24-70 vs 24-105, which would you suggest

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by fuccisphotos, May 29, 2012.

  1. So this weekend my 24-70 2.8 L took a massive tumble and it broke. Insurance will likely pay for repair, not replacement, but frankly I could never trust it again after being dropped from about 15 feet to a hard dance floor below. So now I'm left trying to decide if I should get the 24-70 as a replacement (and which one, the newer one seems to be on back order), or the 24-105 L.
    This is my camera/lens set up:
    135 2.0L
    50 1.4
    16-35 2.8 L
    and previously my 24-70 2.8 L
    During the wedding for the rest of the wedding I just put the 16-35 on my 7D which covered a good lot of the same range at least for that night.
    So I'm thinking the extra focal length on the 24-105 would be good to have in my arsenal but I usually shoot wide open with my 24-70 so I'm wondering if I'm really going to miss that extra stop. When I'm in a really dark church usually I use the 135 and the 50, not the 24-70.
    Are there many of you out there that use the 24-105 for weddings and like it?
    The absolute must for me when I use the 24-70 is for Formals. But in that case I'd be using it at smaller apertures any way. So I'm thinking the 24-105 would work nicely there.
    I have another wedding this weekend, so I want to get the replacement ASAP. Any thoughts on this would be MUCH appreciated! Thanks so much!
  2. My opinion--if you use f2.8 a lot on your 24-70mm, you will miss it.
    Re the broken 24-70mm. Send it to Canon but you are right about trusting it--at least right away. Test it a lot before trusting it. It isn't that Canon can't get it right but in my experience, it might take a few trips.
    You can always rent in the meantime. Or use primes. You already have the 50mm f1.4. Get a 24mm and the 85mm f1.8. Can't hurt anyway.
  3. To all those reading this, THIS is why we MUST have insurance. Luckily it will just be the $250 deductible that I take a loss on. Travelers is being amazing with this so if anyone is looking for a good insurance company they are fabu. They are sending out a check and even including my state sales tax so I can go out and buy a new lens today. My insurance covers liability and I added on $12K of equipment. I need to update it for all my new other equipment. Thank god it didn't hit anyone when it hit the dance floor, but luckily my insurance would have covered that too.
    I don't think sending it to canon would too any good except for hearing them say, wow that lens is REALLY broken. The zoom on it won't go all the way from one end to another, you have to use a ton of force to move it at all. The broken lens can now become a paper weight basically.
  4. Nonetheless, they might be able to fix it... who knows, maybe you just knocked the 'magic screw' out of adjustment ;-)
    I used the 24-105/4 before I bought the 24-70, and I found that it (the 24-105) just didn't have the same 'punch'. Color out of the 24-70 was better, bokeh was better, and the speed made for a decided impact on my shooting. Now I spend probably 60% of the time @f2.8->f4, so I know I'd miss the speed, but if you don't, then maybe it's not as important to you. IMO, that is a critical aspect when doing portraiture for the bride (esp), and trying to isolate subjects.
    One you might try (in lieu of the 24-70/2.8 II) is the new Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC. I've only heard good things about it so far, and, were an unfortunate accident to occur (again, for my 24-70 ;-) ), it would be my first choice for replacing my 24-70.
  5. I have both the Tamron 24-70mm VC and the 24-105mm L. Specifically for event photography I think there maybe some advantages to the 2.8. I really like the 24-105L. I think it is a fabulous lens. But I had a hankering for a faster lens that had some kind of stabilization. I've been surprised by how good the VC system is.
    FWIW I just shot a cover with the 24-70mm VC that you can check out at that link.
  6. Vail:
    My primary lenses at a wedding are the following: 24/1.4, 135/2, and 24-105/4. That said, I also bring along 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8.
    Usually the 135/2 for the ceremony, 24/1.4 for anything dark, and 24-105/4 for the rest.
    My thinking is that if it's dark, f/2.8 isn't very fast so I'm using a prime lens anyway. The IS on the 24-105 is really helpful. So much so that I generally only use my 85/1.8 for indoor sports now with poor lighting.
    If Canon repairs the lens, it might actually perform closer to spec than a brand new one coming off the assembly line. There's something to be said about having a qualified technician assessing your individual lens. :)
  7. Maybe it was a sign, a sign that you should mix things up a little.
    I think a 24-70 is not wide enough at 24mm and it's not long enough at 70mm. So it's not really a do-it-all zoom.
    The late Al Kaplan used to say that something like a 21mm, a 35mm and a 85-90mm will cover 98% of everything you need and I think he was right. So if there was a 20-105 lens that would be good.
    But is the 24-105 the answer then? I don't think so because it's not wide enough and while IS is of course very useful it's the f/4 that really kills it.
    Don't know if you are a two camera shooter but if you are you could consider a wide and a tele camera. For a zoom user with full frame bodies that would be a 16-35/2.8 on one camera and a 70-200/2.8 on the other. That would give you a tremendous capability for a wide range of shots in any given scene.
    With your current line up you could put the 16-35 on the 5D MKII and the 50mm on the 7D. It's might be a tiny little short on the tele, equal to 80mm on full frame. If you had two 5D MK II an 85mm would have been awesome since you already have the 135mm. You could also get the 70-200 but it might be a little long on the 7D.
    So if you want to mix things up and shoot differently you could skip the midrange 24-xxx zoom altogether, use the 16-35 as a wide on the 5D and the 50mm as a tele on the 7D. Use the money to get an 85mm or a 70-200 for some more options on the telephoto side. I think that you will find that having different lenses on your cameras will force you to view things in another way and you'll discover new compositions and new angles that you haven't explored before.
  8. The 2.8 is a really great lens, the 24-70mm. You can enlarge images to about any size you wish, however the 24-105 is also excellent, but I have to say when you blow up an image to about a 24-30" you may see some grain, but in my opinion, not much and as far as sharpness my opinion is the same. Very little difference, you'd have to look closely to see a difference, therefore I really don't think a client will really care what gear you are using! Oh. I also like the extra length of the 24-105. The 105 is pretty much the perfect portrait lens. At a 16x20 I can't see a difference. Added to this I also see a very slight color difference, which I have no problem correcting this in photoshop. If you are worried about sharpness there is a fantastic program called "Pixel Genius", an amazing sharping program and very inexpensive for what it does. $100 and it will sharpen everything, even from the 24-70 or a huge lens like a 400mm.

