24-70/2.8 vs 24-105/4 IS at wedding

<p>I used these two lenses on Canon 5D2 at a recent wedding and here are my observations.</p>

<p>1. Image stabilization didn't come into play often because I used 1/125" to freeze people. Subject movement ruined the picture. For still life, image stabilization is useful. For handheld macro, it was essential.</p>

<p>2. F/2.8 blurs the background better than f/4 and makes the subject pop. The larger aperture also shortens the shutter, which is often necessary.</p>

<p>3. Both 70mm and 105mm are too short for candid shots and head shots. 135mm was just right. I never found myself in a situation when I needed 200mm or longer.</p>

<p>4. No matter the lens, I needed a powerful flash that recycles fast. I used 580EX2 and bounced off the ceiling or walls. Fill light produced crisp pictures that I couldn't always get with high ISO and large aperture only.</p>

<p>5. Although most of the images were made with either zoom, I couldn't justify bringing only one lens to a wedding. I needed a dedicated portrait lens with some reach for beauty shots and candids.<br /> <br /> Of the shots I kept, 70% were made with the zoom, 30% with 135/2 and a few shots with 100/2.8 macro IS. All of the macro shots are among the best of the album. Images from 135/2 are often superior to either zoom but the zoom is invaluable to tell the story.</p>

<p>Huh...yes...and? I'm sorry, but I cannot find a single point in your post. Your subject refers to a decision/comparison between two lenses, but you end up talking about other ones. You offer nothing new in terms of knowledge or objective testing. So, let me recap: "yes...and?"</p>

<p>Just my observations for people deciding between 24-70/2.8 and 24-105/4 IS on full frame. Isn't real practical experience more valuable than online reviews?</p>

<p>I think the latter is a good outdoor lens but the former is superior indoors and superior in general, imo.<br /> Thinking that 24-105/4 IS can cover it all is misleading. For wedding, you will also need a faster and longer lens.</p>

How is 70 too short for candids? :) I shoot them with 24.

<p>How is this relevant to any other situation than the one you faced? </p>

<p><em>1/125" to freeze people</em></p>

<p>In my experience getting motion-free shots of people at that speed, you need a fair bit of luck. I prefer 1/200s or faster. And that can usually only be achieved with f/2 or faster lenses, in many indoor situations (of course, flash changes the picture in shots where it can be used).</p>

<p><em>Thinking that 24-105/4 IS can cover it all is misleading. For wedding, you will also need a faster and longer lens.</em></p>

<p>Absolutely.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I find myself using the 28-70 f2.8 on a FF body for the formals and candids before the ceremony, then switching to a 70-200 F2.8 for the ceremony - then back again to 28-70 f2.8 for the reception.</p>

<p>But that's me.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>F/2.8 blurs the background better than f/4 and makes the subject pop</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>In my test shots there isn't a huge difference between f/2.8 and f/4. There is a much greater difference, in terms of bokeh, shooting at 105mm & f/4 vs 70mm & f/2.8 with the 105mm coming out ahead. And from a Nikon standpoint, you can get the 24-120 VR f/4 lens. Which, @ 120mm, gives you a nice® bokeh. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For still life, image stabilization is useful. For handheld macro, it was essential.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am fairly certain that manufacturers recommend NOT use IS/VR for macro shots. For still life/macros, a tripod is your friend.</p>

<p>Actually, for ring still lifes and macros, handheld, I use flash. Not only can you handhold because of flash, the lighting (for ring shots) is nicer. You can control highlights in that you can flood the metal with diffused, large light, and shape the appearance of the diamond, like the lighting that is used for ring ads. While you can do the same with natural window light, it is just easier and faster with flash (for me).</p>

<p>As for the rest of the observations, I'd say that they are interesting, from a wedding photographer's view, but as everyone had said, dependent upon the way you shoot, which may be and probably is, different from the way anyone else shoots.</p>

<p>For a long time, I used a 28-75mm f2.8 zoom, and for the tele shots, an 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2.8 (with extender). The ultra wide was covered by a 16-35mm f2.8.</p>

<p>To clarify, I just wanted anyone reading the thread to know that VR/IS isn't recommended for macro photography. I too, usually use a flash with my macro work. For me, that is for the lighting. I still use a tripod for macro work because I find it easier to compose and <em>focus</em> my shot using a tripod. I can handhold something like a 50mm or 60mm OK (but I still prefer a tripod) but when I use the 105mm handheld, I simply can't keep my focus point steady, which is critical with such a shallow DoF.</p>

<p>I use the 'rock back and forth' method of focus point acquisition. The day my eyes are not able to distinguish a sharp highlight off a diamond is the day I need to do something else, I guess. :^)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To clarify, I just wanted anyone reading the thread to know that VR/IS isn't recommended for macro photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see what is wrong with IS/VR for macro.<br /> <br />The pics below are handheld macros with IS, no flash, uncropped, at 0.3 - 0.4m, ISO 1600, 100mm, f/8 with shutters too long to hold still without IS. Both were shot indoors.</p>

<p>No tripod, but feel free to carry it around :)</p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5236/5884670519_4a10fd0145_z.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5885237534_952a0371eb_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="427" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>The first pic is actually f/2.8 and 1/25", the second is f/8 and 1/10". The other settings are the same.<br>

Just long enough for 4 stop IS to kick in.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just long enough for 4 stop IS to kick in</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>From the owners manual of the Canon 100mm IS Macro: "The shorter the subject distance from the camera, the lesser the Image Stabilizer effect will be." "For normal close-up shooting, the higher the magnification [macro shots by definition are higher magnification], the faster the shutter speed must [that is Canon using the word must] be to prevent blur caused by camera shake."</p>

<p>I just didn't want other forum readers thinking IS/VR with a Macro was the way to properly execute the shot. If it is working for you, great. But you are fooling yourself if you think that ring shot is sharp.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>No tripod, but feel free to carry it around :)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I will! I love my tripod.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I use the 'rock back and forth' method of focus point acquisition. The day my eyes are not able to distinguish a sharp highlight off a diamond is the day I need to do something else, I guess. :^)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I can do that with shorter glass, but once I hit the 105mm, just pressing the shutter button can shift my "rocking" point! The other nice thing about the tripod is that I use LiveView for focusing- everything is just so much easier that way.</p>

<p>niether of those 'macro' shots are sharp. If your using IS for macro your going about it all wrong. get a proper tripod and some focussing rails.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Can you show me some examples of sharp ring and flower shots?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I can show them to you all day long...</p><div></div>

<p>I didn't have a lot of time with that shot above... it was a single flash camera left, unmodified. Not my best work but OK for my 5-minute time frame.</p>

<p>Here is another, this time with more time!</p><div></div>

<p>Or maybe you want something shallower...</p><div></div>

<p>Or maybe you want some more distance...</p><div></div>

<p>Here are two. I shoot them with flash.</p><div></div>

<p>Nadine, I love the concepts. I am seeing a masculine and a feminine shot if I'm not reading too much into them. I'm sure Georgia O'Keefe is smiling. Beautiful shots, John. </p>

<p>Ummm...thanks Bob. Actually these kind of 'hang the rings on something' shots are pretty common these days. As are 'rings in/on a flower'. A lot of people seem to like the flower idea since I get asked for these a lot.</p>

<p>What flash modifier do you use for macro?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Usually, the ceiling or wall. Sometimes, if the ceiling or wall won't work, a Demb Diffuser card, but it's size can't compare with the ceiling or wall. You could set up an umbrella or white reflector for a bit more square footage for the bounce.</p>