which lense would you choose?

[blondine]

I want a lense for my new Canon 50D.... I plan on using it for weddings...... my two choices:

EF 24-105MM F/4 L IS USM
EF 24-70MM F/2.8 L USM

I like both lenses... but I want 1 that I can leave on the camera...

I have a 30D with a 17-85 lense for backup..... and a few other lenses (50mm 1.4, kit lense)

[tim]

FAQ: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=255604

Plus the two dozen identical threads in the past month. You're missing the 17-55 F2.8 IS option.

[blondine]

FAQ: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=255604

Plus the two dozen identical threads in the past month. You're missing the 17-55 F2.8 IS option.


I should have clarified.... I only have a choice of one of these 2 as it is being handed down to me as part of an inheritance, I get to choose because I'm the oldest. My uncle has/had an awesome collection of primes and 2 5D's which my aunt is hanging onto at this time.

[tim]

I love IS, and since you have a fast prime i'd take the 24-105.

[droberts]

I agree with Tim that the 17 - 55 is another good option, but out of your two choices I would get the 24-70. Mainly for lighting issues, you will need the 2.8 quit often. Plus its good for blurring backgrounds. Personally I think you would get more use out of a longer zoom...70-200 2.8 You can do most of your close up with the 50.

[matonanjin]

This 24-70 vs 24-105 has been covered hundreds of times. You might want to do a search:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=7357615

[form]

Shooting with the 85L for two weddings has taught me two things: Full Frame, and 35L + 85L make a highly adaptive pair that can't be matched with a standard zoom for creative potential or workable environments. The standard zoom is still useful for a few things the primes can't do, but it's not as good at about 85% of the stuff. However it's a lot less expensive and therefore should be high on the priority list.

As for 17-55 vs. 24-70, for crop sensor the 17-55 would be a better choice because of the better range. After shooting with full frame for a while, even the 24-70 is not really that great on crop sensors. I used to be devoted to the 24-70/28-75 over 17-55 for crop sensor because of the extra background blur they give with their longer focal lengths, but it's really nothing compared to the difference between crop and full frame.

I wouldn't find a 24-105 useful for weddings because it's f/4 and already loses versatility over an f/2.8 zoom.

[stathunter]

Shooting with the 85L for two weddings has taught me two things: Full Frame, and 35L + 85L make a highly adaptive pair that can't be matched with a standard zoom for creative potential or workable environments.

I am in full agreement.....once you play with primes......it is hard to get what you want with others.

The question the OP posted-- I personally would not feel that any f/4 lens is really a wedding lens-- this is my personal opinion--- I have had them all--- you typically need something that is faster in low light 2.8 or better.

[picturecrazy]

F/4 can work well if you know your flash technique. The 24-105 is one of the most used lenses in our bag for weddings. ISO1600 and flash will get the job done. Ceremonies are very slow and you can use shutter speeds down to 1/2 and not get motion blur. IS will give you that. F/2.8 will often fall short. F/1.4 can blur so much of the photo that it can lose the context of the environment you are shooting. Not saying primes don't have their place, but F/4 does too if you like to add some variety for your clients.

I'd take the 24-105 over the 24-70, personally. Yes, F/2.8 will get you double the shutter speed, but chances are, if you are shooting action in low light, flash at F/4 will get your a cleaner photo than F/2.8 without flash, and likely just as good a photo as F/2.8 with flash. Where F/4 really loses out is that it uses double the flash power and therefore increases recycle times. It also provides half the light available to your AF system. But the 50D AF system is very sensitive so it should be able to handle the 24-105 fine in crappy light.

[form]

I don't know how you can manage 1/2 sec. shutter speeds even with IS.

I'm coming from a different perspective: About 60% of my jobs don't allow me to take pictures during the ceremony because the resorts have their own photographer who has sole permission to shoot them. Therefore, in most cases I only shoot before and/or after the ceremony, doing posed shots and motion shots.

For the reception, any shutter speed will do most of the time because I'm using flash, but the lens needs to gather enough light from my flashes and I do set them around 1/4 power most of the time to conserve power and decrease recycle time. Sometimes I set one or two at 1/2 power. This usually gives me around f/2.8 ISO 800 for a properly exposed shot. I really don't like to push to ISO1600 if I don't have to, but I know the D700 or 1DIII would be able to handle ISO1600 all day long.

The other environments I shoot in are casino resorts and I can't set up flashes, stands or other lighting equipment in those places because it's both a foot-traffic hazard and against the general policy of the resorts to allow paid photographers to take pictures on their property. I also don't have an assistant to make that kind of thing easier, in part because I don't charge enough to pay an assistant and still make money. Therefore, I am left with the option of getting the fastest lenses for the job to get as much light as possible. I'm probably going to end up swapping out standard zoom entirely for 35L and 85L.

Then, just last night there was a lighting situation by this grid-patterned wall of light on the strip, and it gave enough light for f/1.2 at ISO800, around 1/125 sec for a really good exposure. f/4 would've been too dark, I would've had to push the ISO up to 1600 to get 1/25 sec. f/2.8 would've given me around 1/50 sec for the same exposure.