    By the way I have both lenses and I almost always use the 24-105 because of the weight difference. At weddings I'm using a pretty heavy setup. A Just Rite bracket, a Canon 1ds Mk3, and a Quantum flash, the Trio, with the battery packs. Although the Trio can be mounted on the camera's hot shoe I don't like the looks, mainly the shadows casted when shooting vertical. Anyway the 24-105 is a bit lighter in weight and at the age of 56, back surgery, foot surgeries, along with steriod injections several times a year, and lastly pain killers, every ounce matters to me and I try to make the photo's look great yet trying to keep the weight as light as possible. Why the 1ds Mk 3? You can load 2 memory cards so it the memory card dies you have the backup. I try to never take a chance of wrecking a wedding therefore I tend to use top gear. Maybe a bit anal, but when something goes wrong you've wrecked the wedding or part of the wedding. A friend shot a wedding and the groom was an attorney. Well the lawyer didn't go to small claims court. He sued for $20,000 and won. This doesn't include the photographers lawyer. Well he had to refi his house to pay the fees.

    The cool part of the 24-105 is it has the IS, image stablizer, and an L lens, their top quality lenses. So the IS works great for me and with all of the weight I can hold the camera really tight and no problems shooting at a 15th of a second or a tad lower. Anything lower the tripod comes on.

    The 2.8 is a wonderful feature if you want to blow out the background. Other then that I pretty much never use this lens. If I want to blow out the background the 100mm is surprisingly very good, even for portraits and for about $500 for the non pro version it's a good underrated lens. The pro version, the last time I looked, about a year ago, was around $1100, if I remember correctly. Don't yell at me if I'm wrong!!!

    So if you love using the 2.8, you don't use a bracket, a smaller flash unit, slightly higher quality, go for the 2.8. I haven't had any trouble with either lens so they are both built really well. I've had them for about maybe 6 plus years.

