orly_andico

<p>I used the 70-200/4 on a crop body, and it doesn't knock backgrounds out that well. The 24-105/4 would suffer from the same concern.<br> I ended up with the 70-200/2.8 non-IS. IS is great, but high ISO makes up for a lot of sins.</p>

<p>I'm glad to see that others have expounded more on the 70-200. The 200mm range is equivalent to 320mm on a crop sensor body. Even across the church, 320mm is a tight upper body shot. I also find that the telecompression is very impersonal. But I'm not a wedding photographer and everybody has an opinion (and we all know what those are worth).<br> The 70-200 is also quite heavy.<br> One could argue that the 24-105 on an FF body would probably do it all, but lacks in the blow-out-the-backgrounds. Unfortunately there isn't such an equivalent on reduced frame (the 17-55 comes close, at 28-85 equivalent).<br> So if pressed, I'd get rid of all the OP's current lenses (the 50/1.8 is redundant but so cheap it's not worth selling off) and replace them with the 17-55.</p>

<p>The 70-200 is excessively long on a crop sensor camera. I am not a wedding photographer but I find that the use cases for my 70-200 are few and far between (to my immense disgust). It is a much more useful focal length on a full-frame body.<br> I submit - again, no weddings here, just general use - that a fast "normal" zoom is much more useful, i.e. the 17-55. However, that lens is a reduced-frame only lens. I'd say the 16-35/2.8L would be more useful than a 70-200.<br> There are also a variety of third-party 50-150/2.8 lenses (which are equivalent to 70-200 on a full-frame body) but again these are reduced-frame-only.<br> But most useful would be a powerful flash with an external power pack. Even an old-ish camera with poor high ISO performance would shine if you're pumping enough light. My inexpert opinion is, good high ISO performance allows you to use less flash, which means your recycling time is shorter. But even with low ISO on an old camera (and/or a large aperture number because you're not using an L zoom), with enough flash power, you can recycle fast enough.</p>

<p>Is there any particular reason why the 300/4L non-IS and the 300/2.8L non-IS don't have lens correction data?</p>