DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon 24-105 f/4 L for weddings?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 12 of 12, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/28/2011 01:45:50 PM · #1
I know this question has been asked many times on many different forums, but the discussion I'm finding seems somewhat arbitrary. Many posts state that the f/4 makes the lens to slow and that the 24-70 is a better choice for the f/2.8 maximum aperture. I was thinking through the last couple of weddings I shot and when using the full frame body, 5D2, I usually stopped down to f/3.5 or f/4.0 when shooting more than one person. Managing the focal plane with more than two eyes to keep in focus in a fast moving wedding environment is challenging, so I usually bump the ISO up rather than letting my depth of field get too shallow and risking fuzzy eyes. This is less of an issue with a crop body because there is more depth of field at a given aperture. I have primes to use for portraits when I can work with shallow depth of field and have a bit more control.

So I'm asking for opinions... is the 24-105 a less than optimal choice vs the 24-70 & 70-200 f/2.8 zooms when shooting weddings.

Thanks!
03/28/2011 01:58:12 PM · #2
I loved shooting weddings with my 24-70. It was on my body approx 95% of the time. I tried to steer away from the f/4 because it was too slow, unless shooting group shots and a tripod was used.
03/28/2011 02:32:58 PM · #3
I don't do weddings..... I also don't get this f4 is "slow" and f2.8 is "fast" thing..... It's a single stop and with modern ISO's thru the roof, I don't see the hand wringing over this topic. I understand the DOF difference and that is true but f4 vs. f2.8.... really..... Besides with some distance in background f4 can work..... If it's just about DOF (and as you say with groups it's not razor thin that you want anyway) then why not swap to a prime and go for f1.8 or better that I would call actually "fast".

The only real thing that MIGH hold water is that Canon bodies tend to focus better with f2.8 faster lenses (If I recall something about the af been able to use extra somethings) but at a wedding your prob got a flash helping with the focus anyway (or it can without actually flashing if you set that option).
03/28/2011 02:44:09 PM · #4
Originally posted by robs:

The only real thing that MIGH hold water is that Canon bodies tend to focus better with f2.8 faster lenses (If I recall something about the af been able to use extra somethings) but at a wedding your prob got a flash helping with the focus anyway (or it can without actually flashing if you set that option).


There is that, yes; in low-light situations a faster lens gives more accurate focusing. The other factor to consider is that a lens typically performs better when stopped down a notch or two from wide open, and these two lenses are no exception to that rule. So to get crisper performance from the 24-105 you're looking at f/8 or possibly f/5.6, while the 24-70 will match that at f/4 to f/5.6 — it does make a difference...

R.
03/28/2011 02:59:57 PM · #5
Part of my challenge here is that the 24-70 and 70-200 combination has me changing lenses almost as often as shooting just primes. I frequently cross the 70mm point because I really like shooting just under 50mm and right around 85mm. If I was shooting a cropped body the 24-70 would be perfect, but it's just not working since I switched to full frame.

The focus issue with not having f/2.8 or wider is real, but I don't have any practical experience to gauge what the real could be. I do have a STE2 that I could mount to help with focus in low light.

Wasn't ignoring your reply Robert, I just typed too slow. The reviews and MTF charts I have checked suggest the 24-105 is really good wide open, but I have no real experience to say this is true. If I could not shoot it wide open, it really would be fairly useless for me because f/4 is the top of where I want to be for a wedding.

Message edited by author 2011-03-28 15:07:00.
03/28/2011 03:26:57 PM · #6
I shoot a lot of weddings and have had both the 24-70 (had since I bought my 5d back in 2006) and the 24-105 (as this came with the 5d mkII when I bought it). I sold the 24-105 after about 6 months as I just wasn't using it at all.

I find that you're shooting in low light a lot at a wedding be it the church/ceremony room or speeches/first dance and most of the time I'm at f/2.8 or lower with the primes.

Each to their own though, if you find you're at f/4 most of the time then it should be fine for you. I would say that I'm at f/2.8 or lower for a good percentage of the day myself though, but then I shoot wide for shallow DOF as that's what I like :0)


03/28/2011 04:43:18 PM · #7
Another factor I didn't see mentioned is the brightness of the image in the finder.

