choice of L lenses

I'm looking at upgrading my lenses. I have four in mind to include a

few different combos. I'm trying to decide between the 70-200mm f2.8L

and a 24-70mm f2.8L, or a 70-200mm f2.8L and a 17-40mm f4L, or just

the 28-300mm f3.5/5.6L. The first combo would cost the most and the

last 2 would run close to the same but the 28-300mm would of course

be more convenient but lack the 17-28mm range and add 200-300mm. I

will be using these mostly for weddings. Anyone got any ideas?

I forgot to mention that these would go on a 5D and my back-up is an XT with a 17-70mm lense.

Hi Martin,

A few issues there, but if you lots of weddings, I would seriously consider the IS version of the 70-200. It will allow you to handhold to very low speeds which is invaluable for weddings especially in dim areas like churches and some reception centres. IMHO, I would not be able to use the 70-200 without the IS. I currently use the following combo for shooting weddings, which pretty much covers the full range from 24mm to 320mm, which seems to work very well.

 

5d/BG-e4 + 24-105/4L IS + 550ex on the full frame, and on the 1.6x crop body, 350d/BG-E3 (Rebel XT) + 70-200/2.8L IS + 550ex

 

What lenses do you currently have ?

 

IMHO the 28-300 would just be too slow for wedding shooting at 3.5-5.6, especially at the long end. I think the 70-200IS + 24-105L will come up to be about the same cost as the 70-200/2.8 + 24-70/2.8

 

Cheers,

<i>IMHO the 28-300 would just be too slow for wedding shooting at 3.5-5.6, especially at the long end. I think the 70-200IS + 24-105L will come up to be about the same cost as the 70-200/2.8 + 24-70/2.8 </i>

<p>

Not in the US it won't. . . around here, the 24-70/4L-IS costs MORE than the 24-70/2.8L.

<p>

You probably have shot more weddings than I have, because I am certainly not a pro. However, when I go to a wedding, I rarely take out my 70-200/4L. (of course, I shoot a cropped body, so my ranges are different).

<P>

I think you need to simply drop the 28-300 off the list. Too slow, and the image quality is mediocre. You are paying a HUGE premium for single lens convienience.

<p>

You also need to think a bit about portrait lenses. I would not consider a F4 lens for portraits. I would seriously consider having a 85/1.8 (plus maybe a 100/F2) for portraits.

<p>

To supplement your portrait lens. . .I would consider the 24-105/4L-IS for work at the reception. The flaw of this lens, however, is vignetting on the wide end wide open. If yo can live without IS, then the 24-70/2.8L is simply the bee's knees: and does not vignette like the 24-105/4L at the wide end.

<p>

With a 24-70/2.8L and 85/1.8 as the backbone of your kit. . .then you should consider expanding on the wide or long end. The 70-200/2.8L is a fine lens. But this lens is big enough that you may want the more expensive IS version. OR. .. if you get the <i>lighter</i> 70-200/4L version, you can add a 17-40/4L for the same cost.

<p>

You do have a good flash unit or three, right?

My recommendation would be the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. Whether or not you use the 70-200 has a lot to do with what style of photograhy you have. If you like being close to your subjects, physically (either because you want them to know you are there, or because you want the wide angle look), you may find yourself not using the 70-200. To be sure, the IS is beneficial with it, and it will help you catch some shots that you might not otherwise get (with shy subjects).

Martin,

 

Although you didn't say which body you would be using the lenses on (full frame or cropped), I agree whole-heartedly with Jim Larson's advice. About 1/2 of what I shoot these days consists of weddings. I have the 24-70 2.8L and the IS version of the 70-200 2.8L. (I also have a 10-22 EFS for the 20D). I keep one lens on the 5D and one on the 20D and carry both cameras. I would miss many shots in low light situations without the IS on the 70-200 and f/4 would be way to slow.

 

The 24-70 is plenty wide for me when mounted on the 5D - any wider and there's too much distortion for good people shots, anyway. At 70mm on a 1.6 crop camera, the 24-70 f/2.8 makes a very good portrait lens, but I also keep a couple 1.8 primes in my bag for the formals, etc.

The f/2.8 zooms are big and heavy beasts, although their quality is indisputed. I decided on f/4L zooms instead, "seasoned" with a few well-placed fast primes. It was more of a kit weight issue for me than cost.

f/4 may not be fast enough for Martin's stated goal of "using these mostly for weddings".

Stay clear of the 28-300L...sure it covers a wide focal range, but to make such a lens, Canon has to comprise too much, and that means in image quality relative to other choices. Sure it's an L lens but you'll get better image quality if you cut up that focal range into other zooms.

 

I would have a strong bias toward fast apertures, and if you can swing it financially, it would be foolish to go the F4 route, even if they're L glass. Obviously if one cannot swing fast L $$-wise, nobody would blame them.

 

I would choose your kit from the list below:

 

Canon 16-35L F2.8.

 

Canon 24-70L F2.8.

 

Canon 70-200L F2.8 IS.

 

Canon 100-400L F4.5 IS.

 

I don't know how wide or long you need so depending on that, you'll start with the 24-70L and you might end with the 70-200 or 100-400.

 

Lenses are the place to put one's most $$$, not the bodies....they come and go. Better to build slow and best, then fast and compromise.

 

The Canon 24-105L is a great lens, but I would not included it in the list I suggest because it is F4....remember F2.8 allows twice the light to enter the camera. Sure, IS is really nice, but I prefer fast apertures over IS in most instances. And upping the ISO is something I would have a bias against because eventhough your 5D is the least noisy DSLR at any price, it can still get a bit noisy at ISO 800 or more. Of course one's ideal of what is noisy is very subjective...I think all Nikons, for example are noise-machines, but more then less would disagree with me.

 

The only time I use my Canon 24-105L is for travel, for general good available light shots...the focal range minimizes lens changes....otherwise I have a very strong prefernce to my Canon 24-70L even if it's focal range is 35mm shorter.

I was leaning toward the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS combo and after reading this I think that is what I'll go with. I was considering the 17-40 2.8L because I already have a 17-70 lense on my Rebel XT so I could deal with missing that 40-70 range on the L lenses. Thanks for the help.

Good choice on the 24-70L - I have it and it's an absolutely super(b) lens!

Martin, great choice!