Isn't 24-70 too long on a 1.6crop body?

[KevC]

Going to shoot my first wedding in 07 (still got a year to practise ;)) I'm considering upgrading my lens arsenal by one.

The 24-70 range is the most preferred by many wedding photographers, but I am on a Digital Rebel, 1.6x crop body.

The last event I covered, I used my kit lens, and all my shots were <40mm. I'm thinking of investing in a Sigma 18-50/2.8.

Or even better, an ultrawide. Sigma 10-20/4-5.6. I wouldn't be able to afford the 10-22.

This roughly translates to the 16-35mm lens that is very popular on full frames. I know at 10mm this will be way too wide, but 15-20mm should be pretty good for wedding photography no?

Regarding the reception, not the ceremony.

Thoughts?

[tim]

The main lens I use for weddings is my 28-75, I take 90% of the shots with this lens. Some shots taken with 70-200 and some with 12-24. You can't use a wide lens for shots of people, you get too much distortion - 24mm is ok, much less isn't flattering. I sometimes do formals with my 70-200, if I have the space.

[NGrinerPhoto]

most of my weddings photos are taken with a 24-70 2.8L - for wide photos i use 17-40 4L

[Harry Settle]

Working lens is my 24-70. 19-35 I barely use.

[MALI]

I shoot the weddings with the three lens in my signature; 10-22, 24-70, 70-200. I am covered from 10-200mm on a 1.6x body without any focal length overlapping between lenses.

These three look like the minimum for a wedding. Maybe a prime like 50 or 85 could be added to this arsenal for portrait/formal shots.

MALI

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I usually end up doing a wedding with JUST my 24-70L. It just seems to do the trick for everything. Between my father and I, I have the option of about 4/5 other lenses, but I don't recall ever "needing" any other.

[tim]

During the wedding today I used my 70-200 F2.8 IS a lot - perhaps 40% of my photos were with it. 50% were with the 28-75, and 10% with the 12-24. I used the 100mm macro and the 50mm F1.4 for about 10 shots each, and I could've gotten away without using them at all.

If I had to choose one lens to use i'd take the 28-75, but I do love having the long lens, the wide lens, the fast lens, and the macro to choose from.

[Meaty0]

I don't shoot weddings, but coming from a big family, I sure seem to attend a hell of a lot! Like most amateurs, I watch very carefully what the "professionals" are using. I spoke to one lady whose work is fantastic and she has just three lenses in her entire collection (for everything, not just weddings):

70-200mm F2.8L IS

24-70 F2.8L

85mm F1.2L

She has 2 bodies and one is a 20D and the other is a 1D II N (I think...didn't get a real good look at that one)


This seems to be a popular group of lenses amongst the wedding shooters here in Brisbane. They have some rather exotic flash gear that I desperately want tho.:cry:

[Wilt]

I have a lot of experience with using medium format film system for wedding work. I found 40mm too wide and makes you prone to subject distortion due to perspective distortion, but 50mm waswide enough. The 40mm was fine for scene settings, but the 50mm was the lens for people!
That translates into 18mm is wide enough on a 1.6 crop camera. Ignoring the issue of lens speed, the 17-85 would be a perfect one-lens-solution for shooting people at weddings with 1.6 crop camera, I think. The 24-104 would a good one-lens-solution for FF.

[ffstretch]

The problem I have found with the 17-85 is the speed. If you can't use a flash (say inside a church) you have to drank up up the ISO and keep 'er real steady. But if people move it can't stop the motion. I have decided to order the 24-105 for the extra stop and reach over the 17-85. I will be adding the Canon EF-S 10-22 for my wide end and calling it good. What some people need to realize is as a wedding photographer you can't be switching lenses unless you have your timing down, an assistant, or want to carry extra bodies right with you. Everybody has their style that works for them and mine to to switch as little as possible, that just me.

PS If you don't mind the extra weight the 24-70 L 2.8 is the way to go. I really liked this lense when I had it. It was too heavy for me to handle for 4-8 hours every weekend.

[tim]

ffstretch you should consider the Tamron 28-75 F2.8. Quality is very good, good speed, and it's much lighter than the Canon 24-70.

I carry two bodies 95% of the time, in a church often one with 50mm F1.4 and one with 70-200 F2.8 IS, but it depends on the situation. I don't like changing lenses when I should be taking photos either, it's too easy to miss an important shot.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I've yet to find a more perfect lens than the 24-70L for weddings. If the Sigma 18-50 2.8 weren't strictly APS-C and a little weak in the IQ department, I'd like that one.

[NGrinerPhoto]

a buddy of mine that i shoot with was on a job today in dc photographing grip and grins ... he took off his 24-70, slapped on his 17-40, took a few shots, went back for his 24-70 and it was gone

[Ronald S. Jr.]

:shock: no f***in way. That's horrible! Oh god...I'm nauseous. :|

[Nigel Wallace]

Folks

Does anyone have a view on the Canon ef28 - 70 f2.8 L. Not sure if i can afford the 24 - 70 but i have an option of the 28 - 70 for a wedding shoot. Is it still a good choice for weddings even though it is 4mm less in width

Cheers

Nigel

[tim]

I use a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 lens and that's fine focal length wise. You do need a wider lens as well though, in case you get stuck inside a small room, I use a Tokina 12-24 F4 which works quite well. The 28-70L reviews very well (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=151&sort=7&cat=27&page=1).

[Ronald S. Jr.]

It's a fine lens. About the same size and weight of the 24-70L, and only marginally softer. It's not a soft lens by any means, but it just doesn't have quite the same pop and contrast of the 24-70. Edge results are just the very least bit less consistent than the 24-70, and as you said, you lose 4mm. I've seen the 28-70 going for about $800...try to buck up and save an extra $100 or so and get the 24-70. The improvements are worth it. I've seen the 24's going for $925 fairly consistently on FM.

[ffstretch]

Ya Tim, I've considered the Tammy, you never know....Like I said I think I'm going to give the 24-105 a whirl first and see how I like it this season. I always have the 50 1.4 on my other body. The 24-70 L is a great lense but when you're a little lady like me shooting for up to eight hours nonstop well, you get the picture. Frame, camera, lense, flash......a lady can only take so much!

By the way you and Ron (among others) have been a major help to me in my transition to digital, wow what a change it has been!

[KevC]

I just bought one, hahaha. Sigma 24-70EX... we'll see how that does.

[kawter2]

When i shot only 20D's I ENVIED ENVIED ENVIED the Nikor 17-55 2.8

IMO Canon is really missing the boat by not making a L lens (or equiv) of 2.8 in this focal length...

Now on the 5D the 24-70 just feels so right. It never did on my 20D.

CANON, In addition they need a 10mm FE (or equiv to attain 180 diag fov on 1.6 cameras as well)