Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Weddings & Other Family Events
Thread started 01 Feb 2006 (Wednesday) 01:32
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

24-105 F/4L

 
calicokat
Cream of the Crop
calicokat's Avatar
14,720 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Southern California
Feb 01, 2006 01:32 |  #1

Is the 24-105 a better lens for weddings than the 24-70. Does the IS offset the extra F stop gained with the 24-70??? Thanks for your replies and help.


"You are going to fall off a cliff trying to get a better shot someday"- My hopeful and loving wife :eek: :twisted:
My Websiteexternal link

My Gear

Calicokat 1990-2007 RIP My Loving Kitty

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
kawter2
Goldmember
kawter2's Avatar
2,046 posts
Joined Aug 2004
Orange County, CA
Feb 01, 2006 12:55 |  #2

based on your signature I think you could stick any of your lenses on your 5D and get top of the line images... I think you need to be more concerned with technique at this point in your endeavours



Wedding Blogexternal link
Eric J. Weddingsexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
themirage
Senior Member
themirage's Avatar
611 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Marion, Iowa
Feb 01, 2006 13:54 as a reply to kawter2's post |  #3

Holy Crap, when I first saw your post your sig was empty but now WOW.

kawter2 wrote:
based on your signature I think you could stick any of your lenses on your 5D and get top of the line images... I think you need to be more concerned with technique at this point in your endeavours
_______________
1DsMKII,1DMKIIn,5D,20d
10-22m3.5-4.5
16-35m2.8L
17-40m4L
24-70m2.8L
70-200m2.8LIS
70-200m2.8L
70-200m4L
70-300m4.5-5.6DOIS
100-400m4.5-5.6LIS
14m2.8L
15m2.8Fish
20m2.8
24m1.4L
BTW GearSigs suck
28m1.8
28m2.8
35mm1.4L
35m2
50m1.4
50m1.8II
85m1.2L
85m1.8
100m2
135m2L
135m2.8
200m2.8L
300m2.8LIS
300m4LIS
400m2.8LIS
400m4DOIS
400m5.6L
500m4LIS
600m4LIS
1200m5.6L
MPE65m2.8 Macro
60m 100m 2.8Macro
180m3.5LMacro
TS-E24m3.5L E45&90m2.8
Extenders1.4x 2x
ExTube12&25


-Michael

Gear List

Designs of Utopiaexternal link
SmugMug Galleryexternal link
˙ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ uı pǝʇsǝɹǝʇuı ʎllɐǝɹ ǝɹɐ noʎ sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı

LOG IN TO REPLY
Symantec
Mostly Lurking
19 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Feb 01, 2006 14:33 |  #4

"BTW GearSigs suck"

i think that says it all lol




LOG IN TO REPLY
mrclark321
Noinker
mrclark321's Avatar
7,513 posts
Joined Mar 2005
.... with a long history
Feb 01, 2006 14:43 as a reply to Symantec's post |  #5

What's that supposed to mean???

Symantec wrote:
"BTW GearSigs suck"

i think that says it all lol


A crap pile of various gear!

LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
tim's Avatar
50,563 posts
Joined Nov 2004
Wellington, New Zealand
Feb 01, 2006 17:30 |  #6

Back on topic... I wouldn't buy an F4 lens for wedding, I want all the light I can get. IS doesn't help if your subjects are moving, and even when people are standing apparently still they're still really moving.


Professional wedding photographer, engineer.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

LOG IN TO REPLY
calicokat
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
calicokat's Avatar
14,720 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Southern California
Feb 01, 2006 17:42 as a reply to tim's post |  #7

Thank You Tim


"You are going to fall off a cliff trying to get a better shot someday"- My hopeful and loving wife :eek: :twisted:
My Websiteexternal link

My Gear

Calicokat 1990-2007 RIP My Loving Kitty

LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberPet
Hiding Under a Rock
CyberPet's Avatar
4,052 posts
Joined May 2005
Piteå, Sweden
Feb 01, 2006 18:28 |  #8

Nope, I'd love to buy kawter2's nice 24-70/2.8 L (please) :D

And if you can part with your 85/1.2 for almost nothing, I'm game.


