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

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 08 Sep 2016 (Thursday) 13:33
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-70 F4 IS vs 24-70 2.8 for weddings

 
Roshan
Senior Member
319 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Toronto, Ontario
     
Sep 08, 2016 13:33 |  #1

Hey All,

I've been using the 2.8 forever. but honestly, I find I'm in f4 most of time to ensure my images are sharp and everyone is in focus.

What's your thoughts on replacing the 2.8 with the F4 Is lens? I can see the benefits of IS. Anyone made the switch and like it?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,523 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 2314
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Sep 08, 2016 14:10 |  #2

If im using F/4 I would prefer the 24-105

not a fan of the 24-70's


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Silver-Halide
Senior Member
801 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 225
Joined Jan 2015
     
Sep 08, 2016 16:34 |  #3

I own the 24-70 F/4L IS. The 2.8 II had been out for a little bit when I was deciding between the two, so I had a tough choice to make. The 2.8 II was $800 more than what I paid for my f4, and with the gawd awful 82mm filter threads I'd probably be looking at a new set of filters such as my 77mm B+W MRC CPL ($100+). I was doing more landscapes then and I justified that the IS at the cost of a stop was an easy choice to keep my tripod in the truck more. Its a little more difficult to justify now that I make money from shooting weddings but never really have from my landscape hobby. I've since grabbed the 50mm f/1.2L and love it, and paired with a fast 85mm that makes jumping into the 2.8 II more difficult. f/2.8 can be nice and shallow but 1.6-2.0 is a whole new world, and besides, when shooting wide I usually want more DOF as I'm close and stop the lens down anyway. Biggest pain is when I want to rock the 24-70 during a reception and the extra stop of light might help with focusing. I change lenses too much. Easily a dozen times at a wedding. :oops:

The macro function isn't the best but it'll do in a pinch and I usually get great ring shots with it.

The 24-105L might be more useful with the extra +35mm at the long end but having shot it a little myself I can tell you that the optics and IS aren't as good. It vignettes a lot more wide open, especially at the wide end, and isn't as sharp. I'd spring for the version II if you insist. YMMV.


Echoes in Eternity LLC | Tucson and Southern Arizona Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,958 posts
Likes: 348
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Sep 09, 2016 16:57 |  #4

Back in the day when high ISO and AF wasn't so good F2.8 was necessary. With modern cameras focus systems are better and high ISO is better as well.

I would still want F2.8, for when I want a narrower depth of field. It's up to you really though. F4 will focus a bit slower especially in low light.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Sep 09, 2016 18:26 |  #5

Keep the f/2.8. I stop it down to f/5.6 when getting close, but open up to f/2.8 when getting full-bodied scenes.

I checked my stats recently and I was shooting at f/2.8 about 33% of the time.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dcnats
Senior Member
Avatar
359 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Maryland
     
Sep 09, 2016 19:35 |  #6

I shoot Nikon now but when I used Canon I first had the 24-105/4.0 because the original 24-70/2.8 was just not a very good lens and because I wanted something with IS.

I eventually switched to the 24-70/4.0 and really liked it as an all purpose lens. It had less distortion than the 24-105 and for the small amount of macro I did, it was good. as others pointed out with high ISO performance what it is now the loss of a stop of light isn't as dramatic. True, the DOF isn't as shallow as with the f/2.8 but you're looking for shallow DOF you're better off going with a prime anyway.


1513 Photo (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,523 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 2314
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Sep 10, 2016 08:45 |  #7

dcnats wrote in post #18122768 (external link)
I shoot Nikon now but when I used Canon I first had the 24-105/4.0 because the original 24-70/2.8 was just not a very good lens and because I wanted something with IS.

I eventually switched to the 24-70/4.0 and really liked it as an all purpose lens. It had less distortion than the 24-105 and for the small amount of macro I did, it was good. as others pointed out with high ISO performance what it is now the loss of a stop of light isn't as dramatic. True, the DOF isn't as shallow as with the f/2.8 but you're looking for shallow DOF you're better off going with a prime anyway.


Exactly

You going to have a hard time keeping 2 in focus with a zoom at F/2.8. I find I am at F/3/5 for 2 on a zoom. I prefer the extra reach. I love my 24-105 and IS let me let in more ambient light if i need to for those needs


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,958 posts
Likes: 348
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Sep 10, 2016 13:34 |  #8

With the Nikon 24-70 F2.8 I'm surprised that I don't really need IS as much as I thought I would. Maybe it's because of the heavy camera and lens. They have a VR version now but I won't bother with it.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mcap1972
Member
Avatar
151 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
     
Sep 12, 2016 09:36 |  #9

If you are shooting video than I would say I would go with IS but for low light wedding photography I prefer faster lenses. IS won't stop action and won't help with lowering ISO.


Avangard Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Silver-Halide
Senior Member
801 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 225
Joined Jan 2015
     
Sep 15, 2016 17:23 |  #10

OP: You can get the 24-70mm f/4 from Canon Price Watch for $700. New USA version! :-P At that price its hard to say no. With the savings over the f/2.8 II you could grab either a 50mm f/1.2L or 35mm f/1.4L used, for when you're in really low light.