    Hope this helps, it's a hard choice to make, because lenses are sorta like a wife or something. You become attached to it and it becomes something like a family member when you totally trust it. A weird analogy, but this is the best way for me to describe a lens! It's a bit weird!
  9. It was extra emotional because it was my very first L lens. Because the insurance company needed an invoice showing I bought the same lens, they made the decision for me. So I just went with the 24-70 version I. Finding one was next to impossible, and had to go through B&H rather than a local shop, and no one knows when version II is going to ship, plus it was way more expensive. During the ceremony I shoot with both bodies, the 24-70 or 50 on the 5Dmkii, and 135 on my 7D to use for extra long distance, making it like a 200. During the reception for the first dance and parent dances I throw on the 135 on the 5Dmkii, and the 16-35 on the 7D. I love the emotion captured with the 135 on the 5dmk ii for the rest of it I usually use the 5dmk ii with the 24-70 and drag the shutter a bunch. On the 5DmkII I use the demb flash bracket (and if flash is allowed) mini tt1 and 580exii. I put a 430exii on a light stand usually at 1/4 power with flex tt5. The 7D has a 430exii on it.
    Bob I feel you on the weight issue of the rig. That's why I got the 135 rather than the 70-200. I have a 1.4 tele convertor when necessary. You might want to look at the 5dmkiii. It has a second memory slot for SD.
  10. Vail, avoid the Tamron for professional use. I've had their "SP" lenses before and whilst the optics are often up there, the build is really far, far behind. Perhaps consider selling on the repaired 24-70 for a new/like-new one after. I personally wouldn't be w/o 2.8, but it is generally pretty dark over here...
  11. I think you made a good choice as both lenses are wonderful. You will of course be very happy.
  12. I've been considering going TO the 24-105 because of the IS, and it's a hair sharper wide open. I avoid shooting wide open with the 24-70 I have as I find it a tad mushy, and really wish it had IS. Having grown up with primes I don't find 2.8 all that great for OOF backgrounds and almost always have an 85 on my second body. The 24-70 does have slightly better bokeh, but for wedding application I think error to greater DOF is probably preferable.
  13. I vote for the 24-70 2.8.
  14. I vote for the NEW 24-70/2.8L. Big improvement according to those who've used it.
  15. I originally opted for the 24-105 because I wasn't crazy about the 24-70 wide open. Now I think that was a mistake. The 24-105 is a good lens, but there is something about it that's just, for lack of a better term, unremarkable. Also, IS doesn't make up for the 1 stop speed loss with moving subjects (i.e. wedding guests). I'm curious to get my hands on the 24-70 II, but I think the way to go (for me) is to simultaneously use 3 5D's with some combination of 24, 35, 50, 85, 100macro, and 135 primes. With the exception of the 70-200 L's I think that zooms are kinda blah.
    Short answer: stick with the 24-70, and if you can afford the new version then go with that.
    Jerk answer: sell the 7D and 16-35 and put the money towards 2 more 5D's (MK3 preferably), the 24L, 85 1.8, and maybe also the 70-200 2.8.
  16. Where are any of you finding the new version? Khadijah to. To b&h because none of the local camera stores within 50
    miles of Boston had a fresh in the box, version 1 or 2. And b&h and amazon you can only pre order version 2. It is odd to
    Me that it isn't in full release yet.
  17. If you register as a Canon pro, there are 3 options, you can call them direct to find out what fits you best. . I've had very good luck calling them and asking them to ship a lens that no one has. They simply ask for the store name and the sales person. Almost always I will get the new lens within a week. The bad part is they charge you to be a pro! I think the top level is a bit over $300. Nikon doesn't charge you to be a pro! Nikon is also very fast at finding a lens to ship for the pro's and they also have a free rental agreement if your lens will be in the shop for a bit, or even if you want to try out a lens that you don't have. A friend killed his D4, the lens, and his flash. Fell into a creek! 2 days later he had his rental gear, but his gear was toast. Ouch, $15,000. If you think thats sad, well he did the same think 2 weeks later. Now that was funny, at least for me! Yes he has insurance covered the whole bill, but probably for not much longer! I'm sure the company won't renew him.

    Canon's rates are weird. The top service gets your gear in and out within a week or so. The first one Canon will get back your gear within a month. Geeez We Canon shooters are stuck!

Share This Page