Canon - 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM EF Lens or....

It's either the Canon - 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM EF Lens or the new

Canon - EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens.

 

I hope that a description of what I have and what I want it for will

bring about some good suggestions.

 

I like to take candids, and I have recently volunteered at my church

to take photos of people in every kind of church activity. The

church wants to keep them on file for advertisements, and the A/V

guy wants to do a video presentation going heavy on stills.

 

I do not work, and also LOVE to photograph my daughter, which I do

almost every day. She is 15 months.

 

This is what I currently have:

18-55 kit lens;

Canon - 28-90mm F4-5.6 III AF Lens;

50 mm 1.8;

100-300 push-type lens which I am borrowing.

 

I have a 20. Between the Canon - 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM EF Lens and

the new Canon - EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens, what do you recommend

for me? I know that I will get a 580 external flash, and I think

the 10-22 for taking real-estate shots of properties?Maybe just one

L lens for now would be good?Are there any other lenses that you

think I should get?

 

- bob

70-200 IS is a better lens for candids, for a longer lens could let you have a longer

distance from the object. Therefore, the persons will have less chance notice you are

taking picture with them.

however, 24-105mm let you have a better overall lens for any kind of events or travel.

 

I think both of them are good lenses and for different purposes. its good to have both. to

choose only one now, will depends on your priority.

Bob, I also take pictures at my church for the same purposes as you. I have a 28-70L and a 70-200L. Although I use both lenses for different purposes, I find myself using the 28-70 most of the time, especially for posed shots. I use the 70-200 for most events as I don't want to be too close near the stage or the activity. So in your case, it would depend on which shots you foresee yourself taking more of. The 580EX will definitely be a good purchase by the way.

On your 20D, shots from the 10-22 at the wide end for real estate may appear undesirably

distorted so keep the lens as horizontal as possible. For people shots, getting candids using

a 70-200/2.8 might be difficult because they'll see you coming from a mile away! It can be a

bit as obtrusive, so start with something smaller...like the 24-105/4L IS or the not-too-

shabby 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS if one "L" is the limit for now.

Hi,

 

I see you have 3 lenses can cover your lovely daughter the 18-55, 28-90 and 50f1.8 they are all good for this purpos but you realy need the 70-200 f2.8 IS.

 

By this you will cover the range from about 28-320mm and you can do candis and take the photos for the people in church also.

 

No other lens can take the place of the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS

 

You can have this lens now and later you can think about 24-105 or 24-70 f/2.8

 

Good shooting and kisses to your lovely daughter.

 

Mohamed

Go with the 70-200. The regular 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM is good enough.

the 70-200 2.8 IS zoom is huge (especially with the hood on) and white, not the best camouflage for candid photos! When I take it on the street I am always surrounded by onlookers wondering what I am Iaking photos of, making my presence even more obvious. Takes great pictures though.

The 70-200 2.8 is as big as your ego wants it to be. If you strut around and make yourself the centre of attention then you will be noticed for a while until people get bored with you. If you act in a humble manner, that does not not scream "Look at me, the photographer with expensive glass!" people will look at you once and then realise that you are just doing your job and let you go about it.

 

 

Being familiar with your equipment means that you won't dither around when you wish to take a pic and it will be all over before anyone knows what has happened.

 

For candids in the situation you describe it would be a useful tool in your kit, as would something like a 17-40 f4 or 16-35 if your pockets are deep enough.

I'd get the 17-40/4 and 70-200/2.8 IS. 580EX is also a good idea.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Definitely the 70-200 for candids. Kids get very camera sensitive when day is constantly clicking away. My daughter's smile is lovely, but the grin she puts on when she knows I am shooting her is starting to be a bit much. Far better to get candids of her when she's not so aware of it.

 

Yes, the Big Whtie Lens is really obvious, but you you can shoot far enough back so it is not in too many people's faces.

This sounds familiar! http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DaFM

 

Good to see you decided on a flash: You won't regret it.

 

With the lenses you have now. . .what do you use the most? That should guide your decision. If you are sold on the 10-22, I would recommend a 24-XX lens over a 70-200 for portraits and church events because I think that will be a more useful focal range.

 

I have a 70-200/4L, and I *never* use this lens indoors. My workhorse lens is a 17-40/4L, supplemented with a 50/1.8 for portraits. For things like "plays" or "fesitvals", I would not choose my 70-200/4L for this work.. . a prime like a 85/1.8 would be ideal, because it is much faster and much smaller (I have one).

 

 

I would seriously consider the 24-70/2.8L over the 24-105/4L-IS. The reasons are simple:

 

1) The 24-70/2.8L is a PROVEN performer, the 24-105/4L-IS is not. Initial reviews of this lens are mixed, but there are no "real" reviews out there yet -> Note that this lens has a very high zoom ratio 4.3, which is not a formula for high quality.

 

2) The 24-70/2.8L is a full stop faster than the 24-105/4L-IS. In terms of subject/background isolation. . .the 2.8L will be much superior. Results will look more professional.

 

3) The 24-70/2.8L is CHEAPER than the 24-105/4L-IS. The 24-70/2.8L is not a cheap lens, but the 24-105/4L is simply very significantly overpriced for what you get.

