50 years in, this shouldn't be true, but I still make better photos with primes than with zooms. With a zoom, my brain defaults to framing the subject rather than framing the scene. With a prime, I can't change the framing without changing the perspective, and I guess it just triggers me to explore perspectives because I'm moving anyway...
3 years in, a year after your response :p all new tech, sharpness an AF, and shooting with both primes and zooms, this is also the case for me. I can get a shot with a zoom, but my brain just short circuits and I never like the pictures apart from the 70-200.
Nothing hurts more than a lens falling! I have use in my events the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art lens, even tho is a heavy lens is so sharp that I don’t care about the weight. Love the 16-35mm sharp lens at f 4 or 5.6. As you said these are tools the important is how we used them! Cool video thanks for sharing!
I have shot many events with vintage lenses. Of course I use AF when I can, but vintage are incredibly viable. For starters, vintage are compact. Vintage lenses did not cut corners and produce diameters in the 70mm range. I shot a theatre performance tonight from my lap with a Sony using focus peaking and a Nikon 105 mm prime film lens. Never could have pulled out that giant beast you showcase. I swapped back and forth with a 2x teleconverter. I agree with you on the extra time spent on the manual focus, but Sony's focus peaking is a game changer.
In the case of this video, the definition of pro lens = L lens. Pointing out the obvious since just because you have an L lens doesn't make your photos significantly better. I know too many youtubers who actually think this, and or call themselves a pro because of their gear... but then again, those people are also the pixel peepers. On a side note, I actually really wanted the 16-35 instead of the 17-40 because at the same focal length and same aperture, I have always gotten less CA, less barrel distortion, and sharper images. But I was poor at the time. I will say, like you mentioned, the weight has been a lifesaver. My cellulite filled arms don't need the extra weight from the 16-35 after a full days worth of shooting. LOL.
Great video Mik. Surprised you didn’t mention a 35mm prime. At the couple events I’ve done (I’m not a pro), a 50 would have been a bit tight. But you’re definitely more up in everyone’s business with a 35mm, which has its plusses and minuses. The second shooter at the one event only used a 70-200, and stayed on the periphery the whole night. Reviewing the photos after, I think mine were more interesting and captured what it felt like to be there.
Excited to see a video pop up in my feed! I'm just starting to book a few events here and there again after a lot of stuff got canceled during Omicron (I mainly shoot music and several tours got canceled because of the rise in it).
@@MikMilman Haha, I haven't clicked the bell on purpose because I'm very specific about what notifications I do and don't get, but I check the channel every morning when I wake up, and sometimes multiple times throughout the day, so I tend not to miss videos 😊 And yeah, live music had decidedly more cancellations than other event types... I'm certainly no expert, but I suspect a large part of the reason for this is that for a band or artist going on tour (and their crew), getting even one touring person infected in any of the cities they play in will almost definitely result in everyone else on the crew getting it shortly after. Furthermore, this could easily lead to them having to stop the tour partway, having to quarantine somewhere away from home (possibly even in a different country), dealing with refunding everyone who has tickets for any of the shows that haven't happened yet, and all of the other issues that come with COVID... and that's all while having to deal with the sickness itself. So when the potential downside of even a single slip-up could be financially disastrous for everyone in the crew, their label, the promoters, the venues, and any audience members that also get infected that night, it's not surprising.
@@MasterPpv Musicians got sick on tour long before "the problem with the air that goes away when you sit down for a meal", but what hasn't existed until recent is the enforcement of proving medical procedure to enter venues in certain locales, which has certainly complicated things.
I've been looking at the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 for Sony for awhile and wondering if one of these, paired with a 16-35 2.8 and a super fast prime for really low-light scenarios, would cover pretty much everything. I'm just starting to build my "normal" lens collection (I do have a 150-600mm for birding and a 50mm 1.8) and am really torn between going the standard route (24-70 + 70-200 + something sub-20) or opt for the 16-35 plus one of those new 35-150s. Living in a small town where you can't rent anything certainly doesn't help. I'd be okay with adapting older second-hand EF L glass to save some money but I've heard AF performance can drop significantly with adapters.