Here's a rehearsal dinner shoot I did at a low light restaurant/lounge, and the IS on the F/4 really saved the day. I didn't want to take the ISO up to hi so I could save some dynamic range so I was shooting around 35-50mm, f/5.6, ISO 400-800, at 1/15th second with an off camera flash held by an assistant. Out of 100+ shots I only got 2 or 3 where the IS wasn't engaged and the background came out a little blurry. 2.8 wouldnt have done me much good with the close focus distance as some faces would have been out of the DOF. Shooting at 1/15th - 1/20th really allowed the ambient light to bleed in.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Echoes in Eternity LLC | Tucson and Southern Arizona Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LucasCK
Senior Member
352 posts
Likes: 27
Joined May 2010
     
Nov 17, 2016 16:01 |  #11

Personally I would find the IS useless. Weddings move fast and you want to be able freeze people using a higher shutter speed, therefore negating the need for IS


5d4, 2x6d, 5d2, 24-70L II, Sigma 35A 1.4, Canon 70-200 2.8L II, 135 2.0L, 430ex2, 600ex-rt
http://www.lucaskrausp​hotography.com (external link)
http://www.lucaskrausp​hotography.com …ane-wedding-photographer/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Nov 18, 2016 07:16 |  #12

Silver-Halide wrote in post #18129359 (external link)
OP: You can get the 24-70mm f/4 from Canon Price Watch for $700. New USA version! :-P At that price its hard to say no. With the savings over the f/2.8 II you could grab either a 50mm f/1.2L or 35mm f/1.4L used, for when you're in really low light.

Here's a rehearsal dinner shoot I did at a low light restaurant/lounge, and the IS on the F/4 really saved the day. I didn't want to take the ISO up to hi so I could save some dynamic range so I was shooting around 35-50mm, f/5.6, ISO 400-800, at 1/15th second with an off camera flash held by an assistant. Out of 100+ shots I only got 2 or 3 where the IS wasn't engaged and the background came out a little blurry. 2.8 wouldnt have done me much good with the close focus distance as some faces would have been out of the DOF. Shooting at 1/15th - 1/20th really allowed the ambient light to bleed in.

These are great! Conditions like these make me want IS on standard zoom. I wish I could have both f/2.8 and IS. :-(




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,523 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 2314
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Nov 18, 2016 16:13 |  #13

LucasCK wrote in post #18187369 (external link)
Personally I would find the IS useless. Weddings move fast and you want to be able freeze people using a higher shutter speed, therefore negating the need for IS



Wow- Completely disagree with this statement and you are actually talking about 2 different principals here.

IS allows you to hand hold at much slower shutter speeds and lets you disobey some the focal legnth rules a bit. For Example a 70-200 F/4 NON IS lens, you need to be at 1/160 to get a good shot w/o Camara shake or movement for any focal length you are at with flash use ....where as a 70-200 IS F4 lens will allow you to hand hold and get the same shot at 1/60 with no problems at all.

As for fast pace ( they are not) and being able to freeze people using higher shutter speeds you- then you are talking about movement of your subject and if they are moving, then yes, you need higher shutter speeds or you need to use a flash to freeze movement.

IS lens are invaluable for most of us simply because it allows you to drag that shutter and let in lots of ambient at receptions or outside in the evening shooting. IS could and often will be the determining factor as to what lens you can use in these situations and IF you can get a shot...unless you are proficient with flash use. Non of my primes are IS lens and im constantly aware of shutter speed. I Rarely will let my 85 drop below 1/100 because I know there will be movement in the image and it wont be crisp.....This shot with the 24-70 F/4 at 1/15 cant be captured this crisp or clean with any regularity with the 24-70 F/2.8 lens because the F/2.8 DOES NOT have iS.....The F/4 does and gets it routinely. Same for the 16-35 F/4 IS lens. I see guys getting shots at 1/15-1/20 routinely and non IS lens will not let you get.

Is lens have thier place. And the technology is proven and works.


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rebelsimon
Goldmember
Avatar
1,136 posts
Likes: 1981
Joined Nov 2013
Location: Whitby, ON
     
Nov 18, 2016 17:03 |  #14

Weddings don't always afford clean backgrounds; I'd never trade the aperture for IS. Also, the 24-70 2.8L ii is magic.


Toronto area photographer http://www.SimonMellic​kPhotography.com (external link)
Cameras:5Diii (x2), 70D
Lenses:Rokinon 14mm f2.8, Voightlander 20mm f3.5, Canon 24-70 f2.8ii, Tamron 35mm f1.8 VC, Canon 50mm STM, Tamron 90mm 2.8 VC, Canon 135mm f2
Lights: AD600, AD200 (x2), V850 (x4)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LucasCK
Senior Member
352 posts
Likes: 27
Joined May 2010
     
Nov 20, 2016 17:04 as a reply to  @ umphotography's post |  #15

I understand for low light churches that IS may be useful if the priest, couple, whoever is standing still, but for everything else I believe IS would be useless. I would much rather shoot at 2.8 and increase my shutter speed. For low light receptions you need to use flash regardless, therefore eliminating the need for IS

Dont get my wrong, I love IS on my 70-200 2.8 v2, however on a mid range zoom the ability to go to 2.8 is much more valuable than IS. It also looks better for bokeh. Also, all lenses perform best when they are stopped down a tad. That is why I usually shoot at f3.2 on a 2.8 lens. If I was using a f4 lens it wouldnt perform its best until around f4.5 or f5.2. I can imagine shooting anything at a wedding at f4.5 :cry:


5d4, 2x6d, 5d2, 24-70L II, Sigma 35A 1.4, Canon 70-200 2.8L II, 135 2.0L, 430ex2, 600ex-rt
http://www.lucaskrausp​hotography.com (external link)
http://www.lucaskrausp​hotography.com …ane-wedding-photographer/ (external link)

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

11,530 views & 6 likes for this thread
24-70 F4 IS vs 24-70 2.8 for weddings
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is MississippiMud
1054 guests, 355 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.