Decision Time - 24-70 vs. 24-105

Most of my weddings are outside and I use a fill flash a lot. I'm usually shooting between 4.0 and 11, just to make sure I get things in focus. For inside shots, 2.8 would very rarely be fast enough, and even if it was, it's hard to hand hold a 24-70 and get sharp pics at less than a 30th of a second. On the other hand I have got sharp shots with the 24-105 IS at 1/8 of a second. I usually use a 35 1.4 for the low light stuff. I guess you need to ask yourself, how often you will, in acual practice, shoot at 2.8, because depth of field is pretty shallow at that aperature and not getting something in focus at a wedding, isn't exactly the easy to fix in photoshop. I think most people get a 2.8 lens, because they think they will shoot it at that all the time, but it's usually not the case, specially at weddings. Fast primes are a much better alternative to low light, than 2.8 zooms.

If you're shooting musicians and mainly indoor stuff, you're gonna want a good fast prime along with those. Depending on how much cash you've got, I'd be looking at a 35mm prime for the "everything" stuff, and there you've got a choice of the 35 f/2 ($250) or the 35 f/1.4L ($1100). you may want a 50mm or 85mm for portraits of musicians on stage, and if that's the case, you're looking at the 50 1.8 ($70) or the 50 1.4 ($300), and the 85 1.8 ($350) or the 85 1.2L ($1400, but not suited really for moving subjects).

Your choice!

Well,i have $1250 to spend and must be one all-purpose lens,because i have my cello to carry and my bag,so i can´t carry a lot of lens with me.

24-70L, then. I would have actually said the 24-105L IS, but if you're taking shots of moving musicians and other things, chances are f/4 won't do it, and IS won't help you a bit if the people are moving. I'd say 24-70L and a 50 1.4. Buy them both used, and you'd be within your budget. The 50 would do it when the 2.8 just wouldn't. Great for really low light.

considering it's a tour, you'll probably want the 24-70. it's a stop faster and will produce better contrast between the subject and background. of course, if you have a fairly stationary group, the 24-105 should be just as good because of the IS. if at all possible, avoid 3200, it's grainy at best.

Answers in order of questions:

1.) I would have done the 50mm F/1.4 and the 100mm F/2.8 Macro myself. It's a bit more money for the macro lens, but you get a longer focal length AND shorter focus distance. Both of those would equal better macro shots. You'd be able to capture a flea breaking wind as was said somewhere on this board... I don't remember who said it but I got a good laugh out of it.

2.) You got a good tele-zoom lens. Landscape photography to me is more of a wide/normal lens type of photography. Portrait/Glamour to me requires something in medium telephoto... like the 85mm or the 135mm, and for weddings I don't believe I've ever really used a lens longer than 135mm. I suppose you COULD use it for a creative and artistic shot from far away, OR if you're doing a wedding at a church that requires you to stay back at a distance during the ceremony. Hopefully, you'll have good light to work with in that case because if you're required to stay back... chances are you won't be able to use lighting at the altar either. Keeping in mind that it's going to be F/5.6 at longer focal lengths. I'd actually say that lens would be best for outdoor sports and wildlife with good daytime lighting. For a Telephoto/Zoom for wedding use, I'd probably prefer something like the 70-200 F/2.8 IS

3.) To go with faster aperature would probably be your best bet. However, it will really depend on what type of photographer you are. I know a girl who uses a 28-135mm with IS for weddings she does and she loves it. The IS helps after shooting all day. The camera with bracket/flash/and everything else gets heavier at the end of the night so the IS can help stablize things for you. However, I find that if I'm using flash anyway, IS isn't really a benefit. Personally for me, I'd choose the 24-70mm skip the IS in this focal range and go with the faster aperature. I'm pretty strong and don't have camera shake issues due to fatigue. And with the faster aperature, I can use shutter speeds that would keep me above the camera shake threshold as well.

Both of you go the 24-70 you will find the f2.8 aperture is much more useful than the IS.

ronosmena you will find the extra speed much more useful for weddings and portraits.

RISKAS if you are shooting music shows (that's what I do) definitely go for the 2.8 aperture over the f4 you won't regret it.

I'd love to have a 24-105 in my bag (and I will one day) as a walk around lens but my need for a lens that works better in low light steered me towards the 24-70 and I haven't regretted it for one moment.

Shooting concerts I use 3200 ISO most of the time and get some outstanding results.

I use a 20D and unless there is a marked difference in the camera processing with the Rebel you shouldn't have a problem. If you are shooting at 3200 though shoot RAW rather than JPG.

You can see quite a few examples of concerts I have shot either in the Photo Sharing Performance Art section here or on my website (link in signature).

I definitely agree - the 50mm 1.4 is a great when you find the lighting too poor for the 24-70.

Thanks,all of you.I'm starting see the light!But my great passion are persons.I like catch them when they don't expected,i like portraits,among my friends or in holidays i'm always trying to catch peculiar moments.
So,and forgive my persistence,what should i use: 24-70 or 24-105,and only one of these.
Thanks,
Riskas

For people, definitely the 2.8. 24-70L.

I hate to disagree with anyone, but if you want a candid lens, a 24-70 with the hood on is about the same length as a 70-200 lens and not what I would consider a candid lens, due to it's size and weight, at least not in close and it's really not long enough for any sort of tele candids. It's sort of intimidating when you point it in a someones direction, with the hood on it. With the hood off, at 24mm, it's extended all the way out.The 24-105, on the other hand is not much longer than the 17-40, with the hood off and it's not extended at the wide end. I use a 35 2.0 on an XT for doing candids, because it doesn't draw attention. Just personal preference. but I would try the lenses first, if you get a chance.

24-70 has my vote.

The 24-105 isn't much shorter than the 24-70, and it draws just as much attention. Also, 35mm isn't very long for candid, eh? I'm usually at the long end when I'm not wanting them to notice me (further away). In this case, with the hood off, the 24-70 is actually shorter. Just a few minor things.

I was thinking in getting the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP Di II XR combine with the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS

How would the Tamron AF 17-50 compare to the The Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS

Is the 105mm zoom of the canon 24-105mm a lot more that a 70mm zoom compared to the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L
If get the 24-105 I would just keep my kit lens for the wide. the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC macro is not in my list because it is not as sharp as the Tamron 17-50 although it is sharper than the Canon 24-70 but then the 24-70 has the f/2.8 all the way trough the range.

I wish a 17-105 f/2.8 or 17-70mm f/2.8 existed one day

What do you think