Which 24-70 for weddings? 2.8

Is the canon 24-70 worth every penny more than the comparable third party offerings? I am going to invest in I one soon but have had a tough time finding side by side comparos of the canon lens vs its competitors

It really comes down to your budget. If you hve the money then it's worth it, if not then make do with the tamron 28-75. In my opinion, it is definately worth the money for the focus alone. The tamron hunts a but in low light, like the receptions. I haven't tried the new Tamron with VC, but that is about the same price as the canon, so if you're spending that much money, might as well get the canon lens.

The original canon 24-70 is 300 dollars more than the TamronVC and the new Canon is 1000 more than the TamronVC so I wouldn't say they are the same price
The IQ appears close Between the original canon and tamron but the new Canon 24-70 will blow both of them out of the water

The Sigma 24-70 HSM model supposedly very, very good IQ-wise and is lighter/smaller/cheape​r.

If I went Sigma, I'd make sure I can swap the lens out in the event I don't win the Sigma lottery. Does your DSLR body have MAF?

Also, are you being paid to shoot weddings? If you are, I'd get CPS membership and stick with Canon stuff.

I find 2.8 not delivering enough punch on my 5d mark II.
So I try to shoot 1.8 when ever possible.

<pic removed>

Shot with my 85mm 1.8 at 1.8.

i am getting paid but this is only freelance for now, but i am getting enough calls and work to warrant the next step. i will be renting the 24-70 canon for a while but i have heard some great feedback about some sigma and tamron lenses, though it seems like both of these 24-70s are not the case. if the original 24-70 canon is that much better i will make the effort and spend a little more

dsit995 wrote in post #14564618
The original canon 24-70 is 300 dollars more than the TamronVC and the new Canon is 1000 more than the TamronVC so I wouldn't say they are the same price
The IQ appears close Between the original canon and tamron but the new Canon 24-70 will blow both of them out of the water

Yeah, I'm willing to bet the new 24-70 will be 70-200ii good. Mythical in a way...and it better be for that price! LOL!

any should do fine as long as you have a decent flash.

the 24-70L fits the case if you need a pro looking tool (might be important if a paid gig).

so no one can argue for or show samples of the sigma/tamron lenses?

if anyone has any positive experiences please do tell.

here's a start

http://www.flickr.com/​search/?q=wedding%2024​-70%20L
http://www.flickr.com …dding+28-75+Tamron&m=text
http://www.flickr.com …edding+24-70+sigma&m=text

IMO, you're processing skills, ability to use flash/work with a camera, will make a much larger difference than the lens you use since they are mostly splitting hairs in terms of quality. Focus probably wont make much difference if you have a flash assisting. People at weddings arent exactly fast paced.

If your doing weddings I'd want the reassurance of canons CPS support service behind me.

I am being paid but this is only freelance for now and budget is a concern but I haven't had much luck with third party lenses in the past so if he original 24-70 has better focusing than the vc and better iq I will spend the money to get reliable performance

The vc lens seems to get good reviews.

What I think lets it down is its moulded aspherical elements giving onion skin hilites and the VC can cause jittery bokeh if you rely on it.

edit that and its hideously strong vignetting.

I think that if you have any hesitation, it's best to go with the L lens. I wouldnt say it's better focusing than the VC, but definitely a tiny bit faster *maybe*, talking about milliseconds. Another reason is because you really need to understand your gear, and you shouldnt be fiddling with new gear if you are shooting.

Shooting a wedding should be relatively easy on the AF system compared to sports, so any of the 2.8's should do.