| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/10/2009 03:47:29 PM · #1 |
Im super stuck and I trust this crowd. Im looking to upgrade my standard lens; currently shooting SIGMA 24-70 2.8. I'm more a travel/ animal photographer, but all my money comes from weddings. So I hear the Canon 24-70 2.8L is better for weddings with its low light ability and the Canon 24-105 4L IS is better for travel with its bigger range and IS. SO I'm kinda leaning towards the 24-105 4L IS and I'm wondering will the IS be enough to handle the low light typical in weddings? I need opinions, preferably from experience...
Ug so many dilemmas! I figure if Im desperate for 2.8 I can use the ol sigma?
How effective is the Canon IS? I've never shot an IS lens, which is odd, so I don't know how well they work. Enough to compensate for the shutter speed being cut in half by the F stop 2.8 --> 4?
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 03:52:00 PM · #2 |
IS is quite effective. I have a 28-135mm IS that I refuse to part with, at least until I can afford the 24-105mm. it's my first IS lens and I have been very impressed - in reality, IS will hold the lens steady down to speeds where subject movement becomes more of a problem than lens shake.
In my opinion, the 24-105mm is more useful because of the greater range. Yes, you sacrifice an f-stop, but I think that the ISO performance on today's cameras makes up for it. On top of which, f/2.8 is very shallow anyway, and most f/2.8 lenses are sharpest when stopped down a bit.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 04:16:26 PM · #3 |
Thanks so much, glad to hear. I didn't realize there was another thread similar going on right now also involving the same lenses.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2009 05:33:33 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Cboydrun:
How effective is the Canon IS? I've never shot an IS lens, which is odd, so I don't know how well they work. Enough to compensate for the shutter speed being cut in half by the F stop 2.8 --> 4? |
The general thinking is that it adds about a stop, but only helps with camera movement, the larger aperture helps with all movement. DOF issues are real but any lens all the way open is worse than in mid range, so a f1.4 lens at f4.5 will be better than a f4.5 lens at f4.5
Message edited by author 2009-04-10 17:35:56. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 06:06:16 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cboydrun:
How effective is the Canon IS? I've never shot an IS lens, which is odd, so I don't know how well they work. Enough to compensate for the shutter speed being cut in half by the F stop 2.8 --> 4? |
The general thinking is that it adds about a stop, but only helps with camera movement, the larger aperture helps with all movement. DOF issues are real but any lens all the way open is worse than in mid range, so a f1.4 lens at f4.5 will be better than a f4.5 lens at f4.5 |
Great advice! |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 06:29:34 PM · #6 |
| I absolutely love the image quality of my 24-70. However, I think I should have gone for the 24-105 IS to get that extra range and, more importantly, the IS. |
|
|
|
04/10/2009 06:32:10 PM · #7 |
I have both lenses and I ALWAYS put the 24-70mm on my camera over the 24-105mm unless I either really need the extra reach option or I'm using the 24-70mm on another camera.
I find the 2.8 far more useful then the IS for both the reasons mentioned earlier about movement in the shot but also (and more importantly for me) it gives me the option to limit the DOF down to f2.8 if I want to.
Both are great lenses but I find I miss the f2.8 a lot more then the IS or reach if I'm using the other lens |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 03:16:32 AM · #8 |
for weddings, my vote is for the 24-70 L.. especially for it's great "bokeh"
|
|
|
|
04/11/2009 04:35:31 AM · #9 |
I love my 24-70 but it is a brick. The thing weighs alot more than the 24-105 but I need the 2.8 also having is at the 24-70 focal lense is not going to make a huge difference as it would at longer focal lengths. I do wish it had an inner focusing system rather than the front extending out.
weights:
24-70 950g
24-105 670g |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 08:56:19 AM · #10 |
I'd gladly swap my 24-105 for the 24-70
Having said that though it is a fantastic lens, tack sharp, fast and the IS helps an old git like me to hold the shot steady.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2009 11:22:38 AM · #11 |
| You answered your own question... if your bread and butter is weddings, the 24-70 is the one. IS will not help with subject motion. You need the f/2.8 more than you need the IS. Also, FWIW, the 24-70 has less distortion at the wide end. |
|
|
|
04/11/2009 09:45:05 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
You answered your own question... if your bread and butter is weddings, the 24-70 is the one. IS will not help with subject motion. You need the f/2.8 more than you need the IS. Also, FWIW, the 24-70 has less distortion at the wide end. |
Thanks for all the help folks... haha Kirbic you're right weddings are my bread and butter... but I guess the delema is do I chose the better lens for work or what I love (travel stuff)? haha
|
|
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: 07/30/2025 12:04:52 AM EDT.
