CANON EF 24-70mm L f/2.8 or CANON LENS EF 24-105MM f/4L IS

[fridayphunnies]

Looking for a bit of advice from you guys/girls....
Doing a wedding in the coming weeks.
Thinking of investing in some L glass.
Want to get rid of the Sigma ex DG 24-70, and am thinking of going for either....
CANON EF 24-70mm L f/2.8

or

CANON LENS EF 24-105MM f/4L IS
(http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230374715470&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT)

Any advice welcome..
****************MY KIT *******************


1d mk2
35-300L is big and heavy.
85mm F1.4 prime
Sigma ex DG 24-70

10d (just purchased second hand)

g9 canon
350D with sigma 38 -300mm (NEED TO GIVE TO SECOND SHOOTER ON THE DAY)

2 Canon Speedlights 550EX and 430EX

[jeromego]

I think you'll get more replies if you post this in the Wedding Discussion Forum.

for weddings, i'd go for the 24-70 2.8
it's what i use and a lot of other wedding photographers here.

[gregpphoto]

24-70 is the gold standard for weddings, photo-j, etc. Get it and dont look back! There will be so many instances where the virtues of f/2.8 will shine over f/4.

[Fred Eric Norris]

The 2.8 has to be necessary given the low light situations that arise in certain parts of wedding days, not to mention the bokeh!

[Ziffle]

yep ... this is a lens questions.....

f2.8 trumps the length (105).
speed kills.

[tfd888]

24-70 2.8 , no doubt.

[alt4852]

for general use, i think a 24-105L is a real contender, but for weddings, the reach and image stabilization just aren't as useful as a wider aperture.

i have no qualms about recommending the 24-70L if you're shooting a wedding.

[SuzyView]

24-70, can't beat the f2.8 for speed.

[RobKirkwood]

Don't ignore the new Sigma HSM 24-70 f2.8 - that's a very nice lens indeed.

Rob

[alt4852]

Don't ignore the new Sigma HSM 24-70 f2.8 - that's a very nice lens indeed.

Rob

he already has that one and he doesn't like it:

Looking for a bit of advice from you guys/girls....
Doing a wedding in the coming weeks.
Thinking of investing in some L glass.
Want to get rid of the Sigma ex DG 24-70, and am thinking of going for either....

[mjadse]

Another vote for 24-70, f2.8. No hesitation here.

[fridayphunnies]

Thanks for all the advice, looking like the 2.8 is winning out,the Sigma is not a bad lens, just that the quality in the L lens its just SO good.

[tim]

One reason I don't go full frame is because there's no F2.8 standard zoom with IS. Given the 1D2 i'd probably suggest a fast prime, 35 F1.4 perhaps. If it's between the zooms it's really a choice between range and speed. One stop can be overcome by higher iso.

A fast prime for the church and the 24-105 would be a good combo. Or put a 17-55 on your 350D.

[RobKirkwood]

he already has that one and he doesn't like it:
Nope, there are 2 Sigma 24-70 f2.8's...

1) The original EX DG at a relatively low price, which is a nice-ish lens, but soft at f2.8 and slow to focus - which I assume is the one he has.

2) A recently introduced 24-70 with HSM focus motor, that is at least twice the price (but still less than Canon 24-70 f2.8 ) ...and this new lens is a very nice lens.

This is the old one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-24-70mm-F2-8-Macro-Canon/dp/B0009E1XF8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1252624489&sr=1-1

And this is the new one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-24-70mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001NEK2Q4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1252624441&sr=8-1

We've owned both.

Rob

[alt4852]

One reason I don't go full frame is because there's no F2.8 standard zoom.

isn't the 24-70L a f/2.8 standard zoom for full frame?

[tim]

Sorry I forgot to say "with IS". I've edited my post now.

[bnlearle]

I wouldn't use the lens either way, but I'm always so surprised that Canon put IS on the 17-55 but not on the 24-70. Weird, isn't it?

[jonwhite]

Swapping from crop to full frame and from the 17-55 f2.8 IS to the 24-70 f2.8 I did wonder if I would miss the IS but tbh I have never had a moment where I have.

I think the better ISO performance of the FF bodies more than makes up for what the IS can give you at that focal range,I think IS is much more important on the longer lenses, very thankful for it on the 70-200 when I am at the long end of that lens.

Definitely don't miss the poor build quality/fragility of the 17-55 either ! :)

[Peacefield]

I use the 24-70 on both my 5D2 and 50D and am delighted with it. IS would've been nice and it seems there are always a few images that could've been sharper if not for camera shake, but not enough to consider the 105 f4 alternative.

Besides, for outdoor weddings, when one camera has the 24-70, the other has the 70-200. For indoors, I'm using the 85 1.2 or the soon-to-be-had 100L macro when I need the reach.

[gravy graffix]

24l or 35l
what are "zooms"? ;)

id rather foot zoom than have 2.8 anything for inside

[gregpphoto]

24l or 35l
what are "zooms"? ;)

id rather foot zoom than have 2.8 anything for inside

Obviously you have never shot in spaces where foot zooming is not applicable, ie, 75% of wedding ceremonies. Neither than 24 or 35 (I use the 35 1.4L outside of weddings a lot) will give you reach, and neither is particularly wide on a crop body. No, those two lenses are kind of in the middle of no mans land on a crop body. 24-70 is a workhorse for a reason.

[gravy graffix]

to each their own I guess... i have nothing longer than 85

[gregpphoto]

to each their own I guess... i have nothing longer than 85

How do you live lol?

[gravy graffix]

just fine... why do you need reach? what is the obsession with making the vows a head shot? other than the kiss, which if you cant frame that by going 1/2 way down the isle or by cropping some...