Regardless of the aperture used when exposing an image, a faster lens will have a brighter finder image, making it easier to compose in low light situations.
03/28/2011 04:58:32 PM · #8
I am shooting a wedding this weekend as a favour - I have the 24-105 f4, but if there was any way I can get my hands on the 24-70 f2.8 I would...
03/28/2011 05:45:45 PM · #9
I think I'm convinced. I can use the money I would have spent on the zoom for a nice 35mm f/1.4 and get rid of my noisy f/2.0. $1K experiments are not a good thing. In either case the f/2.8 L zooms are going away.

Message edited by author 2011-03-28 17:46:00.
03/28/2011 06:47:42 PM · #10
Originally posted by Nusbaum:

I think I'm convinced. I can use the money I would have spent on the zoom for a nice 35mm f/1.4 and get rid of my noisy f/2.0. $1K experiments are not a good thing. In either case the f/2.8 L zooms are going away.


I'm left scratching my head, at least a little...
- in your original post, you're wondering if f/2.8 is really that much of a benefit vs. f/4
- you state that $1k+ experiments are not to be taken lightly, and I certainly agree.!

I think others have covered the benefits of f/2.8 lenses, and I'm sure you will find that the majority of pros shooting weddings are using f/2.8 zooms when they are using zooms.
Optically, there's nothing that beats fast primes for low-light, DoF control or IQ... nothing. Versatility-wise, it's another story. You can't always zoom with your feet. So, it seems the most conservative route is to rely on the f/2.8 zooms, unless you *know* that faster primes will cover you and that swapping focal lengths won't kill you.
I've only shot weddings as an amateur, but I can tell you that if I were to do it professionally, I would probably choose to go in with two bodies, one with a 70-200/2.8 and the other with a 24-70/2.8. I would also bring a couple fast primes, for specific purposes (low existing light and narrow DoF).
03/28/2011 07:07:50 PM · #11
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by Nusbaum:

I think I'm convinced. I can use the money I would have spent on the zoom for a nice 35mm f/1.4 and get rid of my noisy f/2.0. $1K experiments are not a good thing. In either case the f/2.8 L zooms are going away.


I'm left scratching my head, at least a little...
- in your original post, you're wondering if f/2.8 is really that much of a benefit vs. f/4
- you state that $1k+ experiments are not to be taken lightly, and I certainly agree.!

I think others have covered the benefits of f/2.8 lenses, and I'm sure you will find that the majority of pros shooting weddings are using f/2.8 zooms when they are using zooms.
Optically, there's nothing that beats fast primes for low-light, DoF control or IQ... nothing. Versatility-wise, it's another story. You can't always zoom with your feet. So, it seems the most conservative route is to rely on the f/2.8 zooms, unless you *know* that faster primes will cover you and that swapping focal lengths won't kill you.
I've only shot weddings as an amateur, but I can tell you that if I were to do it professionally, I would probably choose to go in with two bodies, one with a 70-200/2.8 and the other with a 24-70/2.8. I would also bring a couple fast primes, for specific purposes (low existing light and narrow DoF).


This will sound wimpy coming from a 6' 1" person weighing in at about 240lbs, but I really don't like the mass of the 70-200 or the 24-70 when working with people. I find I move a bit less with the weight and I'm not as quick to raise and lower the lens. While the big lenses made me feel like a pro, I had better results all around when my budget had limited me to a small collection of primes. I thought the 24-105, even at f/4, might offer an flexible alternative, but I needed to talk it through a bit with some other photographers.

My backup body is a 40D, so not full frame, and I don't see another 5D2 happening this year.
03/28/2011 07:13:59 PM · #12
Ah. Makes sense now... you have the experience with the primes, and so you know you can deliver the goods with them.
I do agree that there is something to be said for smaller and lighter. The 70-200 in particular is a big bugger. Big lenses are also imposing to subjects, so if a PJ style is your thing, you may lose in discretion.
Optically, it is really hard to argue with the results from fast primes :-)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 10:23:28 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 10:23:28 AM EDT.