WPJs... would you bring...?

[Yatlapball]

Along a fast telephoto zoom mounted? like say 80-200/2.8 for AD coverage?

I could probably visualise some usage for such a lens like capturing the more candid moments. But the weight factor might outweigh the returns... especially when I already carry a 17-55/2.8 and a 85/1.4.

Just looking for some input from the more experienced friends here on whether you have missed capturing poignant moments because of lens lack-of-reach.

[snowspeeder]

More heavy equipment means you not reach as fast as you normally woulud in an event shoot. Also, it wears out your energy faster. One way is to work out more in the gym to build more mass and strength and to build more endurance if you prefer more lenses.

[wazzup]

I bring the below. (refer to sig).

[Witness]

i seriously prefer to travel light. especially if u shoot often u'd get what i mean..
hahaha

cheers

[Yatlapball]

Originally Posted by wazzup I bring the below. (refer to sig).

and wear them webbing style?

[zac08]

Originally Posted by Yatlapball and wear them webbing style?

I believe he uses a large shoulder bag...

[pianodancer]

Originally Posted by Yatlapball Along a fast telephoto zoom mounted? like say 80-200/2.8 for AD coverage? I could probably visualise some usage for such a lens like capturing the more candid moments. But the weight factor might outweigh the returns... especially when I already carry a 17-55/2.8 and a 85/1.4. Just looking for some input from the more experienced friends here on whether you have missed capturing poignant moments because of lens lack-of-reach.

To me, it depends on the location. If the events happen in small areas like HDB, then the telephoto zoom will be redundant.

In my view, to be an effective journalistic photographer, you need to equip with more than one camera body to avoid changing lenses and to cater for redundancy. There is no second chance for capturing the moments. And you certainly shouldn't scrimp on equipment for convenience sake.

[Paul_Yeo]

the photog can bring provided:

1) he is a seasoned photog, can handle two cameras + 2 lens. no need un / mount .
2) he is strong as he will not be travelling light

[Yatlapball]

That would make me want to carry one more body in addition to the 2 I bring normally

pianodancer: yep you are right on the setting of the wedding. And in the typical chinese wedding, the morning events would seldom require a telephoto. (unless they stay in a HUGE house heh)

Tks for all the feedback, just wanted to see if anyone else felt the same need to equip with a telephoto during the wedding dinners. Because I certainly felt the lack of reach when I covered as a 2nd photog at a recent one... feet couldn't zoom fast enough for me to reach with my 85/1.4... and it felt abit "obstrusive" to stick a cam infront of a tearing relative.

Weight actually isn't a real concern for me. Just the lens changing bit. Guess more practice makes perfect. My first assignment as main photog this coming weekend. Having a little bit of jitters that's all

[cosycatus]

Originally Posted by Yatlapball Along a fast telephoto zoom mounted? like say 80-200/2.8 for AD coverage? I could probably visualise some usage for such a lens like capturing the more candid moments. But the weight factor might outweigh the returns... especially when I already carry a 17-55/2.8 and a 85/1.4. Just looking for some input from the more experienced friends here on whether you have missed capturing poignant moments because of lens lack-of-reach.

i seriously think a 17-55 is good enuff , unless u are doing a church wedding and the priest dun let u go near the altar.

Dun worry too much about missing some action over at the other far end. Thing is, by the time u wipe out ur long lens and want to shoot what is happening over there, the moment is lost.
The idea is to know where the action is going to happen and be there to capture it. In tis case, a 17-55 is more than good enuff.

I've been wanting to try to shoot an entire wedding with just a 30mm lens ( about 50mm on a 1.6 body) but, so far, dun dare yet.

Any pros can let me tag along to try?

[Paul_Yeo]

Originally Posted by cosycatus The idea is to know where the action is going to happen and be there to capture it. In tis case, a 17-55 is more than good enuff.

You are right! Anticipate where and when the fun actions will be

[ckuang]

personally, i really like the 100mm+ range for the compression factor.

[pianodancer]

17-55 captures the mood of the event, 80-200 captures the expressions of the individual.

[look4raymond]

Your camera with the 17-50 lens carry on your neck.
Your the other camera with the telephoto lens put on your tripod.
This is the best way!

[Yatlapball]

ckuang & pianodancer: tks! I think I might try having the 80-200 on the 2nd body, keeping the 85 only for the deliberate posed shots.

raymond: tripod? a little too unwieldy in a AD shoot right?

[yumyum]

if possible, 2 cam bodies, 2 lens, 2 flashes, n many many extra batteries, memory cards

[XC Pictorial]

Originally Posted by Yatlapball Along a fast telephoto zoom mounted? like say 80-200/2.8 for AD coverage? I could probably visualise some usage for such a lens like capturing the more candid moments. But the weight factor might outweigh the returns... especially when I already carry a 17-55/2.8 and a 85/1.4. Just looking for some input from the more experienced friends here on whether you have missed capturing poignant moments because of lens lack-of-reach.

Depending on situation, i might bring along either the 80-200 f2.8 / sigma 70-200 f2.8 or 180mm f2.8

But for most part i jus mount the 17-35 f2.8 on one body and 28-70 f2.8 on another. I usually carry a FE along. Used much more often than the telelens.

[wazzup]

Originally Posted by Yatlapball and wear them webbing style?

Nope

Originally Posted by zac08 I believe he uses a large shoulder bag...

Bingo

[jOhO]

Originally Posted by Yatlapball Along a fast telephoto zoom mounted? like say 80-200/2.8 for AD coverage? I could probably visualise some usage for such a lens like capturing the more candid moments. But the weight factor might outweigh the returns... especially when I already carry a 17-55/2.8 and a 85/1.4. Just looking for some input from the more experienced friends here on whether you have missed capturing poignant moments because of lens lack-of-reach.

nope.. my 70-200 was in cold storage for 6 months before i decided to sell it off to someone who would use it more. and i kinda... shoot a wedding almost every week... i suppose 6 months is a good guage to know that i would not use that lens forever!

as u mentioned, i use the 85/1.4 in place of that heavy lump of good glass.

[AReality]

If I dun have another tele zoom/prime, it's 1 of those lens that i will hoard, just to "cover all focal lengths". U never know when u gonna need it.

.