Canon 24-70mm L VS 24-105mm L

Bakko

I'm a newbie wedding photographer and I'm looking to add my bag of optical tricks, but Im completely torn between the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 24-105mm f/4.

If it helps, here is what is inside my bag:
Canon 60D
Canon 85mm 1.8
Sigma 50mm 1.4
Canon 17-40mm L
Rokinon 8mm 3.5 Fisheye
Canon Speedlite EX 430(I think thats the number).

Now i know the 24-105 has the IS which is nice, and the 24-70 has the lower f stop. I just want to see what you, more experienced wedding photographers prefer to use.

-Bakko

NeilL

neither

you want the EF 70-200 f2.8L IS USM

you need more length than you've got in other stuff, you need as fast as possible, you want the option to hand hold, and you want no compromise IQ

easy!:D

Neil

ssimmonsphoto

NeilL wrote: »

neither

you want the EF 70-200 f2.8L IS USM

you need more length than you've got in other stuff, you need as fast as possible, you want the option to hand hold, and you want no compromise IQ

easy!:D

Neil

Ditto. The 70-200 was my first lens purchase when I just started out with weddings. I cannot imagine not having the length. And, given what else you have, you don't have anything that even comes close. And the 105 wouldn't cut it either.

Moogle Pepper

ssimmonsphoto wrote: »

Ditto. The 70-200 was my first lens purchase when I just started out with weddings. I cannot imagine not having the length. And, given what else you have, you don't have anything that even comes close. And the 105 wouldn't cut it either.

By that statement, a 135 wouldn't either. And that is my only long lens.

Really, a 50mm 1.4 and the 85 1.4, albeit on a crop sensor, is actually very suffice. Just use your head and feet to get the image.

Qarik

you already have the standard range covered with the 17-40mm. you have short telephoto covered with the 85mm. imo you need medium telephoto or wide angle

Stuart-M

Forget more lenses for now, get a second body. It's totally irresponsible to only have 1.

I started with a 40d, 450d, 17-55 & 18-55. My next purchase was a 100 f/2 as I needed something longer. You can get a 5D mk1 very cheap second hand now though, and as you don't seem to like ef-s lenses, there's no reason not to get a full frame camera.

You need a spare speedlite as well BTW. Basically you want 2 of the following as a minimum:

Bodies (spare can be a cheap consumer one if finances dictate that).
Wide angle to standard lenses (a 18-55 kit lens covers these as a spare, 24 + 50 mm primes as first choice, or 24-70, 24-105, or 17-55 for crop sensor).
Flashes (430 as a minimum)

Telephoto and fisheye lenses are less essential and backup for these is not necessary.

ssimmonsphoto

Moogle Pepper wrote: »

Really, a 50mm 1.4 and the 85 1.4, albeit on a crop sensor, is actually very suffice. Just use your head and feet to get the image.

It depends on the situation you are in. For me, some of the larger churches and cathedrals I am in mean I can't get close enough under foot power with anything less than my 70-200.

But the PP also had a point of getting a second body and, assuming you don't have one, I think he makes a strong argument for it. What would you do if you one body bites the dust mid-shoot? I always have at least two bodies with me depending on the shoot. I can survive well with only one if something does go wrong.

Stuart-M

ssimmonsphoto wrote: »

But the PP also had a point of getting a second body and, assuming you don't have one, I think he makes a strong argument for it. What would you do if you one body bites the dust mid-shoot? I always have at least two bodies with me depending on the shoot. I can survive well with only one if something does go wrong.

That's my point, anything that is 100% essential, you must have a spare. Even if the spare is much lower spec. I could shoot a wedding with a xxxd, kit lens and 430 flash if I had to, wouldn't be quite as good as with my professional gear, but would be acceptable and would save having a very upset client.

Shima

I'm going to agree that at this stage in the game you need to have a second body before you go and get more lenses.

After you've got that covered I'd lean towards the 70-200, it's great for ceremonies when you can't be close and want to capture all the action still, and you've got a more coverage range in the wide angles already.

