17-55 IS or 24-105 IS for wedding?

Im looking for advice re the above two lenses for use on a 30D at weddings.
I have used in the past the Canon 17-85 IS lens which is pretty good but has its limitations so I am looking to upgrade to one of the above.

If you have used either of the above lenses for weddings on 20/30D can you let me know, Is the 17-55 long enough or do you find yourself changing lenses. Conversly does the 24-105 go wide enough for those group shots?

My other lens is the 70-200 2.8 IS but I want to keep lens changes to a minnimum.

Would like to here of your experiences.

Thanks

Mark

County Man wrote in post #2061475
Im looking for advice re the above two lenses for use on a 30D at weddings.
I have used in the past the Canon 17-85 IS lens which is pretty good but has its limitations so I am looking to upgrade to one of the above.

If you have used either of the above lenses for weddings on 20/30D can you let me know, Is the 17-55 long enough or do you find yourself changing lenses. Conversly does the 24-105 go wide enough for those group shots?

My other lens is the 70-200 2.8 IS but I want to keep lens changes to a minnimum.

Would like to here of your experiences.

Thanks

Mark

If i were in your place then i will get 24-105, at least it is great for portraits and something else.
In addition it is L means you can keep using it if you plan to upgrade later.
17-55 is great as well, but i prefer 24-105 if i have to choose.
Good luck.

i'de say take the 17-55 actually. smaller so the IS won't be as noisy, and it's constant f2.8 instead of constant f4. in a wedding, you'll seed every stop you can get.

basroil wrote in post #2062037
i'de say take the 17-55 actually. smaller so the IS won't be as noisy, and it's constant f2.8 instead of constant f4. in a wedding, you'll seed every stop you can get.

the 17-55 and 24-105L are nearly identical in size and weight.

ed rader

The AF and IS in my 24-105 is silent - does it make any noise in the 17-55?

Personally, I don't think the 17-55 is long enough but the 24-105 is not wide enough!

ejwebb wrote in post #2062177
The AF and IS in my 24-105 is silent - does it make any noise in the 17-55?

Personally, I don't think the 17-55 is long enough but the 24-105 is not wide enough!

then the only logical choice is: BOTH !

ed rader

County Man wrote in post #2061475
Is the 17-55 long enough or do you find yourself changing lenses.
Conversly does the 24-105 go wide enough for those group shots?
My other lens is the 70-200 2.8 IS but I want to keep lens changes to a minnimum.

Both great lenses. Either carry two bodies, or switch lenses.

17-55 f/2.8 is wide enough, but not long enough to do a whole event on a APS-C body, unless it is leisurely, or you crop. Get the 17-55 and a front belt lens pouch to swap 70-200.

24-105 is wide enough AND long enough on a 1-DMkII body or 5D, but not on a APS-C body. These bodies, this lens, and a flash can do a whole event, as long as you are not into selective focus narrow depth of field shots. It needs a flash to help focus in low light, being f/4.

Carry a step ladder. Then you can use the longer lens more over the heads of people to zero in and pick out subjects without people blocking, and without out having to get in their face with 17mm.

It's a toss-up call with one APS-C body. I have used both lenses. Both make excellent images. I busted my 24-105L focus ring already and had to have it fixed. I don't like where the manual focus ring is on the 17-55mm - opposite position to L lenses - but I have not busted that plastic lens yet.

Maybe get the 24-105 AND a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 for in-close, wide shots, or big groups and tables.
You can do a whole event with those 2, with a flash and higher ISO. The 17mm in the pocket is certainly more portable than the 70-200 in pocket. And image quality little concern on the wide stuff anyway.

I do not like using wider than 20mm focal length on APS-C sensor for groups because perspective distortion near frame edges stretches peoples' facial features. So, the 24-105L IS and a Sigma 20mm f/2.8 would do a whole event also.

Only you can decide what you like to do.
Jack

17-55 + 70-200

It's all covered, at 2.8.

The greater width of the 17-55 is required in some wedding settings where you can't get back far enough for group shots with a 24 mm lens on an EF-S camera. F/2.8 can be handy too in the low light of receptions, dances, etc.

I end up carrying my 70-200/2.8 and another body so I don't have to change lenses very often. If you are going to shoot a wedding you should have at least two bodies anyway.

What we really need is for Canon to bring out a 50-200/2.8 EF-S IS lens to compliment the 17-55/2.8.

County Man wrote in post #2061475
Im looking for advice re the above two lenses for use on a 30D at weddings.
I have used in the past the Canon 17-85 IS lens which is pretty good but has its limitations so I am looking to upgrade to one of the above.

If you have used either of the above lenses for weddings on 20/30D can you let me know, Is the 17-55 long enough or do you find yourself changing lenses. Conversly does the 24-105 go wide enough for those group shots?

My other lens is the 70-200 2.8 IS but I want to keep lens changes to a minnimum.

Would like to here of your experiences.

Thanks

Mark

in what ways does the 17-85 limit you?

for covering a wedding, if choose between 17-55 and 24-105 on 20/30D. it is certainly 17-55. no brainer. in weddings you need large aperture for the low light indoor conditions and you need wide angle for the atmosphere. 24-105 on fullframe is worth considering but on 20/30D the answer is 17-55.

F2.8 for low light (17-55) or 24-70 f2.8

mizuno wrote in post #2063474
17-55 + 70-200

It's all covered, at 2.8.

Exactly what I use. Covers everything I need 99% of the time.

I also agree with the 17-55 and 70-200

It's a great range for groups or isolation shots and most importantly, you have the speed.

Maybe you should rent an extra body for this particular event so you don't have to switch lenses.

ed rader wrote in post #2062410
then the only logical choice is: BOTH !

ed rader

LOL

As I read the resposes here I swung first one way then the other. You made me laugh out loud with your answer.
I tell you its very tempting to get both as they are both good lenses but I doubt my wallet would stand the strain just now.

Thanks

Mark

Good advice about carrying around a 17mm as oposed to the 70-200...... .

Thanks

J Rabin wrote in post #2062545
Both great lenses. Either carry two bodies, or switch lenses.

17-55 f/2.8 is wide enough, but not long enough to do a whole event on a APS-C body, unless it is leisurely, or you crop. Get the 17-55 and a front belt lens pouch to swap 70-200.

24-105 is wide enough AND long enough on a 1-DMkII body or 5D, but not on a APS-C body. These bodies, this lens, and a flash can do a whole event, as long as you are not into selective focus narrow depth of field shots. It needs a flash to help focus in low light, being f/4.

Carry a step ladder. Then you can use the longer lens more over the heads of people to zero in and pick out subjects without people blocking, and without out having to get in their face with 17mm.

It's a toss-up call with one APS-C body. I have used both lenses. Both make excellent images. I busted my 24-105L focus ring already and had to have it fixed. I don't like where the manual focus ring is on the 17-55mm - opposite position to L lenses - but I have not busted that plastic lens yet.

Maybe get the 24-105 AND a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 for in-close, wide shots, or big groups and tables.
You can do a whole event with those 2, with a flash and higher ISO. The 17mm in the pocket is certainly more portable than the 70-200 in pocket. And image quality little concern on the wide stuff anyway.

I do not like using wider than 20mm focal length on APS-C sensor for groups because perspective distortion near frame edges stretches peoples' facial features. So, the 24-105L IS and a Sigma 20mm f/2.8 would do a whole event also.

Only you can decide what you like to do.
Jack