/Petra Hall
Click here to view my geeky gear list
I shoot as much as possible in available light... sometimes, my flash is available – Joe Buissink

LOG IN TO REPLY
cactusclay
Goldmember
1,610 posts
Joined Jan 2005
Feb 01, 2006 19:11 |  #9

Well, I'll throw my 2 cents in. In my experience with weddings, most of the time I use a flash bracket and I do that for outdoor weddings, to fill in the shadows or indoors when the light is low. The times I use a prime for natural light shots, 2.8 usually isn't fast enough, so, I found a F4 lens more than adequate. I just recently bought the lens in question and haven't had a chance to shoot a wedding with it, but I have to say that having also owned a 24-70, I really like the 24-105 much better. The reasons being are that it is smaller, lighter and longer. I can walk around town and shoot street shots at 24 mm and it isn't extended all the way out, like the other one and if I go without the hood, it doesn't look all that intimidating. It does hunt in low light/contrast situations, but with a flash or STE2 and infared assist it's no problem. when the light gets down to where you are shooting at 1/8 sec. or something like that you can get a sharp image with the IS, but at a 1/16 sec. and F2.8, I doubt you could. I really don't think there is a better one lens solution for weddings, than this lens, with a flash.;)




LOG IN TO REPLY
Michaelmjc
not cool enough
Michaelmjc's Avatar
4,832 posts
Joined May 2004
Toronto, Ontario
Feb 02, 2006 23:09 |  #10

Wow you almost own every canon lens :D, any reason why you have the 70-200 f/4, 2.8, 2.8 IS?

And the 1200mm? I highly doubt you have that, Do you have any pics taken with it?

I agree just whip any of those bad boys on and you'll be fine.


Yyz Designexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
kawter2
Goldmember
kawter2's Avatar
2,046 posts
Joined Aug 2004
Orange County, CA
Feb 02, 2006 23:14 |  #11

sorry It was a cruel joke (i copied the text from a Canon pdf) as I was frustrated at the amount of clutter in sig's lately

sorry,


BTW read my sig



Wedding Blogexternal link
Eric J. Weddingsexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
queenbee288
Cream of the Crop
queenbee288's Avatar
Joined Dec 2004
Stanford, Ky
Feb 03, 2006 12:01 |  #12

I really have to wonder why people listing their gear irks some people (envy maybe). I often look at the gear list to determine what a pic was probably taken with. Also if I notice someone has a particular lens I mignt ask their opinion on it if I was thinking of buying it.
Read the quote in my sig.


"I have applied for jobs at National Geographic, Sports Illustrated and Playboy. The phone should start ringing any minute now" (Curtis N)

LOG IN TO REPLY
kawter2
Goldmember
kawter2's Avatar
2,046 posts
Joined Aug 2004
Orange County, CA
Feb 03, 2006 12:14 as a reply to queenbee288's post |  #13

queenbee288 wrote:
I really have to wonder why people listing their gear irks some people (envy maybe).

Yah that is it... haha, Sorry I have enough gear, and if I don't have the right piece for the job, the client pays a rental fee..

I just prefer photography to be more about the art and less about the gear.



Wedding Blogexternal link
Eric J. Weddingsexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Titus213
Cream of the Crop
Titus213's Avatar
19,399 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Joined Feb 2005
Kalama, WA USA
Feb 03, 2006 12:17 as a reply to kawter2's post |  #14

I would agree with Tim on the f4.0, even with IS. I find myself trying desperately to get the natural light shot and end up forgetting about the movement of the subject. And boy, do they ever move. You don't notice it much until you try to stop it. Perhaps an IS for the subjects would work.:lol:

kawter2 wrote:
sorry It was a cruel joke (i copied the text from a Canon pdf) as I was frustrated at the amount of clutter in sig's lately

sorry,


BTW read my sig

Cruel yes, funny definitely. It is exactly what I thought when I read it....


Dave
Perspiring photographer.
Visit NorwoodPhotos.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Michaelmjc
not cool enough
Michaelmjc's Avatar
4,832 posts
Joined May 2004
Toronto, Ontario
Feb 03, 2006 13:23 as a reply to kawter2's post |  #15

kawter2 wrote:
sorry It was a cruel joke (i copied the text from a Canon pdf) as I was frustrated at the amount of clutter in sig's lately

sorry,


BTW read my sig

Haha, I was gonna say.. damn man your a rich Ba****d, I just couldn't understand why someone would have 3 lens all the 300mm range.. haha im glad your feeling better.


Yyz Designexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

2,827 views & 0 likes for this thread
24-105 F/4L
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Weddings & Other Family Events


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00087 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is joekeloekes
796 guests, 374 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016