I think that if they make a 24-70L with IS, then the standard zoom might once again have some definite usefulness over the primes for me in posed shots where the people aren't moving, but so much of my work is at night or indoors with available light, and primes seem to be far more versatile for that.

Now, I'm less experienced, so this all may just be part of a phase...but right now it seems like a good idea for me. In the future, maybe I'll think something else is a good idea instead, and I'll come around full circle.

[tim]

I can manage 1/3 of a second sometimes with IS, but I need to take a bunch of shots and only one comes out decent. 1/10th is easier.

Form, no-one is suggesting F4 lenses are good for all day, just the best general purpose lens given the options. Even with F2.8 I either need IS or a tripod in many churches, so F2.8 vs F4 is moot. Outside i'm usually at F8-F12 during the day, and F2.8-F5.6 when it's getting dark.

[form]

Whenever someone who's a better photographer than me can take better shots with certain equipment I think wouldn't suit the purpose so well, it always reminds me of how little I know, and how there is so much more that I could do with what I have, if I only was any good at this stuff.

[PeaceFire]

I use the 24-105 almost all day until the reception gets too dark then I switch a prime. I like my IS and I like the extra reach. I spent more time at the 105 range at my last wedding then I did at the 24 range. If I could only go to 70 I think I'd not get the shots I'm going for.

[razyl]

I own both lenses and have used them a lot for weddings: on a crop body the 24-105mm is great when paired with a wide angle option like the 16-35mm on a crop body. But on a full frame body you will find the 24-105mm has a lot more vignetting than the 24-70mm, so it's better to go for the 24-70mm and pair with a long zoom like the 70-200mm on either crop or full frame

[PeaceFire]

I own both lenses and have used them a lot for weddings: on a crop body the 24-105mm is great when paired with a wide angle option like the 16-35mm on a crop body. But on a full frame body you will find the 24-105mm has a lot more vignetting than the 24-70mm, so it's better to go for the 24-70mm and pair with a long zoom like the 70-200mm on either crop or full frame

This is a good point. At 24 I do get a lot of vignetting on my 5D. It's easy enough to fix in LightRoom but it is that extra 30 seconds or whatever of work per image that adds up after a while. I still won't give up my 24-105 of my 5D, but this is a good point.

[tim]

This is a good point. At 24 I do get a lot of vignetting on my 5D. It's easy enough to fix in LightRoom but it is that extra 30 seconds or whatever of work per image that adds up after a while. I still won't give up my 24-105 of my 5D, but this is a good point.

Filter by camera and focal length, make a vignette adjustment to all the images at once. Total time required: 45 seconds max.

Or even better, leave the vignette in. If there's no vignette I often add it anyway.

[razyl]

True but you're then applying processing to all these images which must decrease the IQ to some degree. Not sure whether this would be an issue, but I think it's better to capture the best possible image in camera.

I found you can lose the vignetting by stopping down or not shooting wide angle....but either option restricts your shooting too much I think.

Darryn

[PeaceFire]

I just prefer to edit one by one. I know it takes longer, but I only do one wedding a month and maybe 3-4 portraits so it's not like I don't have the time. Someday I may start using these sorts of short cuts, but for now I like my way. For some I do leave the vignette on and for some I don't so it works to go one-by-one.

[form]

I like vignettes, I use them in about 90% of my photos, maybe in part because I like dark moods. There are some photos where a vignette doesn't work, but those are less common than ones where it works well.

[blondine]

THANKS TO EVERYONE THAT VOTED ~ and thank you for your comments... now I'm also contemplating buying the 5D mark II.... hmmm....car or camera....LOL...

I've choosen the 24-70mm F/2.8 USM.

[PhotoMatte]

Great choice, Blondine. I use the 24-70 with my main 5D for the majority of my weddings. I have a 70-200 attached to my 2nd camera body at all times so I can get the shot immediately if I need to, without taking the time to swap lenses. I also own the 135 f2 and it's really a nice lens on the 5D. I borrowed the 24-105 once and the thing I like best about it is how much lighter it is than the 24-70. The IS ability has never been a factor for me, since most of my subjects at a wedding are moving a lot anyway (rendering IS superfluous), but I suppose it has its place if you're shooting in low light, with no flash, and your subject is motionless.

[razyl]

Yeh good choice, but either way you'd have been happy. Now, the 5D mk II is a must - the IQ in general and the ability to shoot high ISO with low noise is awesome :) Get a 70-200mm on this camera - simply amazing.

[bnlearle]

People can use f/4 all day long if they like. WHATEVER works for you works. if that's f/4 and narrower, great! If that's wide open primes at f/1.2 - great!

Having said that, I still have no clue how the 24-105 gets sold to wedding photographers. Why someone would turn away even the possibility to shoot at f/2.8 is beyond me. The wide open lenses let you shoot at f/4. The f/4 lenses don't let you do the opposite ;)

Bobby