24-70 2.8 vs 25-105 for WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHY

[luciano_salem1]

I need to buy either a 24-70 2.8 or a 24 ?105 4.0

I tried the 24-105 but I missed the background blur of the 2.8. So I returned and got a 17-55 2.8 IS. It

was great for my 30D but I got a 5d. Now I only want to use my 5d and 30D is a backup so the 17-55 is

collecting dust.

I took a look at the pictures that I took with the 24-105 and they are sharp and with great contrast. I

haven?t tried the 24-70 2.8 but people say its great.

I also have a 70-200 2.8 IS that is a sweet lens with the 5d.

I should mention that I do mostly weddings, and I am interested in portrait and journalistic photography.

So I am thinking I can get my bokeh with my 70-200 and possibly buying a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 and get the

28-105 4.0 for everything else. However, I heard that the 24-70 is sharper, freezes action much better

(2.8) and is better in low light.

To use as main wedding lens (80% of time) what do you recommend?

Do you know any website where I could see photos taken with both lenses?

I thank you in advance for you answers

LU

[colinsouthern]

In my opinion, the EF24-70mm F1:2.8L USM is the perfect companion to the EF70-200mm F1:2.8L IS USM.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[mreul]

it's an awesome lens (24-70 2.8L) i have a tamron but all my other lense are cannon L lenses and now i want the 24-70 2.8L lens - i say go for and get the 24-105 later...but another pro i shoot w/ loves the 24-105 and reports he can shoot practically everything w/ this lens

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

I use f2.8 at every wedding I shoot, sometimes for blur though I have my 85mm 1.8 for when I really need to kill the background, on the other hand for the portraits where I want a combination of blur and higher shutter speed and lower iso at all focal lengths, it's indispensable. I'm about to buy a 24-105L for commercial work where I need the IS at that focal length but the IS cannot replace the focus speed and versatility nevermind the far superior blur of the 24-70L.

[conraderb]

the 24-70 on a 5D would be a good pair with the 70-200 on a 30D (or another 5D). Both the 24-70 and 24-105 get great reviews.

 

I had a dream about the 24-105 L last night. Strange.

[William Michael]

Weddings + zoom = F2.8

 

weddings + prime = < F2

 

Basically, Weddings = fast lenses, you never know when flash is prohibited, just for one reason . . .

 

WW

[picturesque]

An alternative for you. I was in the same boat recently and opted for a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. I haven't regretted it. I am sure the 24-70mm f2.8 MAY be sharper, better color, etc., but as far as I'm concerned, the Tamron on my 5D lacks nothing. Many photographers say it is completely comparable in image quality to the 24-70mm. The reason I got it was because I wanted the f2.8 aperture and the longer telephoto end. I've used a zoom that ended in 70mm before and it's just too short for me. I like to have a zoom that goes from at least 28mm wide to half-length-or-close-up-couple long (80mm or so). For wider apertures I have my faster primes.

 

The Tamron is lighter and smaller than the 24-70mm, and as stated, the image quality is comparable to to the 24-70mm. It does, however, have a louder focusing noise, slower focusing (I don't really notice this), no USM, and the zoom control goes the opposite direction from Canon zooms. If you get one, be aware that you should get one from a place that accepts returns as quality control is sometimes an issue, although I have heard less about this lately. When you get a sharp one, it is very, very sharp, with the weakest aperture being f2.8 at the 28mm end. It is just very slightly softer, but then, this is true of any zoom wide open. The focusing noise doesn't bother me at all, and it seems to hit focus very well with the 5D. Another plus is the 6 year warranty, and of course, the price. If you google it, you will find any number of good reviews about it.

 

Here's a review of the 24-105mm by Marc Williams, who posts here, that has photos.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Doe1

 

Search in the Canon forum for any number of post concerning the 24-70mm. There are reports of quality control issues with it too.

[beaglefur]

This is just my 2 cents worth, but I decided that the IS was more useful to me than the additional depth of field, so I went with the 24-105/4 IS. This is mainly because it allows me to drag the shutter sufficiently to get motion blur, while maintaining a steady enough platform to keep everything else sharp. That leads to shots like this...<div></div>

[warwick_hall]

i just sold my 24-105 as i needed the extra light. IS is not as handy as the extra stop.

i am very happy with the 2.8 and would not go back.

[William Michael]

>>> I decided that the IS was more useful to me than the additional depth of field, so I went with the 24-105/4 IS.<<<

 

David:

 

I am interested personally, and it also bears on the question posted:

 

Does your statement mean you do NOT have a lens allowing you a shallow depth of field at a suitable portrait FL?

 

Or does it mean you DO have such a Large Aperture lens you can use for big Bokeh portraits, and you then bought the 24-105F4 instead of the 70 200F2.8 because of the IS capacity?

 

Subtle but important difference, I think.

 

Nice image, nice idea, I really like the composition (on the fly, I assume): it defies a few rules.

 

WW

[beaglefur]

Hi William

 

I mis-typed. What I meant to say is that the IS of the f/4 zoom was more important to me than the extra stop of the 24-70/2.8, because the only advantage I saw to the extra stop was shallower depth of field at a given focal length.

 

I have 3 prime lenses in my kit that I utilize if I'm really looking for very shallow depth of field: the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. I especially love the 85 for "big Bokeh portraits", also for low light candids. For the zoom, I wanted IS so I could drag the shutter without having to use a tripod.

 

Thanks for the compliment. That particular groom had twirled his bride twice earlier in the same day, and I suspected he might again. I anticipated, but it was definitely on the fly.

[William Michael]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

I like my 85 on my 20D too.

 

Cheers,

 

WW

[wedding-photography-denver]

I have let the 24-70 go (finally) and use the 24-105 as an all around great lens. On the 5D its a treat and as one of my assistants points out, if used on a crop body you have about a 35-160ish. not a bad range either.

 

I will be using it for at least one wedding on the 40d's when they arrive. (just to see how I like that focal range really).

 

If I had to have just one lens for weddings, this would doubtless be the one.

 

Best, D.

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I shoot with a 5D Mark II and a Canon 30D. My favorite lens on my 30D was no doubt the Canon 17-40 F4L combined with on-board flash or my 580EX. However, since getting the 5D I find myself shooting much more natural light and my favorite lens is my Tamron 28-75 F2.8. I found I like the much brighter focusing in low light with the 2.8. I have also noticed faster focusing from the 2.8. I use f 2.8 even on sunny days to pull details when shooting in shadows or shade. I really thought about getting the 24-105 F4L but I don't think it will be an upgrade to the F2.8 Tamron.</p>