I bet you guys get bored of the wedding lens questions but....

could you help me decide on my next upgrade. I have my 2nd wedding in a few months and will have the money for 1 lens upgrade.

My current line up is

sigma 10-20
tamron 28-75 2.8
sigma 70-300 dg
canon 50 1.8

I'm thinking that altough the tamron might not be as good as the equivlant canon i think its a good enough lens for that range.

so i was thinking of parting with the sigma and canon and getting either

canon 70-300 is
canon 70-200 f4 is.


now the 70-300 is really the one that is in my price range, but if i had to I could stretch to the 70-200.

or totally different, I tend to use the tamron range mostly, so should I sell the tamron and get the canon 24-105 IS. I really do want a lens with IS as most the images that I dont keep are just slightly oof, so I think that IS would pull those in for me.

I will be using them with my 40d and 580ex.

Thanks in advance.

If you are looking at a longer lens---then I would HIGHLY suggest the 70-200 2.8 IS---- it is worth it.
Do not get the f4---great lens but not a great fit for weddings......trust me I have one and have thousands of pics with it---get the 2.8 IS.

If youve only got one body and flash then your next upgrade should really be another body and flash as if either of those fail your buggered .. for want of a better word..... ignore that if you do have another body and flash and just didnt list them.

If I was shooting with what you have I would be constantly swapping lenses between the 10-20 and the 28-75 .... because neither of those are a good all rounder in the same way the 17-55 F2.8 IS is, I could shoot virtually a whole wedding with that except the long stuff which I use my 70-200 for. If i had to shoot a whole wedding with just one lens it would be the 17-55 F2.8 IS with no question at all.

If I were you and I was intending to shoot more weddings I would take a step back and start looking at what your ideal wedding kit should be and work towards that rather than trying to slot another lens into your current line up and ending up with a mish mash of stuff that is less than ideal for what your using it for.

I wish I could afford the 2.8 IS, but its not far off double the price and I will be really stretching to get the f4 IS.

So it has to be one of the above or dont get anything yet and save up for a year or more to get the 2.8.

I've compared images of both the f4 and f2.8 IS taken in similar light and background. f2.8 IS all the way! - definitely worth it!

Banbert wrote in post #4049223
If youve only got one body and flash then your next upgrade should really be another body and flash as if either of those fail your buggered .. for want of a better word..... ignore that if you do have another body and flash and just didnt list them.

If I was shooting with what you have I would be constantly swapping lenses between the 10-20 and the 28-75 .... because neither of those are a good all rounder in the same way the 17-55 F2.8 IS is, I could shoot virtually a whole wedding with that except the long stuff which I use my 70-200 for. If i had to shoot a whole wedding with just one lens it would be the 17-55 F2.8 IS with no question at all.

If I were you and I was intending to shoot more weddings I would take a step back and start looking at what your ideal wedding kit should be and work towards that rather than trying to slot another lens into your current line up and ending up with a mish mash of stuff that is less than ideal for what your using it for.

Totally agree. If you are looking for ONE lens the 17-55 2.8 IS is the one----- but you really need a backup body and lens if you want to do this right.
Rent equipment--you do not have to purchase it right now. But do it right.

cdmonkey wrote in post #4049229
I wish I could afford the 2.8 IS, but its not far off double the price and I will be really stretching to get the f4 IS.

So it has to be one of the above or dont get anything yet and save up for a year or more to get the 2.8.

I've never used any of them, but would the 2.8 without IS be preferable to the f4 with IS? They're the same price.

didavko wrote in post #4049247
I've compared images of both the f4 and f2.8 IS taken in similar light and background. f2.8 IS all the way! - definitely worth it!

I find the image quality to be the same (except you can get more bokeh with the 2.8) the point is that the 2.8 IS will allow you to get the shot in much darker conditions without using flash than the F4 will.

I had the 70-200 F4L and the images were sharp and contrasty and if I were just using it outside it would be great for the job .... but in a dark church the F2.8 IS is worth the extra cash.

I have access to a spare body (350d) so thats covered. I never really gave the 17-55 much thought, even now I find myself switching between the 28-75 and 10-20 quite a lot, which I wouldnt want to do at a wedding.
I shot the last wedding witht a 350d and the tamron which was great for the outdoor shots, but some of the evening shots where the problem, as I said just slightly oof.

Shame there isnt as much cashback on offer for the 17-55 as there is the 70-200.

this wedding will be the one that will make me decide to take it seriously or not, I quite enjoyed the last one, I learnt a lot and I think I could take it on more often so as well as not really having the money at the moment I dont want to spend a lot and find out that it isnt for me, but if it is then I will invest.

Thanks for all the input.

If you are after a 70-200, condsider the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Its about the same price as the Canon 70-200 f4.

Some say the current version is not the sharpest, I shoot the previous version (EX non-macro) and it is fine wide open at f2.8.

I would also recommend that you consider replacing your two lenses with the 17-55 f2.8 IS.

It is expensive but excellent from what I have seen.

Thanks, I looked at the sigma 70-200 but really like the idea of IS.

Iam seriously considering the 17-55 now, but that will leave me without a suitable lens for studio portrait type work. I usually dont have much room when I shoot so 70-200 would probably be too long most the time and I tend to soot in the 50-75 range with my tamron.
this would mean that I would have to keep that lens as well as getting the 17-55. oh this is getting expensive.

You say your non keepers are oof - can you be more specific whether it is a focusing issue or handshake from a low shutter speed that is making them soft?

Ultimately, if you need a 70-XXX lens you will want a 70-200 2.8 IS, I often shoot mine at 1/60th f2.8 iso 1600 handheld during the ceremony. A monopod plus either a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 or an old Canon 80-200 2.8L are workable alternatives to this, trading conveniance for price but not quality. Outside in good light you won't miss the IS so you can ditch the monopod.

With your current setup you can shoot with the 10-20 on the 350 and the 28-75mm on the 40D, giving you quick access to a 16-120mm range.

Have you got a spare flash?

This may sound a bit drastic but I'd sell all your lenses except for the 50mm.

Then I'd get a 17-55 F2.8 IS for definite.

then I'd get some or all of the following

Spare flash, if you don't have one, maybe a 430EX.
85mm F1.8/100mm F2 and a monopod or a 70-200 F2.8 IS

whatever you decide good luck and be sure to post a few shots.

I suggest renting for your next wedding. I would rent a second body and flash before I changed up your lens selection. With the 40d the 17-55 2.8 is an awesome lens; for a second body I would have the 70-200 2.8 canon lens. Personally, I would be willing to sell your entire current lens selection and purchase the two lenses listed above. For now, I would rent what you need but cannot afford: that would be a second body and flash.

Thanks for all the comments, Ive decided I will get the funds together for the 17-55is, and as a temporary solution I have bid and won a sigma 70-200 2.8 at an ok price(its the older model not the macro version) which I will use until I can get the funds together for the canon is version. I wont have a 2nd flash for the next wedding and it will be the only time I can borrow the 350d so after that I will get a 20d and 430ex.

here are a couple of pics from the first wedding that I did. which was all shot with 350d and the tamron lens. the dress looks a little overexposed in the small jpg, not sure why, but its not like that in the prints.

The biggest thing I learnt from doing that one was organisation, luckily this was a friends wedding so it wasnt to bad. But I know I could do a better job.

Thanks again
Carl

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

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