a little better and would he get more keepers if he had an 85L and a mkIII? Of course. But he brings the *right* cheap gear for the job and really knows how to use it, so his clients are happy.

If the O.P. didn't verify that his buddy Mr. Pentax had some kind of fast prime & figure out his max acceptable ISO before asking him to shoot low light then I can't show too much sympathy...


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 6, 2012)

the statement is true to an extent however there are only a handfull of L lenses better than the sigma 85 f1.4
regardless of cost and focal length and they are all the seriously expensive massive and heavy ones.

also IMO the new sigma 50mm f1.4 is better than all the canon 50mm lenses

the 40mm pancake is sharper and better accross the frame than the 24-70 f2.8L mk1 at 40mm the center is similar but edges and corners the 40mm dominates heavily.


----------



## trygved (Oct 6, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> the 40mm pancake is sharper and better accross the frame than the 24-70 f2.8L mk1 at 40mm the center is similar but edges and corners the 40mm dominates heavily.



The pancake is the cat's pajamas!
And the IQ on some of the Siggy primes are so good! though I prefer the build quality of their L counterparts.


----------



## gmrza (Oct 6, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> the statement is true to an extent however there are only a handfull of L lenses better than the sigma 85 f1.4
> regardless of cost and focal length and they are all the seriously expensive massive and heavy ones.
> 
> also IMO the new sigma 50mm f1.4 is better than all the canon 50mm lenses
> ...



Another lens which I enjoy, which is not an L series, it does not have the best build quality in the world, but in its time it was the only one which Canon produced is the 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. - As I said, not L series, not the best build quality, but a fun lens.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 6, 2012)

I look at it this way: Every camera has its limits. Lower-cost cameras (and phone cams) tend to have much tighter limits than professional-level models, for example. But- if you learn those limits and work within them, you can get great shots with anything.


----------



## picturesbyme (Oct 6, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> the statement is true to an extent however there are only a handfull of L lenses better than the sigma 85 f1.4
> regardless of cost and focal length and they are all the seriously expensive massive and heavy ones.
> 
> also IMO the new sigma 50mm f1.4 is better than all the canon 50mm lenses
> ...



+1


----------

