| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/15/2007 01:41:15 PM · #1 |
My VERY GENEROUS sister-in-law is willing to buy me some new equipment to thank me for some work I did for her on her rental house/and my birthday. I am being given a $500 allowance. The plan was to buy a second body (the 350D) as a backup for some upcoming weddings I will be shooting. In recent threads I have read how important it is to have good lenses though, so I am thinking I will make this my purchase instead right now and go for the camera in a couple of months. I am looking at the Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS right now because I was going to pay the $500 for a new body anyway. Since I am waiting on the body, I can apply it towards the lens.
My question for you is...wouldn't this be a slow lens for shooting weddings? I would think the range is perfect though. Any other suggestions?
|
|
|
|
07/15/2007 01:49:18 PM · #2 |
if you're going to use a flash and balance it with the ambient light. f:4 should be fine.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2007 01:49:37 PM · #3 |
I just shot my first weddding, and I have another in two weeks in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands.
I followed the advice in numerous other threads and had a backup camera with an alternate focal length from my primary camera. I think that is very important.
Next (other than plenty of memory cards) would be a flash bracket, which I didn't have, or a Gary Fong Lightsphere which comes highly recommended from many wedding photographers on this site. |
|
|
|
07/23/2007 03:25:04 PM · #4 |
| Would any of you experienced wedding photographers suggest something other than the Canon EF 24-105mm F/4L IS? I have a Tamron that covers 28-300, but I feel that it is slow for handheld shots and I get some blur in the photo. It doesn't happen very often, but it does leave me wondering what my potential would be with a better lens! |
|
|
|
07/23/2007 03:44:03 PM · #5 |
I have used the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 successfully on two weddings I did as favors. If you're shooting available light f/4.0 is too slow. With flash it's fine. 24-105mm is a better range than 28-75mm for sure... The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 can't be beat for quality, but the above Tamron is awful close for much less bux.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2007 04:02:17 PM · #6 |
I agree with  Bear_Music.
A lot of wedding photographers use the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and also the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. I couldn't justify spending the money on the Canon 24-70 so I bought the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di instead. The Tamron takes great pictures but I am starting to notice that the build quality isn't up to par for heavy use. If this were my day job I would not rely on anything less than Canon's.
Message edited by author 2007-07-23 16:10:30. |
|
|
|
07/23/2007 04:15:47 PM · #7 |
Personally, I find the 28-75 f2.8 Tamron too long for weddings, especially at the reception. It would be perfect on a 5D or another "full frame" camera. Instead, I'd suggest the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, which gives similar IQ and is the rough equivalent on a 1.6 crop camera to a 28-75 on a FF camera.
If you're going to be doing this a lot, the Canon 16-35 f2.8 would be a wise choice, but it's fairly pricey. |
|
|
|
07/23/2007 04:19:01 PM · #8 |
For $500 the best thing to buy as far as lenses is Canon primes.
DO NOT buy a third party lens unless you enjoy replacing stuff often. I have bought 2 Sigma lenses thinking each time they will be fine. They never are. I sold the 70-300 but unfortunately still have the 24-70 2.8. Its crap... it now sits on my desk never to be attached to my camera ever again. The 2.8 aperature is bogus, unless you like blurry shots. I guess it does have a sweet spot at around f8, but I don't know a lens thats not sharp at f8.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2007 04:23:38 PM · #9 |
This lens is worth a look:
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon
It has been getting really good reviews. Some have called it an L killer.
Message edited by author 2007-07-23 16:58:43.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2007 04:30:05 PM · #10 |
I completely disagree that that lens is any good.
L killer almost made me fall out of my chair laughing. I know it got good reviews, but I hate it.
For a lens like that you are essentially paying for the f2.8. If you want that lens its probably because you need fast glass. It is fast, but its useless until around f4. The color also sucks. I am 95% sure I could tell you a sigma lens from an image right out of camera. Sigmas have this redish orange tint to them. I think its probably worth about $250 and it sells for over $500.
If anyone thinks thats an L killer, I will happily trade it and pay some extra cash for an L lens, any L lens except the 70-200 2.8L IS USM. I already have that one and it is sweet.
|
|
|
|
07/23/2007 05:45:05 PM · #11 |
| 24-105L is a hell of a great lens, but it is too slow at F4 for shooting inside churches (and I would assume reception halls). Your 500 allowance, your 500 saved, and just a bit more would get you the 24-70 2.8L which would certainly meet your need. |
|
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: 12/31/2025 05:36:00 PM EST.