I struggle with lens selection for event photography (I have event shoot coming up bat mitzvah) I got canon R and R7, lens I can't choose canon EF 16-35 f4, RF 24-105 f4, sigma 18-35 f1.8, sigma 24-70 f2.8, canon EF 70-200 f2.8 version 2 My first thought is on R7 24-105 f4 and EF 16-35 f4 on the R Second thought sigma 24-70 on r7 and 70-200mm on R Third thought sigma 18-35mm on r7 and 24-70 f2.8 on R Would really appreciate if anyone could help me with your suggestions pair on which camera and why
QUESTION: I'm currently using a Canon 77D with a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 lens and am looking to upgrade to a Canon mirrorless body within a budget of $1000-$1500. I mainly want to use it for event (Corporate/Institutional) Photography in conferences, meetings, seminars, outdoor activities, and some video interviews (Corporate). Which camera model would you recommend that would pair well with my existing lens and provide a significant upgrade in terms of features, performance and budget? Thanks!
I really recommend the original r6. It fits yoru budget and is a fantastic camera. Yes, the r6ii is a touch better in many ways, but it will not significantly change the quality of your end product.
Excellent video! Thanks for addressing the 50mm f/1.2, as I was curious about how it would work on the job at events! Also, another alternative for the 70-200mm f/2.8 for both Canon and Nikon shooters are the Tamron G2 version as well as the Sigma version of that lens. I've been shooting the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 for a couple of years, and it works really well both on my DSLRs and adapted on my mirrorless bodies. It's about half the cost of the 1st party version (Canon or Nikon), so one can save a lot of money there. Same with the third party 24-70mm 2.8 lenses, as well.
Thank you, Using a older Tamron 24-70 2.8 SP bought for £200 used. does the job. I never understand why low light is often mentioned with crazy low aperture, in that anything below f2 just their eye ball is going to be in focus so why do I need anything lower other than for artic purposes??
I completely agree with you. Anything bellow f2 is too soft, has vignetting and if the eyes are in focus, most of the time the hair won't be. That's my experience. SIGMA 35 art 1.4
I use a 24-70 and 70-200 mostly. But I've been experimenting with a RF35 and 70-200 to save on weight, and I also added a RF 16mm for establishing and dance floor shots. I would like to experiment with a 135mm instead of a 70-200 to save on weight and I think I can get 90% of the shots with the 135.
Also, if you're not in a rush and have deep pockets, consider waiting for an RF version. I'm certain it's coming and will likely be f1.8, though probably twice as expensive if not more.
I’ve been rocking a 17-35mm f/2.8-4, 50mm f/1.4, and a 24-70mm f/2.8. I had a vintage 135 that I would use because it was fast, small, had a nice character, and it was cheap! It was stolen recently, and I’m still debating which tele I should get to fill that void for small concert photography.
@@MikMilman if the artists were moving around a ton, it got quite difficult. But some of the people I’m shooting are DJs and they stay in mostly the same spot, and it wasn’t as bad. Either way, I enjoyed shooting with the manual 135, and I was able to get some of my favorite shots with that focal length.
I literally yelled at the screen for you to catch the lens @3:11 SMH lol. But seriously, I also recommend the Canon 16mm RF. I use it for RE photography. Super clean and sharp 👍
I hope they’re not new event photographers listening to this overkill list of lenses for event photography. Keep it stupid simple with a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 for candids and maybe if it’s an event with more flexibility a 50 prime and for corporate events a 16-35 2.8
0:00
0:07 24-70mm
01:22 17-40mm
04:04 16mm
04:59 70-200mm
08:15 Prime lenses
10:36 85mm
12:05 135mm
12:13 135mm vs 70-200mm
13:36 50mm
15:48 200mm
What camera did you move up to in the mirrorless world?
@3:08 - I cried. hope it was all good. You cannot just leave us hanging.
My M50 with 18-150mm with 1.6 crop factor looks amazing value for money. One camera system to rule them all :)
50 years in, this shouldn't be true, but I still make better photos with primes than with zooms. With a zoom, my brain defaults to framing the subject rather than framing the scene. With a prime, I can't change the framing without changing the perspective, and I guess it just triggers me to explore perspectives because I'm moving anyway...
3 years in, a year after your response :p all new tech, sharpness an AF, and shooting with both primes and zooms, this is also the case for me. I can get a shot with a zoom, but my brain just short circuits and I never like the pictures apart from the 70-200.
I still prefer Primes for weddings and portraits also.
My heart literally dropped with the lens 😅
Nothing hurts more than a lens falling!
I have use in my events the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art lens, even tho is a heavy lens is so sharp that I don’t care about the weight.
Love the 16-35mm sharp lens at f 4 or 5.6.
As you said these are tools the important is how we used them! Cool video thanks for sharing!
You too. I've heard great things about that sigma.
