Husband & I keep fighting for the same lens, suggestions for an additional?

[gina_marie1]

Well another shoot today and we seem to find more and more we mainly use our

Canon 10-22 and the Tamron 28-75 2.8. The others, 70-210 3.5-4.5 and 50 1.8

just don't seem to give us the saturation & color and are far too restricting

for our style of shooting. We are still new and have yet to shoot our first

solo wedding gig, but we figure the 70-210 will still come in handy for

ceremonies from afar & candids.

 

We both love the Tamron 28-75 so we need another lens w/ similar quality &

focal length, but I'd like to get something that might add a bit more reach

for more options instead of getting another of the same lens. Any suggestions

or similar experiences? Budget is also a factor, yet we may consider investing

in an 'L' if that is the best option.

 

Thanks for any advice,

Gina

[mreul]

just wanted to say that i still need many other lenses but i also shoot w/ the tamron 28-75 2.8 and it's awesome.... i use it 90% of the time while shooting weddings...i'm curious to see what other people suggest.... ;)

[gulnara]

I shoot with 28-70 L and love it. You can get it used much cheaper than 24-70 L. I bought it in 2002 used, I droped it twice -no problem, knock, knock. Love it!

[matt_k1]

If you're shooting with a 1.6x camera, I'd give the 17-55mm f/2.8 a shot... or shoot, or

something. If full frame or L is what you're after, then I second the vote for either the 28-70

or 24-70mm. And the 24-105mm is a great lens also.

[zastrozzi]

If you can't afford the L quality glass, may I recommend the Canon ef-s 17-85mm (if you're shooting 1.6 crop) IS. It's f4, but the IS is good for 3 stops...and it'll give you a little longer zoom and significantly more on the wide end. <p> I've shot a wedding where I used that, a 100-300 and a 50 1.8. <p> The 50 1.8's wider aperture marginally outperforms the IS on the 17-85 because you get faster shutter speeds and a little more light in, but the lack of zoom (esp. during crowded receptions) makes it conspicuous and awkward to use imo. The 100-300mm saved my ass cuz the reception was hard to get up close on. <p> I didn't own a wide angle (but - merry xmas - now do) and am looking forward to using it. I onoly thought it would be useful during certain times (bride and groom leaving chapel for reception, arty portraits, etc.). I'm gonna play photog's sidekick at a wedding in January and get to try it out then, is it that useful?

[gregory_c]

HI, I use the Canon 17-40L its great, I know its a F4 lens, but its great. I do wish it was a little stronger like the 24-70. I wish I had a 24-70, but its a little heavy to use all the time. I am considering a 24-70L or the Tamron 28-75 to use with the 17-40. The only downside of the 17-40 or the 10-22 is that eventually all digital cameras will have full frame sensors & these lens will be almost (not completely) useless in wedding photo bus.

[nolefan32]

James Haselhofer said, "...but the IS is good for 3 stops..."

 

No, it's not. IS will allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds while still hand held, but it is NOT comperable to shooting faster f-stops. IS only counteracts the movement of the camera itself, but it won't do jack to freeze the motions of your subjects. Unless your subjects stand very still, they can still blur.

 

I do like IS; it gave me some great results shooting a low-light concert, even very long shots where my flash couldn't throw to the stage. I just get very irked by how much people compare it to shooting faster f-stops, because it's not. In my case, though, the blurring worked out, I got some very cool effects.

[yanglee]

If you don't need the background blur of a f2.8 lens, borrow or rent a 24-105 f4 L lens and see if you like it.

[vlad khavin]

Gina,

 

If you can afford it, and don't mind the f/4 as opposed to the f/2.8 you have on your 28-75, you might consider the 24-105, as suggested above. I have a 24-70 f/2.8 and absolutely love it, but then it will not give you any more reach. If the lack of additional reach is not a problem, then I would hands-down go for the 24-70.

 

I have the 17-85, and am not particularly happy with it. In lower light, it focused too slowly, and it seemed to have some sort of a focusing issue (back focus). It likely was my copy of it, but still. I replaced it with the 24-70 and despite the loss in range, I have absolutely 0 regrets about that investment. Both the 24-70 and the 24-105 are expensive, comparatively speaking, but... it's (to me) easily worth the expense. I doubt that I will ever go back to shooting with the 17-85 and be happy with it. I miss the IS at times, but even with that, the L is by far superior.

 

A noobie's two cents, for what it's worth.

