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

Thanks Scotte,
Yep a 50-200 2.8 would be good or a 17-70 2.8 IS would do it.
I guess theres a limit to what they can design or we would have one of these.
My second body is an eos 3 film camera but it is obviously only there in case of failure of the digital. I am still waiting on the succesor to the 5D coming out.
I only had to use the eos 3 once at a wedding and the results were great but scanning negs was a pain.

Thanks

Mark

ScottE wrote in post #2064683
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.

I find the 17-85 is great at the long end but has to much CA at the wide end which just takes the edge off of group shots.
Also its a bit soft with too much distortion at the wide end fro me.
Having said that I have never had any complaints about it. Its just I like to use the best I can afford.

Mark

franxon wrote in post #2064993
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.

Thanks for the replys.
Its all good advice and food for thought. What I am going to do Is use my 17-85 over thext few days to do some family snaps but restrict myself to the 17-55 range to see how I get on. I should get a fair idea if the focal lengh suits.
Decisions Decisions

Mark

I do events, not weddings, but one could somewhat consider a wedding as a form of event, though a very much more specialized discipline.

Get the 17-55, that is a beautiful lens. f/2.8 and IS. Weddings and corporate events usually take place in horribly dim light. I don't know what is it about dim that they consider 'romantic', as a photographer I consider it 'horrible'. so go for it...then consider another telephoto and/or second camera for your telezoom.

24mm on a crop camera IS NOT wide enough. I use my 24-105 on a 5D where it is a true 24mm, and that IS wide enough, but I doubt you want to pick up another 5D to go with your 24-105 at this point in time

Since both 55mm and 105mm may not be long enough anyway, do consider a 70-200 of some kind as your second zoom. The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is excellent value although it lacks the stabilizer.

County Man wrote in post #2065091
much CA at the wide ...Also a bit soft with too much distortion.

Mark

even when you stopped it down to f8?

Mark
The answer is there for you, buy both and get a 5D to go with it You know you will anyway Bling Bling Bling
Ricky

Heres a 100% crop I had had taken at 40mm f5.6. Re sizing it has lost much of the detail but the CA is there on the edge of the paper and in the original the black writing has a blue/purple tinge all over it

franxon wrote in post #2065253
even when you stopped it down to f8?

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

I can resist, I can resist..........I think.
I am determined to wait on the 5D replacement before I jump in.
Anyway I have just bit the bullet and got the 17-55 2.8 is from Warehouse express.
It will be here tomorrow.
I can't wait to try it out.
I am mad ,bad and now skint. Hopefully this lens will be good enough to ease the pain.

Mark

rickydiver wrote in post #2065355
Mark
The answer is there for you, buy both and get a 5D to go with it You know you will anyway Bling Bling Bling
Ricky

I'd go with the 17-55 myself

I play in a couple of bands that have been doing weddings every weekend over the summer and most of the photographers i have seen have been using the 24-105L most of the time.
I have not seen one 17-55IS but thats not to say its no good, just that i havent seen it.

2.8 is better no doubt for the typical dimly lit wedding.
I do weddings and the 17-55 and 70-200 covers you 95% of the time.

BUT... aside from speed, there is one thing the 17-55 has a BIG advantage over the 24-105....

The centre focus point is much more accurate and focuses faster when using a F2.8 lens or faster. When I was using a 17-85 or 17-40, there were many dark and dim situtations where the darn camera just couldn't hit focus, even with the 580EX AF assist lights. Once I put the 17-55 and 70-200, centre point focusing improved GREATLY... which is KEY in wedding photography where you have to be ready for that smile, that kiss, that moment. End of story. No focus = no picture.

picturecrazy wrote in post #2066275
2.8 is better no doubt for the typical dimly lit wedding.
I do weddings and the 17-55 and 70-200 covers you 95% of the time.

BUT... aside from speed, there is one thing the 17-55 has a BIG advantage over the 24-105....

The centre focus point is much more accurate and focuses faster when using a F2.8 lens or faster. When I was using a 17-85 or 17-40, there were many dark and dim situtations where the darn camera just couldn't hit focus, even with the 580EX AF assist lights. Once I put the 17-55 and 70-200, centre point focusing improved GREATLY... which is KEY in wedding photography where you have to be ready for that smile, that kiss, that moment. End of story. No focus = no picture.

f/2.8 can be both a liability and an asset. Good point about the enhanced precision, the 20D 30D, 400D (XTi) have the f/2.8-sensitive center AF point which offers more precise focusing. The same 2.8 can be a liability on the 350D and the 300D, which do not have the enhanced precision, and tend to miss focus when the DOF is very very shallow. I've had these issues with my 350D, which is one of the areas where it unfortunately falls short, even though I really like that camera. I never saw the point in the enhanced precision sensors until I got my f/2.8 lenses and started running into issues. Stick the same lens on the 5D and things are perfect.

Then again if you are working with fast f/2.8 zooms in critical situations like weddings you probably should be using a 30D at least anyway, so..

I would like to thank everyone for their replys. They did in fact sway me in my decision.
I took delivery of my new 17-55 IS 2.8 today and after a few initial snaps to check it out I have to say i am delighted. Tack sharp with very good colours and it should compliment my 70-200 2.8 IS pretty well.
My only small gripe is the cost of the hood which you have to purchase seperately. £42.00 for a bit plastic. Come on Canon your taking the **** These are the wee things that take the gloss off what has been a careful and considered purchase.
I presume that the hood from the 17-40 will fit this lens? Let me know if you know one way or another because I have one lying about somewhere.
Watch out for some shots with my new lens soon.

Thanks again everyone.

Mark

County Man wrote in post #2072477
I would like to thank everyone for their replys. They did in fact sway me in my decision.
I took delivery of my new 17-55 IS 2.8 today and after a few initial snaps to check it out I have to say i am delighted. Tack sharp with very good colours and it should compliment my 70-200 2.8 IS pretty well.
My only small gripe is the cost of the hood which you have to purchase seperately. £42.00 for a bit plastic. Come on Canon your taking the **** These are the wee things that take the gloss off what has been a careful and considered purchase.
I presume that the hood from the 17-40 will fit this lens? Let me know if you know one way or another because I have one lying about somewhere.
Watch out for some shots with my new lens soon.

Thanks again everyone.

Mark

ah, you got get the hood and a small cary bag with the 24-105L. saves a bit more cash

County Man wrote in post #2072477
My only small gripe is the cost of the hood which you have to purchase seperately. £42.00 for a bit plastic.

Mine was 18 quid off Ebay - took about 5 days to get here from Hong Kong.