[gregpphoto]

just fine... why do you need reach? what is the obsession with making the vows a head shot? other than the kiss, which if you cant frame that by going 1/2 way down the isle or by cropping some...

To each his own. My style, I enjoy framing tight, sometimes I'll just show faces, because to me, everything else can be a distraction. But then theres times when you just cant be where youd like to stand and NEED that reach just to get anything usable. Beyond weddings (does anyone really buy a lens for just one purpose?), the extra 115mm I get over the 85mm (which I used to use and sold simply because I needed reach) helps me when I'm shooting concerts, candids, etc. And cropping some? May work for you, but I prefer to nail my composition from the get go.

One last point as well. An 85mm lens with L build quality and optics is what, $1800? For a fixed focal length, thats a lot. Then theres the 85mm 1.8 but its no L, and thats $400 or so. The 70-200 f/2.8L is $1200 ish new, I'll take that.

[caught14]

I have the 24-105L and it is a really nice lens. Build quality and image quality are both solid. However I found that it rarely found it's way on my camera, so eventually I sold it to invest in another lens. It's well suited as a general purpose lens, especially outdoors. But indoors, especially for weddings, that extra stop down to f/2.8 is key.

As many others have recommended, I wouldn't hesitate to go with the 24-70mm f/2.8. Get yourself a good copy of that and you'll be good to go.

[picturecrazy]

I would take the 24-105 over the 24-70 any day. I have a serious hate for the 24-70L.

[bnlearle]

But to be fair, Lloyd, you'd go with a 24-70 if you could find a good copy, right? It's not that you prefer the extra length and loss in low light ability, right?

You've had crazy luck with that lens. Sucks to be Lloyd! :p

[alt4852]

I would take the 24-105 over the 24-70 any day. I have a serious hate for the 24-70L.

i think you just had really terrible luck with your copies. mine has performed dutifully and consistently for quite some time now. i have no problems recommending it if people need the f/2.8 that it offers. the 24-105L is great too, but they simply aren't comparable since they excel in different areas.

[picturecrazy]

But to be fair, Lloyd, you'd go with a 24-70 if you could find a good copy, right? It's not that you prefer the extra length and loss in low light ability, right?

You've had crazy luck with that lens. Sucks to be Lloyd! :p

In some cases, the speed would be nice. In many other cases, the stabilizer is awesome. I shoot in the 1/10 area a lot due to the flexibility the stabilizer gives me. And honestly, I do find 70mm to be a bit short. 105mm is long enough for a half length portrait, but 70mm just barely isn't. 85mm is the bare minimum I like to use for that imo. Which is why I pretty much stick to the 17-55. It gives me the best of both lenses.

i think you just had really terrible luck with your copies. mine has performed dutifully and consistently for quite some time now. i have no problems recommending it if people need the f/2.8 that it offers. the 24-105L is great too, but they simply aren't comparable since they excel in different areas.

Well, I might be trying copy number 7... someone around my area (well, 3 hours away) is selling one claiming it to be a perfect copy. But then again, I've seen many "perfect copies" but they all had the same weak points at wide focal lengths. I've lost a couple thousand bucks just trying to get a flawless copy of this lens, and I still don't have one. :(

I've been trying to find an old 28-70L too just because I have almost given up on the 24-70.

[tim]

Lloyd, you should pack up all your camera gear and send it to Toshio (http://web2.userinstinct.com/27682025-t-f-camera-repair.htm). I've heard many, many stories of how gear went to him producing soft result and came back perfect. Canon calibrates to their standards, Toshio calibrates the bodies and lenses together so they work as well as they can. People claim the stuff that comes back from him is better than new.

[picturecrazy]

Interesting. I've never heard of Toshio. But I'm a little weary trusting UPS/FedEx with my expensive crap. Maybe I'll have to take an actual trip down there.

[tim]

Search for Toshio on DWF (I think I spelled it right).

[gregpphoto]

Search for Toshio on DWF (I think I spelled it right).

Nice, thats right in Jersey! We got it going on, between this and the Canon service center.

[tim]

From what i've read Toshio is in a different league from Canon service.

[fridayphunnies]

The CANON EF 24-70mm L f/2.8 arrived from ebay the day before the wedding , thought I would use it a bit during the day but it hardly came off the camera all day , lovely all rounder , light and a nice range , not white though :(
I reckon it will be one I keep on the camera lots !
That and my 85mm. (not L ) still saving

[JennTut]

I own the 2.8... and LOVE IT!!! :)

[dipps]

Well, I might be trying copy number 7... someone around my area (well, 3 hours away) is selling one claiming it to be a perfect copy. But then again, I've seen many "perfect copies" but they all had the same weak points at wide focal lengths.
what exactly are the things to look for if someone is considering the purchase of this lens? i know it has "bad copy" issues, but what exactly is this in reference to? is it just "soft images", or is there more to it than that? i keep pondering this lens (as well as the 24-105mm), but if i wound up breaking down and buying it, i'd want to know exactly what i need to look for to determine if i have a bad copy.

is it also true that this particular lens needs to be sent in for service more often than others to keep it sharp, or is that an anomaly specific to "bad copies"?

[ebann]

I've reviewed many wedding shots, and many of those shots are not abundantly shot at f/2.8! Many of them shot with flash so f/2.8 is not imperative. The IS is very nice to have because upon reviewing those pictures, many of them were shot at around shutter speed of 1/15 thru 1/30 and this is when IS does wonders to maintaing a shake-free background! Of course, when shooting without flash, f/2.8 is better, but then I'd think one would prefer a faster prime!

My vote is for the 24-105 which is what I use for indoors church events... with flash of course!

If I were going full-time pro on weddings, I'd probably invest in a nice 50D (or 7D) with the awesome 17-55IS.