[zastrozzi]

Hi David. <p> <i> I just get very irked by how much people compare it to shooting faster f-stops, because it's not. </i> <p> I understand that the 17-85's IS does NOT give you the faster shutter speeds you get with a wider aperture, that's why, in the same post I said 'it's good for 3 stops' I also wrote: <p> <i> The 50 1.8's wider aperture marginally outperforms the IS on the 17-85 because you get faster shutter speeds and a little more light in... </i> <p> I used 3-stops because that's the convention to describe it; it wasn't an attempt to hoodwink the orignial poster. They mentioned budget was an issue, I was offering an alternative (with expanded focal length on both ends) to obviously better quality and faster <i> albeit more expensive </i> lenses. Again, not the greatest (or fastest) choice, but a good performing lens for what, 1200 dollars LESS than the ($1700) 17-55 f.2.8? Take care, James

[nolefan32]

James -- it's not that I think you were trying to "hoodwink" anyone on purpose, because as you say, that's a common way to describe IS. Nor did I mean to suggest in my rant that IS lenses are faulty or less than desirable for some reason, because in reality I love the technology for low-light shooting situations.

 

The only point I wanted to make was, common or not, comparing IS to f-stops is a faulty and confusing analogy. Especially in light of the OP saying they were still new, at least to wedding photography and perhaps to photography in general. Although the technology is new enough that it confuses not only newbies but seasoned photographers as well. I recently got in a conversation regarding image stabilization with a photographer who's been shooting professionally for longer than I've been alive, and even he honestly thought that IS would truly compensate for faster f-stops.

 

Photographers and camera companies should really limit the description of IS (or VR for those who speak Nikon) to saying that it allows one to shoot at slower shutter speeds while hand-held, and leave out any references to f-stop comparisions. Anything more than that insinuates performance that the technology isn't designed to provide.

[gina_marie1]

Thank you all for so many great suggestions. I'll research more on some of these lenses. Really like the option to open up to 2.8 so 24 or 28-70 sound very appealing, although I'm replicating our focal length of the Tamron and with our budget now, seems hard to justify unless the color and sharpness are leaps and bounds above the Tammy?

 

The reach of the 24-105 f4 L sounds appealing, and with IS, I guess is a help in low light with still subject. However so pricey and losing a stop compared w/ the 24-70. I'll search previous threads on these 2 as I'm sure they have been compared to in past posts. Also will look into renting a 24-105 at my local Samys store.

 

Question:

1)Ratings on FM for Tamron 24-135 f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical (IF) Macro quite high, does anyone have experience with this lens?

 

James, the 17-85 might be an option except that now my Husband uses a 10D and he wouldn't be able to use that lens (I'm assuming since he can't use the 10-22 EF-S?) BTW.. you mentioned your new xmas present, here is a site with lots of wide-angle wedding photos http://www.revephotography.com/ and another photographer who used to work with them, http://www.shawnstarr.com also has many photos with it. He was our wedding photographer as a matter of fact and from a Brides perspective, when used properly those wide-angle shots are jaw dropping!

 

Thanks again all, look forward to any more comments.

[conraderb]

gina - consider the canon EFS 17-85. you get the wide and a big longer reach and an IS unit. about $500 at B&H. good lens. I would use it except for that it is too slow for my taste - I use my 17-55 IS 2.8 all the time at 2.8 and 1/30th, but for outdoor work or on a tripod the 17-85 would do you well.

[kin_lau]

Well, since budget and 10D have been mentioned, then a Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 or Tamron 17-50/2.8 might be a good fit.

[gina_marie1]

Yes, he does use the 10D while I shoot with a 30D. We don't expect to upgrade his camera anytime soon..it was a great used find for us and perfect for him since I'm the 'techy' between the two of us and usually use the more complicated gear.

 

We would like something to swap lens so neither of us are restricted, maybe should have mentioned that before but lots of great suggestions here.

 

Conrad, have you been able to compare the EFS 17-85 with the Tamron? It's too bad EF-S won't mount on my husband's 10D because it would give him the ability to go wider since he can't use the 10-22 unless we swap cameras.

 

I guess these compatibilities and INcompatibilities are all a carefully thoughout conspiracy to get us to fork out more $$ :)

[nolefan32]

Gina --

 

The 10D can accept EF-S lenses; all of the lenses commonly paired with it as kit lenses are EF-S. Only the 1-series and the 5D cannot take the EF-S series.

[gina_marie1]

Hi David, I'm not sure about that...the 10-22 EF-S will not mount onto our 10D, we also read this on compatibility charts before purchasing but got it anyway for the 30D.

 

Is it just the wide angle EF-S that does not work on 10D? Can anyone that owns 17-85 EF-S w/ IS confirm whether they have mounted it on a 10D? If so it may be an option for us.

 

Thanks,

Gina

[gina_marie1]

Looks like I found the answer at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF-S_lens_mount

 

10D is only compatible w/ EF. It's okay, not sure we want a variable since we prefer 2.8...if anything would like the ability of F4 constant.

[david_prouty]

OK, if you're happy (both of you) with the 28-75 Tamron, how about the 28-105 2.8 Tamron. Less than an L lens and more reach than the 28-75. This seems like the logical choice even though the 28-105 is quite a bit heavier. In any event there's my 2 cents!

 

Dave