I have shot many events with vintage lenses. Of course I use AF when I can, but vintage are incredibly viable. For starters, vintage are compact. Vintage lenses did not cut corners and produce diameters in the 70mm range. I shot a theatre performance tonight from my lap with a Sony using focus peaking and a Nikon 105 mm prime film lens. Never could have pulled out that giant beast you showcase. I swapped back and forth with a 2x teleconverter. I agree with you on the extra time spent on the manual focus, but Sony's focus peaking is a game changer.
In the case of this video, the definition of pro lens = L lens. Pointing out the obvious since just because you have an L lens doesn't make your photos significantly better. I know too many youtubers who actually think this, and or call themselves a pro because of their gear... but then again, those people are also the pixel peepers. On a side note, I actually really wanted the 16-35 instead of the 17-40 because at the same focal length and same aperture, I have always gotten less CA, less barrel distortion, and sharper images. But I was poor at the time. I will say, like you mentioned, the weight has been a lifesaver. My cellulite filled arms don't need the extra weight from the 16-35 after a full days worth of shooting. LOL.
Love your content. I learned a lot and you helped me to up my event game a lot. Thank you!
Great video Mik. Surprised you didn’t mention a 35mm prime. At the couple events I’ve done (I’m not a pro), a 50 would have been a bit tight. But you’re definitely more up in everyone’s business with a 35mm, which has its plusses and minuses. The second shooter at the one event only used a 70-200, and stayed on the periphery the whole night. Reviewing the photos after, I think mine were more interesting and captured what it felt like to be there.
Solely because I do not have one. But once an RF 35 1.2 comes out, I will likely get it.
Excited to see a video pop up in my feed! I'm just starting to book a few events here and there again after a lot of stuff got canceled during Omicron (I mainly shoot music and several tours got canceled because of the rise in it).
Click that bell! ;) Btw, for whatever reason, live music shows seemed to have a higher amount of cancelations than other types of events.
@@MikMilman Haha, I haven't clicked the bell on purpose because I'm very specific about what notifications I do and don't get, but I check the channel every morning when I wake up, and sometimes multiple times throughout the day, so I tend not to miss videos 😊
And yeah, live music had decidedly more cancellations than other event types... I'm certainly no expert, but I suspect a large part of the reason for this is that for a band or artist going on tour (and their crew), getting even one touring person infected in any of the cities they play in will almost definitely result in everyone else on the crew getting it shortly after. Furthermore, this could easily lead to them having to stop the tour partway, having to quarantine somewhere away from home (possibly even in a different country), dealing with refunding everyone who has tickets for any of the shows that haven't happened yet, and all of the other issues that come with COVID... and that's all while having to deal with the sickness itself. So when the potential downside of even a single slip-up could be financially disastrous for everyone in the crew, their label, the promoters, the venues, and any audience members that also get infected that night, it's not surprising.
@@MasterPpv I think you're right.
@@MasterPpv Musicians got sick on tour long before "the problem with the air that goes away when you sit down for a meal", but what hasn't existed until recent is the enforcement of proving medical procedure to enter venues in certain locales, which has certainly complicated things.
I've been looking at the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8 for Sony for awhile and wondering if one of these, paired with a 16-35 2.8 and a super fast prime for really low-light scenarios, would cover pretty much everything. I'm just starting to build my "normal" lens collection (I do have a 150-600mm for birding and a 50mm 1.8) and am really torn between going the standard route (24-70 + 70-200 + something sub-20) or opt for the 16-35 plus one of those new 35-150s. Living in a small town where you can't rent anything certainly doesn't help. I'd be okay with adapting older second-hand EF L glass to save some money but I've heard AF performance can drop significantly with adapters.
first time finding your channel. thanks for the effort and the sharing. i REALLY like your vibe. i am now a subscriber. thumbs up.
I struggle with lens selection for event photography (I have event shoot coming up bat mitzvah) I got canon R and R7, lens I can't choose canon EF 16-35 f4, RF 24-105 f4, sigma 18-35 f1.8, sigma 24-70 f2.8, canon EF 70-200 f2.8 version 2
My first thought is on R7 24-105 f4 and EF 16-35 f4 on the R
Second thought sigma 24-70 on r7 and 70-200mm on R
Third thought sigma 18-35mm on r7 and 24-70 f2.8 on R
Would really appreciate if anyone could help me with your suggestions pair on which camera and why
Still rewatching this video! Rocking with my EF 16-35mm f4, RF 50mm f1.2 and EF 135mm f2 for the next event!
That's a solid way to do it.