 

The only advantage the 24-105/IS has is the IS unit. Image stabilization is nice. . .but it is not a cure all. It will allow photos down to 1/20th or 1/10th of a second. . .but you can't photograph people at 1/20th of a second, unless THEY are holding very still. Realistically. . .if you photograph people -> you want 1/45 to 1/60th minimum -> and at that speed the F2.8 is fast enough that image stabilization won't be needed.

 

On the long end. . .the 70-200/2.8L-IS is a great lens. Massive in terms of price and size. I tend to recommend either the 70-200/4L or the 70-200/2.8L-IS. I have the 4L. I chose this lens because it is (1) smaller and (2) cheaper. But that is a personal choice. The 2.8L-IS worth the price premium because (1) it is faster and (2) has the IS unit. -> If you have the money, it is a good choice.

 

Note that IS on a 70-200 is much more important than on a 24-70 type lens. Handhold speed before YOU blur the picture is closer to 1/200th at 200mm. . . .and you certainly won't be able to shoot at 1/200th all the time.

This sounds familiar! http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DaFM

 

Good to see you decided on a flash: You won't regret it.

 

With the lenses you have now. . .what do you use the most? That should guide your decision. If you are sold on the 10-22, I would recommend a 24-XX lens over a 70-200 for portraits and church events because I think that will be a more useful focal range.

 

I have a 70-200/4L, and I *never* use this lens indoors. My workhorse lens is a 17-40/4L, supplemented with a 50/1.8 for portraits. For things like "plays" or "fesitvals", I would not choose my 70-200/4L for this work.. . a prime like a 85/1.8 would be ideal, because it is much faster and much smaller (I have one).

 

 

I would seriously consider the 24-70/2.8L over the 24-105/4L-IS. The reasons are simple:

 

1) The 24-70/2.8L is a PROVEN performer, the 24-105/4L-IS is not. Initial reviews of this lens are mixed, but there are no "real" reviews out there yet -> Note that this lens has a very high zoom ratio 4.3, which is not a formula for high quality.

 

2) The 24-70/2.8L is a full stop faster than the 24-105/4L-IS. In terms of subject/background isolation. . .the 2.8L will be much superior. Results will look more professional.

 

3) The 24-70/2.8L is CHEAPER than the 24-105/4L-IS. The 24-70/2.8L is not a cheap lens, but the 24-105/4L is simply very significantly overpriced for what you get.

 

The only advantage the 24-105/IS has is the IS unit. Image stabilization is nice. . .but it is not a cure all. It will allow photos down to 1/20th or 1/10th of a second. . .but you can't photograph people at 1/20th of a second, unless THEY are holding very still. Realistically. . .if you photograph people -> you want 1/45 to 1/60th minimum -> and at that speed the F2.8 is fast enough that image stabilization won't be needed.

 

On the long end. . .the 70-200/2.8L-IS is a great lens. Massive in terms of price and size. I tend to recommend either the 70-200/4L or the 70-200/2.8L-IS. I have the 4L. I chose this lens because it is (1) smaller and (2) cheaper. But that is a personal choice. The 2.8L-IS worth the price premium because (1) it is faster and (2) has the IS unit. -> If you have the money, it is a good choice.

 

Note that IS on a 70-200 is much more important than on a 24-70 type lens. Handhold speed before YOU blur the picture is closer to 1/200th at 200mm. . . .and you certainly won't be able to shoot at 1/200th all the time.

Robert,

 

The 70-200 has locked focus many times when a f/4 lens failed while taking pictures for my church. The extra stop is certainly necessary indoors. I find that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS can isolate the subject nicely. If your church has the varied lighting that my church has, I'm sure you will appreciate the f/2.8. Combined with your current lens lineup and the 580EX, you should have good coverage. An 85 f/1.8 may be another consideration for those dimmer situations when the 50 is too short or for photographing kids' gym activities like volleyball.

 

For the past couple of years I've been my church's photographer doing basically what you describe as your goal. I use a 10D with the 28-135 IS, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with flash as necessary/appropriate to make images for PowerPoint presentation.

I'd like to not work and be able to afford all of those lenses! Wow! I'd add that the 70-200 IS version is heavy but it works fine for taking candids and street photos. I use it almost exclusively these days and love it. From indoor sports to outdoor or street and the occasional model shoot its very versatile. I also like what it does to noses. I've been planning on adding the 24-70mm lens to my collection someday when I can afford it but that day isn't very near. The 24-105 at f/4 you probably won't get many shots inside a church unless its very brightly lit up.

 

I prefer not to use a flash unless I absolutely have to and can, its distracting to people if I do use it and in many places I'm forbidden. f/2.8 or lower allows for lowlight photography.

 

Its $3000 or more in glass but the 24-70 and 70-200 are great lenses. Another way to go would be the 85mm or 100mm primes. Big apertures and sharp pics, being in a church it isn't too difficult for you to take two steps forward or two steps back.

An excellent point about 2.8L lenses: they will allow "high precision mode" with the center AF point on the 20D. F4 won't.

 

And yes. . .if I had a 24-105/4L-IS: I would consider a 85/1.8 and 50/1.8 mandatory for low light/portrait work.