28-70mm 2.8L and 70-200mm 2.8L

[Woodman7]

I have a 10D and I am wanting to get serious with my shooting. I purchased these two lenses to help me. I am thinking that the 28-70 will be a great lense to shoot weddings and the 70-200 will be great for a portriat lense.

I keep tearing myself up going back and forth on whether or not the 28-70 will be sufficient for wedding group photos. Will I be able to do weddings with these two lenses? Or should I get rid of the 70-200 and get the 16-35. The multiplication factor really makes this a tough choice.

Any feedback would be great

[DaveG]

There is no doubt that the 28-70 (now 24-70) L lens is very nice. I just don't see the point. I have the 24-85 USM 3.5/4.5 lens. It's very sharp. Is it as sharp as the 24-70? I don't know, probably not. Can I tell? Now there's the problem because I doubt it.

As for the speed of the 24-85, I would use it with flash inside and outside at apertures smaller than 4.5 - and with fill flash in any case. And the old argument of how difficult it is to see through the slow lens the AF takes care of that!

The speed of that L lens (and ESPECIALLY if it's the older 28-70) is nothing that you'd buy in ANY of the focal lengths. A 28 mm f2.8? a 35 mm f2.8? a 50 or 70 f2.8? There's no way you'd spend a premium price on that speed in those focal lengths and it only gets a bit better with the 24 f2.8.

So for weddings I'd get the 16-35 f2.8 L, the 24-85 3.5/4.5 and maybe the 50 f1.4. Even with just the 24-85 there's very little that you couldn't do but the 16-35 can get you out of a pickle.

The 50 is a much better choice for portraits than the 70-200. That 70 is effectively a 112 mm lens and that's OK for portraits. But it's too long for wedding portraits since you rarely have enough room to use a lens of that length. I use a 145 mm amd a 150 mm lens for medium format weddings (effectively the same as a 50 for the 10D) and I get jammed even then.

[Vegas Poboy]

Me myself is saving the $$$ for new L lenses, this weekend I did soe shooting @ a local drag stip & found out that the 28-70mm and the 1.6x is good but not for close ups that you made need it for and the 50mm 1.8 was good for those low light situations and not bad for portriats. If you can go to a local camera shop with your camera and try out the 17-40 f/4 remember the 2.8 is only one stop away and you can adjust that with the ISO. The 70-200mm is not a wasted buy in any way, you just have to remember the 1.6x throws off your distance some.

[danphoto1]

24-70 f2.8 is an extreemly sharp lens and great for shooting portraits, I use a 20mm Sigma 1.8 for large group shots. I also have a Sigma 17-35 another good lens. there is no substitute for Canon L lenses if you can afford them. Although some folks find fault with tamron I like the 28-300 for all around shooting. I just find it to be a little slow in focusing. I have a 75-300 Canon IS but it is about the same. I get good results with both. The SD glass on the tamron is sharp also. Just rember if it does't look good before you shoot it I't will more than likly not look good after it goes through the camera. Every lens has it's strong points and weak points get to know your equipment. I love the 70-200 L 2.8 as well.


Dan

[lightandlife]

There is little time to change lenses in weddings and other important social occasions.

Get two cameras, one with 24-70mm L and the other with 70-200mm L. With other lenses you can make some people happy, but not all. 16-35mm may be useful for a large crowd, but 24-70mm would cover probably 2/3 of the need.

[Longwatcher]

If you are doing weddings or group portraits, yes trade the 70-200 for the 16-35. The f2.8 versus f4.0 of the 24-70 makes a small but significant difference in low light of indoors, also you will find you occaisonally need the wider angle of the 16-35 versus the 24-70 or 28-70. The 24-70 will make it most times, but if you can't back up far enough, having the 16-35 can make the difference.

I have had occaisons where I had to swap out the 28-135 I was using (now using 28-70 in similiar circumstances) for the 16-35, because I would otherwise just not make it. However In a medium to large hall I shot my entire Mom's side of the family at a reunion (about 50 people) with my 28-135 at 28mm, so it can be done. [trivia: this is the first shoot where I noticed my 28-135 having a problem]. In the case of the 28-135, I had to use a pair of 550EX flashes to provide enough light.

So if I were shooting weddings I would get the 16-35 and the 24-70 (skip the 28-70 unless significantly cheaper in this case - I like mine, but the 24-70 would be better). Also I recommend getting the 50/1.4 or 85/1.2L (depending on your taste) for use in portraits and really low light situations.