Bakko

Great great advice guys, thanks so much for your responses, it really helped me out!

fourlegsrgood

no choice there

Bakko wrote: »

I'm a newbie wedding photographer and I'm looking to add my bag of optical tricks, but Im completely torn between the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 24-105mm f/4.

If it helps, here is what is inside my bag:
Canon 60D
Canon 85mm 1.8
Sigma 50mm 1.4
Canon 17-40mm L
Rokinon 8mm 3.5 Fisheye
Canon Speedlite EX 430(I think thats the number).

Now i know the 24-105 has the IS which is nice, and the 24-70 has the lower f stop. I just want to see what you, more experienced wedding photographers prefer to use.

-Bakko

Go with the 24-70 2.8L. Period. The glass is superior and you'll be able to photograph in lower light situations. It's my workhorse and was worth every single penny.

Matthew Saville

Unless you're renting a 5D mk2 or better for every wedding you photograph, I'd honestly say you've got PLENTY of "lens". Get another, better body.

(I think this is the fifth or sixth vote for another body?)

A 70-200 is also going to be more useful than a 24-70, if you ask me. Yes, depending on how you shoot you could prefer one over the other, but honestly I usually just end up shooting with primes when I'm at the mid-range focal lengths, and I only ever really "need" a zoom when it's time to go past 85mm or so. Sure, it slows me down every now and then to have to swap my 24 prime for my 85 prime, but I don't really miss moments or anything, I shoot with two camera bodies anyways.

You might not FEEL a need for a better camera body, if the 60D is the best you've ever had so far and you haven't experienced many weddings, but trust me the light can get VERY black, and also, TRUST ME, CAMERAS DO FAIL! I had a camera body fail on me mid-ceremony, which is why I have two bodies with me during anything where timing is critical.

Usually, I roll to weddings with at least one full-frame body, one crop-sensor body, and at least an 85mm f/1.8, a 24mm f/2.8, and then my 50-150mm f/2.8 which is a crop sensor lens but it works great on full-frame (un-cropped) in extremely dark conditions where vignetting is cool. ;-) Sometimes, depending on the job, I rent an ultra-wide zoom or a mid-range zoom. I shoot a lot of commercial work with manual focus prime lenses, actually, including 24mm, 50mm, and 90mm.

=Matt=

NeilL

Longer lenses aren't only for when you have to be at a distance. They are also for when you want to be! The trend is to use them for portrait style shots, for their dof and compression characteristics, and avoidance of distortion.

I think a wedding tog needs a long zoom, a wide zoom and a standard prime, of the best quality possible, and as fast as possible. These are demanded by the different kinds of framing that are involved in a wedding event with its range of happenings - individuals, crowd, formal, informal, architecture, objects, and so on. The different looks from different lenses is a built-in source of variety to enhance your product.

The OP's question was about choice of lens, not about camera bodies. But obviously a second body is necessary for the optimal use of a variety of lenses, as I have suggested is desirable, apart from the consideration of a "safety net".

The 60D is very capable of superlative results in the right hands and with good glass. There is no reason to introduce an artificial doubt about it, which I suspect is just an habitual exercise in snobbery. What cameras produce is not guaranteed, no matter their specs or cost. Lenses are a different matter, because they are what is directly affecting the light you are capturing.

In both cases, of an additional lens and additional body, a good strategy is to rent first. But of course, don't take anything to a wedding that you are unfamiliar with, so factor practice to build confidence in your rented gear in your arrangements.

Neil

Bakko

Thanks for all your feedback guys.
Now if you don't mind I have one more question.
Many of you say I should invest in the 70-200mm, and I agree with that completely.
What I want to know is if I should wait a while to save up for the IS version or just scratch the
24-105mm off the list, and invest in the 70-200mm none IS lens.
Basically my question is, does the IS make THAT much of a difference?

On another note, I almost always rent a 5D if I have a big event, so I always have the second body situation covered.