Great vid, practical stuff and things to think on. Thanks 👍🏻
Happy to hear it!
great video thanks
LETS GOOOO!
lol
QUESTION: I'm currently using a Canon 77D with a Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 lens and am looking to upgrade to a Canon mirrorless body within a budget of $1000-$1500. I mainly want to use it for event (Corporate/Institutional) Photography in conferences, meetings, seminars, outdoor activities, and some video interviews (Corporate).
Which camera model would you recommend that would pair well with my existing lens and provide a significant upgrade in terms of features, performance and budget? Thanks!
I really recommend the original r6. It fits yoru budget and is a fantastic camera. Yes, the r6ii is a touch better in many ways, but it will not significantly change the quality of your end product.
Excellent video! Thanks for addressing the 50mm f/1.2, as I was curious about how it would work on the job at events!
Also, another alternative for the 70-200mm f/2.8 for both Canon and Nikon shooters are the Tamron G2 version as well as the Sigma version of that lens. I've been shooting the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 for a couple of years, and it works really well both on my DSLRs and adapted on my mirrorless bodies. It's about half the cost of the 1st party version (Canon or Nikon), so one can save a lot of money there. Same with the third party 24-70mm 2.8 lenses, as well.
For sure.
Thank you, Using a older Tamron 24-70 2.8 SP bought for £200 used. does the job. I never understand why low light is often mentioned with crazy low aperture, in that anything below f2 just their eye ball is going to be in focus so why do I need anything lower other than for artic purposes??
Well, if their eyes are in focus, they are in focus.
I completely agree with you. Anything bellow f2 is too soft, has vignetting and if the eyes are in focus, most of the time the hair won't be. That's my experience. SIGMA 35 art 1.4
I use a 24-70 and 70-200 mostly. But I've been experimenting with a RF35 and 70-200 to save on weight, and I also added a RF 16mm for establishing and dance floor shots. I would like to experiment with a 135mm instead of a 70-200 to save on weight and I think I can get 90% of the shots with the 135.
So long as I'm physically able to move into position, I've found that the 135 can replace having a 70-200 .
Also, if you're not in a rush and have deep pockets, consider waiting for an RF version. I'm certain it's coming and will likely be f1.8, though probably twice as expensive if not more.
@@MikMilman I agree, 200 is a little tight, even in wide open banquet hall.
@@MikMilman RF 135 would be great. I've been holding off on upgrading to a RF 70-200 for that reason... but it will probably be $$$$$
Is a Canon 28-80mm f2.8-4L usable for event photography despite being old?
I’ve been rocking a 17-35mm f/2.8-4, 50mm f/1.4, and a 24-70mm f/2.8. I had a vintage 135 that I would use because it was fast, small, had a nice character, and it was cheap! It was stolen recently, and I’m still debating which tele I should get to fill that void for small concert photography.
Was it difficult to manual focus the 135?
@@MikMilman if the artists were moving around a ton, it got quite difficult. But some of the people I’m shooting are DJs and they stay in mostly the same spot, and it wasn’t as bad. Either way, I enjoyed shooting with the manual 135, and I was able to get some of my favorite shots with that focal length.
Awesome, thanks!! Thoughts on 35mm 1.4 for mirrorles?
As soon as a professional level RF 35 comes out I plan on getting one.
I literally yelled at the screen for you to catch the lens @3:11 SMH lol. But seriously, I also recommend the Canon 16mm RF. I use it for RE photography. Super clean and sharp 👍
lol I think people watching had a bigger reaction than I did.
@@MikMilman looks painful 😆
Luckily I had both carpet and a rug to absorb the impact
My daughter does professional event photography and tells me that the 24-70mm is her workhorse.
Would you considered using the EF 35-350mm lens?
I'm not familiar with it.
I hope they’re not new event photographers listening to this overkill list of lenses for event photography. Keep it stupid simple with a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 for candids and maybe if it’s an event with more flexibility a 50 prime and for corporate events a 16-35 2.8
*smiling while holding my 28-200mm*
3:10 Oooooffff💀💀💀
😊👍
Ouch, the lens drop 😬😵
Ha it was totally fine. But once I dropped a 50 1.8 and it basically exploded into pieces. That wouldn't happen with an L lens though.
Haha a veteran knows. When I was an amateur weight wasn't an issue. Shooting a wedding or conference for 10 hours and a couple hundred grams add up.
Is that lens ok?
Ya.
did your lens survive the fall?
Yes.
Your auto focus was going nuts during this video, not the best