jamie_clouser Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 <p>I was recently robbed so I'm starting from scratch with both body and lens. I decided on purchasing a refurbished 5d mk ii.<br> Should I purchase the kit lens or body only and one good starter lens. My budget is limited and I'm just getting started with second shooting at weddings and engagements.<br> Thanks!</p> <p>Jamie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 <p>The 24-105 is an excellent compliment to the 5D MkII, unless you have a very good reason for not getting one, I think they are well worth the money and a great first lens. It covers the majority of wedding shooters needs, certainly I could shoot weddings with just the 24-105.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 <p>The EF 24-105 4L IS USM is not perfect but probably the best kit lens ever made. For landscapes with flat horizons you'll spend time correcting the barreling at 24mm, but not so much for people as most look distorted anyway.</p> Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hocus_focus Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 <p>I wouldn't shoot weddings with 24-105/4. The 24-70/2.8 is a superior kit lens optically.</p> <p>24-70/2.8 and some kind of portrait lens (135/2 or 70-200/2.8) is a much better tool for wedding. The larger aperture offers better images than the few extra mm and IS. 105mm is not long enough for candid close-ups anyway and IS is a waste when shooting people.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajoseph Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 I love the 24-105 but I have to agree with Hocus Focus. If you want to shoot weddings it is not the best choice. I think we all have different "styles" and my favorite setup for weddings is either 85 or 135 on my 7D (APS-C) for close- up and 50mm on my 5D2 ... Add 2 flashes and you are set ... I would never shoot weddings with only one body ... Too dangerous IMHO, lots can happen. So if I was you on a low budget, I'd get a used 5D, a decent APS-C body (50D?), either the 135f2, 100f2 or 85f1.8 and a 50f1.4 (canon or sigma) and 2 speedlite 430 and you'd probably be cheaper than the mark2 + kit ... Just my opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 <p>As a second shooter on a budget the 24-105 does exactly what I said <em>"It covers the majority of wedding shooters needs". </em>Is it the best wedding lens out there? No of course not, but I, and many others, could easily shoot an entire wedding as a first shooter with one.</p> <p>Andreas, whilst you might prefer an effective 136, 216 and a 50 that choice certainly drums home your point that we are all different, however if poled I think you would be in an extreme minority with those lengths.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philip_wilson Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 While I am a big fan of the 28-70 I suspect your limited budget will be better served by the 24-105. The difference in price Will be at least $250 which will allow you to consider a fast prime (e.g. 85 F1.8, 50 F1.8 or 50 F1.4) or a back up body. Although it is many years since I shot a wedding I would suggest that you should get a second body as a top priority. While you will probably not need a second body if you ever do have a problem with your only body it could destroy your business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zml Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 <p>Don't pooh-pooh the 24-105 for weddings... Photographers are herd animals and tend to emulate one another and use the same equipment, but in many respects (IS, focal length range anyone..?) the 24-105/4 is better for weddings than the 24-70/2.8. Yep, the latter is a bit faster and shows a bit less distortion, but both lenses are equally sharp and IS comes handy for low light static scenes. I had to shoot a wedding and a baptizm recently sans flash and boy was I glad to have the 24-105 with me! <br> (But do get a fast prime lens as well: there are things that neither the 24-105/4 nor the 24-70/2.8 can do.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 <p>Also, please realize that Lightroom, DxO Optics Pro and other RAW conversion software will correct for the 24-105's geometric distortions, chromatic aberrations, vignetting, etc. at every focal length and every aperture. I use Optics Pro, which is amazing at fixing these issues.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 <blockquote> <p>IS is a waste when shooting people.</p> </blockquote> <p>Say what? This is the most baffling claim I've read in quite awhile. Surely IS is useful for static or relatively motionless subjects, including people when they are posing (or just happen not to be moving much). I know, at least, that it's been useful for me when "shooting people." But of course YMMV.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markonestudios Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 <p>Jamie,</p> <p>I feel your pain. I had a similar thing happen to me in December last year. 5D Mark II with my beloved 24-105L and other kit all gone in one fell swoop.</p> <p>My plan was to replace like for like. After some research, some soul-searching and yet more research, I replaced my camera with another 5D2 (another body was never in question). As far as lenses though, I decided to get Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8. I can honestly say that I haven't for one minute regretted my purchase. It is now my most used portrait lens (more than my 50mm). It can focus pretty close, precluding my previous desire for a macro lens or close-up kit. Its constant f/2.8 aperture is great, it is fast to focus (and quiet to boot). My gripes with it are: FTM lacking, not as smooth when zooming as my 24-105 was, slightly less robust build (although it has already tasted a wooden floor from height with no ill-effects).</p> <p>Don't get me wrong, I loved my 24-105L but since I intend to add a 135L to my kit, I don't see myself re-purchasing one. The Tamron has really been that good. Highly recommended.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hocus_focus Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Say what? This is the most baffling claim I've read in quite awhile. Surely IS is useful for static or relatively motionless subjects, including people when they are posing (or just happen not to be moving much). I know, at least, that it's been useful for me when "shooting people." But of course YMMV.</p> </blockquote> <p>People are never static, even if they "don't move much", they still move.</p> <p>I wouldn't risk getting blurred pictures on a paid assignment by using a slow shutter and relying on IS. Get a large aperture and use a short shutter instead. Or use a long shutter and freeze motion with flash.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 <p> People are never static, but they are often static enough for IS to make a difference. I wouldn't do a paid assignment without at least one IS lens in my bag, large apertures are often completely inappropriate. If IS wasn't worth the money then it wouldn't be in an ever increasing number of lenses. Sure we all worked fine before it came out, but, now it is here use it for the amazing tool it is.</p> <p>If it was me, and I was on a budget, I'd get the 24-105 use it for a couple of weddings (as that second shooter) and then check my EXIF to see where I was using the focal lengths. Then get a non L prime in that focal length.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kens Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 <p>Slightly OT, but were you robbed at home? If so be careful with your replacement equipment. The thief/ves know you will be replacing it and might return for a second helping.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev_400d Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Slightly OT, but were you robbed at home? If so be careful with your replacement equipment. The thief/ves know you will be replacing it and might return for a second helping.</p> </blockquote> <p>+1</p> <p>When I was robbed I significantly increased security. 360 degree lighting. Expensive new locks. And a Dog! </p> <p>You don't have to have the best security, just the best on your street! </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfmelton Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 <p>I, too, have to disagree with Hocus's dismissal of the 24-105. Best all-around kit lens there is (in fact calling it a kit lens, even though it is, really gives the wrong impression about it), and as such it's an excellent value. I do get his point about IS, though. You need to keep in mind that it won't freeze moving people, and it will effectively compensate for hand shake only within a fairly narrow range of shutter speeds.<br> But the 24-70 vs. 24-105 debate has gone on for years. Each lens has its advantages and disadvantages. Like the man said, you pays your money and takes your choice. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Ian Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 <p>OP- you should purchase the body only, and buy a seperate lens. Doing that allows you to more effectively manage limited funds. You can find used 24-70/2.8s (Sigmas or Tamrons) for far less, and they'll perform fundamental wedding tasks far better than the 24-105/4. You'd be surprised, you may also be able to fit a Sig or Tamron 70-200/2.8 into the gap in the budget. Even more cost effective would be a pair of 5Ds, plus a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8 ... all for the same $$$ as a 5d2 + kit lens. Just saying... you've got options, and the best one is rarely somebody elses 'kit'.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now