NeilL

The 70-200 MkII with IS has been designed for just the need that have. IS is integral. You cannot be dragging tripods and monopods around a dynamic, quickly devolving, crowded event like a wedding. You have to able to move about quickly with ease, you have to be able to vary your pov on the instant. Typically weddings involve lots of different light from deep gloom, to open sun to indoors artificial. You're absolutely going to hit the bottom with aperture sometime when you don't want to in the event if you only have f4, as the choice of glass you already have indicates you know. So the necessary freedom of handholding plus inevitable low light equals IS + f2.8 (real 2.8, not just a number on the barrel!). There ain't no way round it!

2.8 is faster shutter - handy at a live event handholding. You also will want 2.8 for taming the very busy backgrounds typical of weddings for your wedding portrait shots, at least.

Neil

Stuart-M

Bakko wrote: »

Thanks for all your feedback guys.
Now if you don't mind I have one more question.
Many of you say I should invest in the 70-200mm, and I agree with that completely.
What I want to know is if I should wait a while to save up for the IS version or just scratch the
24-105mm off the list, and invest in the 70-200mm none IS lens.
Basically my question is, does the IS make THAT much of a difference?

On another note, I almost always rent a 5D if I have a big event, so I always have the second body situation covered.

Some might disagree, but I find a 135 f/2 to be a really good alternative to the 2.8 70-200 is. It's much cheaper, a lot faster, more ergonomic and lighter, and has exceptional image quality. It's very rare that I find 135mm too short, even on my 5D II, never mind on a crop body like your 60D, and you can always crop a little if necessary.

tenoverthenose

Stuart-M wrote: »

Some might disagree, but I find a 135 f/2 to be a really good alternative to the 2.8 70-200 is. It's much cheaper, a lot faster, more ergonomic and lighter, and has exceptional image quality. It's very rare that I find 135mm too short, even on my 5D II, never mind on a crop body like your 60D, and you can always crop a little if necessary.

Very much agreed. After using the 135L I can't stand to carry around the 70-200. Plus I find the 135 to be sooo much more useful for weddings and it produces sharper shots too.

Moogle Pepper

tenoverthenose wrote: »

Very much agreed. After using the 135L I can't stand to carry around the 70-200. Plus I find the 135 to be sooo much more useful for weddings and it produces sharper shots too.

I like the workout with the 70-200. I lift it to workout the forearms.

Bakko

You guys dont think the 135mm alternative will limit the shots you would be able to get with the 70-200mm?

NeilL

tenoverthenose wrote: »

Very much agreed. After using the 135L I can't stand to carry around the 70-200. Plus I find the 135 to be sooo much more useful for weddings and it produces sharper shots too.

no pain no gain! D

Neil

rpcrowe

I second Stuart

Stuart-M wrote: »

Forget more lenses for now, get a second body. It's totally irresponsible to only have 1.

I started with a 40d, 450d, 17-55 & 18-55. My next purchase was a 100 f/2 as I needed something longer. You can get a 5D mk1 very cheap second hand now though, and as you don't seem to like ef-s lenses, there's no reason not to get a full frame camera.

You need a spare speedlite as well BTW. Basically you want 2 of the following as a minimum:

Bodies (spare can be a cheap consumer one if finances dictate that).
Wide angle to standard lenses (a 18-55 kit lens covers these as a spare, 24 + 50 mm primes as first choice, or 24-70, 24-105, or 17-55 for crop sensor).
Flashes (430 as a minimum)

Telephoto and fisheye lenses are less essential and backup for these is not necessary.

MURPHY'S LAW OF PHOTOGRAPHY: The probability of a piece of photographic gear failing is in a direct relationship to the importance of the shoot and in an inverse relationship to the availability of back-up gear!

As Stuart indicates... Weddings can very easily be shot with only a working body, a mid-range zoom lens and a good flash, so the UWA and very long lenses do not necessarily need backing up. However you MUST have redundancy in camera body, mid-range zoom and flash. "My equipment didn't work" is absolutely no excuse for blowing a wedding coverage.