Do I need a 2.8 zoom, and if so, which one?

I guess the old adage that if "I need to ask, I probably don't need one" may apply here.
But I thought I'd ask. I mostly shoot people, and have been asked to do more events now and such - usually stuff like company lunches, friends' parties, low-key family stuff like that (nothing paid).

So far the 24-105 and 50 1.8 have been serving me very well. This coupled with high ISO ability of 6D gives me decent results even if I can't use flash, especially since none of these pictures get printed anyways (usually just shared online).

If flash is allowed/ appropriate for the venue, I usually just use the 24-105. I find I need to stop down anyways to get groups of people in focus. If I want to isolate certain subjects, I just use the 50mm at 1.8.

If flash is not allowed and the lighting is not horrid, I still can get by with the 24-105 and just pump up the ISO. I'm a bit more judicious about what I shoot in these situations, for example since I'm using slower shutter speed I try to get people when they are still. If the lighting gets really bad I just use the 50mm. I find it a good focal length for me for indoor events, long enough to isolate subjects if I want to and just wide enough to get groups in the shot.

Of course, I'm wondering if despite all this my life may be made a lot easier with a 24-70 2.8?

The Mark II is out of my budget right now, so I'd be looking at used Mark Is, the Tamron, or to save some money, the 28-75 Tamron. Another option is to just add a higher quality prime (maybe the Sigma 50 when it comes out?)

Tamron 28-75/2.8 sounds like a good idea IMO.

Never used it but people have said the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is close to the Canon 24-70 2.8II.

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …_SP_24_70mm_f_2​_8_DI.html

Considering the price and performance of the Tamron 24-70 VC, I would not even consider the Canon 24-70 Mk1. The Tammy rivals the Mk2.

gnome chompski wrote in post #16739353
Considering the price and performance of the Tamron 24-70 VC, I would not even consider the Canon 24-70 Mk1. The Tammy rivals the Mk2.

A common criticism of 3rd party lenses I hear (I've never used one) is that there's a lot of sample variation. Does this applly to this particular Tammy, and if so, anything specific I should be on the lookout for? Thanks!

I got the Sigma 17-55 a few months ago, and I've barely used anything else since. The colors are rich, the focus is plenty fast, and the range is super useful on my 70D.

I have a bunch of 3rd party lenses. Two Tamrons. (See my sig)
Both are superb.

Large amounts of light doesn't make for a great photograph any more than loud makes for great music. Anyone having taken pictures under a noonday sun knows this. Getting the RIGHT lighting is the hard part. If you've got good light (quality, not quantity) you'll have a change to take great photos. But no lens is going to make up for bad lighting (again, quality, not quantity).

gnome chompski wrote in post #16739353
Considering the price and performance of the Tamron 24-70 VC, I would not even consider the Canon 24-70 Mk1. The Tammy rivals the Mk2.

From what I've seen the Tammy is about equal to the Mk1 for IQ but not the Mk2. Of course, the Tammy has IS, which can be nice, but not really needed if you're shooting people, as subject movement will do more to dictate your shutter speed.

If it's unpaid, you can see if you can get by with either the prime, or the F4 zoom. Most people would indeed prefer an F2.8 zoom for those events. Maybe it's not that expensive if you sell your 24-105 to partially fund one.

mcon22 wrote in post #16740184
I got the Sigma 17-55 a few months ago, and I've barely used anything else since. The colors are rich, the focus is plenty fast, and the range is super useful on my 70D.

OP has a 6D, so that lens wouldn't fit.

Many people miss one of the really good reasons for getting a f/2.8 lens: you will actually be able to make better use of your camera's autofocus in low light conditions. I rarely use my 70-200 at its max aperture, but I know it autofocuses better than my old f/4 in conditions of marginal light. And you do have that extra light gathering power for those rare situations where you just can't get any more light, ISO or a tripod. For me it's worth the extra weight and size.

Just got me a Tamron 28-70 today paid $220

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16739273
I guess the old adage that if "I need to ask, I probably don't need one" may apply here.

Yup.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16739273
If flash is allowed/ appropriate for the venue, I usually just use the 24-105. I find I need to stop down anyways to get groups of people in focus. If I want to isolate certain subjects, I just use the 50mm at 1.8.

Sounds like you're pretty happy, just slightly on edge when you can't use flash...

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16739273
If flash is not allowed and the lighting is not horrid, I still can get by with the 24-105 and just pump up the ISO. I'm a bit more judicious about what I shoot in these situations, for example since I'm using slower shutter speed I try to get people when they are still. If the lighting gets really bad I just use the 50mm. I find it a good focal length for me for indoor events, long enough to isolate subjects if I want to and just wide enough to get groups in the shot.

Don't forget that f2.8 vs f4 is only one stop... yes I know "only", and f2.8 is nicer to have than f4, however, it really depends how slow your "slower shutter speeds" really are... if you're struggling to freeze motion then you're probably slower than 1/50sec. If you're at 1/40 then yes f2.8 is going to make that 1/80, which is nice. However if you're at 1/15, for example, then f2.8 is only going to bring that up to 1/30, which won't solve your problem. How high do you push the ISO?

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16739273
Another option is to just add a higher quality prime (maybe the Sigma 50 when it comes out?)

For when you can't use flash, primes might be a better option for you... lining people up properly means you can get away with shooting at a wider aperture. I'm slightly surprised you didn't mention the 40mm f2.8, which is faster than your 24-105 - that's f2.8... do you find it useful? I personally find 35mm is nicer for events than 50mm, but the whole 35 vs 50 debate is a very personal one... 40 is obviously closer to 35 than 50.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #16739273
I guess the old adage that if "I need to ask, I probably don't need one" may apply here.
But I thought I'd ask. I mostly shoot people, and have been asked to do more events now and such - usually stuff like company lunches, friends' parties, low-key family stuff like that (nothing paid).

So far the 24-105 and 50 1.8 have been serving me very well. This coupled with high ISO ability of 6D gives me decent results even if I can't use flash, especially since none of these pictures get printed anyways (usually just shared online).

If flash is allowed/ appropriate for the venue, I usually just use the 24-105. I find I need to stop down anyways to get groups of people in focus. If I want to isolate certain subjects, I just use the 50mm at 1.8.

If flash is not allowed and the lighting is not horrid, I still can get by with the 24-105 and just pump up the ISO. I'm a bit more judicious about what I shoot in these situations, for example since I'm using slower shutter speed I try to get people when they are still. If the lighting gets really bad I just use the 50mm. I find it a good focal length for me for indoor events, long enough to isolate subjects if I want to and just wide enough to get groups in the shot.

Of course, I'm wondering if despite all this my life may be made a lot easier with a 24-70 2.8?

The Mark II is out of my budget right now, so I'd be looking at used Mark Is, the Tamron, or to save some money, the 28-75 Tamron. Another option is to just add a higher quality prime (maybe the Sigma 50 when it comes out?)

Heya,

The Tamron 28-75 F2.8 is an excellent option, but not VC/IS.

The Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC is quite excellent, rivals the Canon version MKII, so would be an obvious choice, even though expensive.

I think however, that since you're used to pushing ISO hard and using a 1.8 lens, it may be good for you to get a higher quality prime. Something sharp wide open, with faster, better autofocus. Canon EF 35mm F2 IS or the Sigma 35mm F1.4 comes to mind.

Very best,