| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/02/2008 06:23:49 PM · #1 |
I'm looking for a lens and have it narrowed to two...but can't pick one over the other.
Use (in order of priority/use): studio sessions, second shooter at weddings, backup for main wedding lens.
In studio, 40D, as a second shooter wedding lens, 30D. Only during the ceremony, and usually on a tripod.
Been using: Used the tamron 24-135 then canon 28-135 IS in the studio. Used a tamron 28-75 2.8 for second shooter and backup, and occassional studio use ( I just sold it, so please do not suggest I get another one.)
I want longer for in the studio, which is why I used the 24/28-135 lenses. Super fast aperture isn't a need, but at times I'd like wider than F 5.6, and wider would focus faster. So this kind of favors the 24-105. I like IS.
For any wedding use the 2.8 has the edge. At this time it's purely as backup. I do plan to get a FF body in the next year, so that sort of has me leaning toward this lens.
The are the same price and both weather sealed, both L lenses, both FF capable. The 24-105 is a tad lighter and has more range and the one I'd probably use more. Both are good lenses, but both have 'net rumours of bad copies floating around.
Help!
|
|
|
|
03/02/2008 07:20:10 PM · #2 |
You're beyond help... they're both great lenses.
All kidding aside, I'd go with the 24-70. The f/2.8 aperture has the added benefit of letting the camera use the higher precision of the cross type AF sensors, and of course will give a brighter viewfinder image. The 24-70 also has less distortion at the 24mm end. The weakest point of the 24-70 is wide open at 70mm, where it is just slightly soft.
|
|
|
|
03/02/2008 07:41:39 PM · #3 |
| i think the aperture is more important than the reach ... 24-70 |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 10:48:16 AM · #4 |
| i say 24-70. crazy sharp and nothing better than fast L glass! my second fav lens! 50mm f/1.2L is still my baby. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 10:54:57 AM · #5 |
| Another vote for the 24-70. Love it! |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:01:03 AM · #6 |
| In people situations, you cannot beat the 24-70mm f/2.8 unless you use a faster prime (which would be essential for low light evening and unlit auditorium work). I would not touch that other lens. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:13:58 AM · #7 |
I'm leaning toward the 24-70, but Jerry Ghionis uses the 24-105 F4 for weddings...and gets great images, one stop be damned.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:36:21 AM · #8 |
Do you need the extra reach?
If not, its a no-brainer, go with the 24-70.
I've gone with the 24-105 for weddings, but only because I need the reach. Inside buildings if the light drops at all, you'll feel inhibited & will probably need a flash. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 11:39:21 AM · #9 |
| And my response to "need the reach" for weddings is to be shooting with two bodies, one with the 24-70 and the other with the 70-200/2.8 IS. The two of them are a match made in heaven for low-light work. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 12:39:06 PM · #10 |
| I went the other way and opted for the very decent 24-105, mainly for reasons of versatility applied to my own purposes. Mind you, I use two bodies, one of which equipped with the 70-200/2.8. Pressed for basing a purchase on the fastest glass alone, I'd join the previous consensus here and recommend the 24-70, which I do not own but have used as well. |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 02:04:12 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
And my response to "need the reach" for weddings is to be shooting with two bodies, one with the 24-70 and the other with the 70-200/2.8 IS. The two of them are a match made in heaven for low-light work. |
I shot with two bodies then went to a belt system - I like the belt system, other than the 70-200 2.8 IS is a heavy SOB. Might be tempted to put the 70-200 on a second body...problem now is my main body is a 40D and the 20/30 bodies don't hold a candle to it in IQ (14 bit, HTP) or focus speed.
Since I've accumulated a good selection of primes, I'm thinking of trying a second body just for them, in RAW-BW, the 'old school' way of doing it (primary was hasselblad in color, secondary shooter ran 35mm B&W film). Shooting in RAW I can always make it color again, and IQ is less an issue.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2008 02:24:06 PM · #12 |
Prof,
If you were interested, send me a PM or email and I can work you out a deal for renting both at the same time so you can give it a good side by side.
//www.rentphotostuff.com |
|
|
|
03/04/2008 02:28:17 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Prof,
If you were interested, send me a PM or email and I can work you out a deal for renting both at the same time so you can give it a good side by side.
//www.rentphotostuff.com |
I am a CPS member - it's free to borrow from canon (I just pay shipping). And a friend that has the 24-70 offered to loan me his. But thanks anyway.
I'd use the 24-105 more I think, at least until I get a FF body. So today I'm leaning toward the longer lens.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2008 08:32:24 PM · #14 |
| if you need a longer reach, then obviously 24-105 is a better choice, although at 105mm this lens is not as sharp as I hoped it would be. both lenses seem pretty sharp in the 24-70mm range... i'd also suggest checking out lens surveys and reviews at //www.fredmiranda.com, //www.slrlensreview.com and //www.slr-gear.com |
|
|
|
03/11/2008 11:59:42 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
So today I'm leaning toward the longer lens. |
IS won't give you the stops you need in low light. On the other hand, the 24-70 is heavy. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 12:17:26 AM · #16 |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 08:54:57 AM · #17 |
| You could always just get closer with the 24-70. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 10:25:25 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Anti-Martyr:
You could always just get closer with the 24-70. |
Not always. I can zoom in and get a closer shot of an expression where as a shorter lens would make me miss it- running in takes time and guaranteed it will cause the subject some concern, changing the expression and ruining the moment.
And the longer the focal length at a given aperture the shallower the DOF - important when shooting in a studio at 5.6 and you want to get the BG OOF. The longer focal length also lets me work farther back from the subject which makes them feel more comfortable and relaxed.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/23/2025 02:28:22 AM EST.
