Do I really need to add the 50mm f2 for weddings?? help...

I shoot weddings. I'm considering adding the 50 f2 as a portrait lens. My stumbling block is the overlap with my current lens line-up.

I currently use the following.. (bodies - E-3 + E-620)
11-22 f2.8-35
14-54 f2.8-3.5
50-200 f2.8-3.5 SWD
sigma 30 f1.4

Also have a couple of manual fast primes... (not ideal for weddings ... auto focus would be a plus!!)
OM 50 f1.8
Super Takumar 55 f2 (M42 mount)
Jupiter 9 (85mm f2) (M42 mount)

So I already have the 50mm focal length well & truly covered, and I can use the 50-200 at 50mm f/2.8 for portraits . For lowlight speed I can use the sigma 30/1.4.

so .... do i really need the 50/2 ?? Any thoughts or advice is appreciated.

Brad.

--
Do, or do not... there is not try.

you currently have listed for weddings. Then I switched to the 35-100. I had the 50 2.0 but it is useless for me know with the 35-100. My advice is to skip buying the 50 and save the money towards the 35-100 you will have much more versatility with it.

Currently I have the 7-14, 14-35, 35-100, sigma 50 1.4 and they seem to cover my bases most of the time.

Cheers,

Ryan
--
Love of beauty is taste. The creation of beauty is art.- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Brad,

You've got all the lenses you could possibly need for wedding work. Adding the 50mm would just be overkill. If anything, I would consider getting either the 7-14mm or the 8mm FE to take along in place of the 11-22mm -- primarily for the very unique perspective those lenses can provide (clients love the occasional ultra wide look in some shots).

You've got a great portrait lens with your 50-200mm @ 50mm and you're only talking about the difference between f2 and f2.8 -- not that great a difference.

I agree with the poster who said start saving for the 35-100mm -- that would be a killer wedding lens to own.

God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo

NO!!

Use what you have...it is not needed at all...I use the same kit as Ryan less the Sigma. The 35-100 is worth considering BUT for weddings is OVERKILL (very nice & I love it but in reality overkill)

ad
--

http://www.dsphotographics.com/

This is what I have been thinking myself Ryan. My concern with the 35-100 is the size and weight. Is this a valid concern? Is it really that much bigger than the 50-200 SWD? I've never seen on in the flesh. Thanks for your thoughts.

Ryan21 said:

you currently have listed for weddings. Then I switched to the 35-100. I had the 50 2.0 but it is useless for me know with the 35-100. My advice is to skip buying the 50 and save the money towards the 35-100 you will have much more versatility with it.

Currently I have the 7-14, 14-35, 35-100, sigma 50 1.4 and they seem to cover my bases most of the time.

Cheers,

Ryan
--
Love of beauty is taste. The creation of beauty is art.- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Click to expand...

--
Do, or do not... there is not try.

Use this to see what the 35-100 will look like on the E-3 and E-620 http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/matching/index.html

Greg,

Be grateful if you could give me your opinion on the 14-35mm f2 for studio portrait use over the 35-100mm f2. Sorry if I've sidetracked from weddings somewhat!

Regards,

davec

daddyo said:

Brad,

You've got all the lenses you could possibly need for wedding work. Adding the 50mm would just be overkill. If anything, I would consider getting either the 7-14mm or the 8mm FE to take along in place of the 11-22mm -- primarily for the very unique perspective those lenses can provide (clients love the occasional ultra wide look in some shots).

You've got a great portrait lens with your 50-200mm @ 50mm and you're only talking about the difference between f2 and f2.8 -- not that great a difference.

I agree with the poster who said start saving for the 35-100mm -- that would be a killer wedding lens to own.

God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo

Click to expand...

I don't own either lens, but I will say that for studio work you are really talking about two different animals. It really depends on what you are shooting most in a studio setting -- family groups, or head and shoulder shots. Unless you have a really large studio space, the 35-100mm would not be adequate to shoot groupings of three or more. By the same token, if you are doing mostly head and shoulder shots, the 14-35 would not be as beneficial as the 35-100mm.

I use use my 14-54mm for groups, and my 50-200mm for individuals and couples. Hope this helps a little.

God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo

I shoot with two cams on my shoulders during the entire wedding one E-3 with the 12-60 and the 620 backup with the 35-100 both with FL-50Rs. It isn't light but I am used to it. If you are just using the 35-100 on an E-3 I don't foresee many issues with the weight. But I am expecting that particular optic to be heavier. I would rather have a sore back at the end of the day with great images than be comfortable and not have the versatility.

The 50 F2 is fun for family stuff when I don't want the huge glass, and it can be more accommodating to candid portraiture where the subjects can't really tell if you are photographing them (it is much less intimidating). The zoom allows for you to "snipe" your subjects (see Joe Buissink).
--
Love of beauty is taste. The creation of beauty is art.- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Greg.
Thanks for your thoughts,

Regards,

Dave c

daddyo said:

I don't own either lens, but I will say that for studio work you are really talking about two different animals. It really depends on what you are shooting most in a studio setting -- family groups, or head and shoulder shots. Unless you have a really large studio space, the 35-100mm would not be adequate to shoot groupings of three or more. By the same token, if you are doing mostly head and shoulder shots, the 14-35 would not be as beneficial as the 35-100mm.

I use use my 14-54mm for groups, and my 50-200mm for individuals and couples. Hope this helps a little.

God Bless,
Greg
http://www.imagismphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/daddyo

Click to expand...

Like the other posters, I would really encourage you to get the 35-100, if at all possible. I used it for 90% of a wedding I did last August, and it performed flawlessly.

It is heavy, but I found that didn't really cause a problem - especially when looking at the results afterwards!

Other lens I used was 14-35.

Regards,
Rich Simpson

no [nt]