Josh, I think your plan is a good one, provided you are a little flexible about it. As others have suggested, testing/borrowing/renting a candidate lens is a very good way to determine you will be able to use a lens and if it's performance is up to YOUR standards.
FWIW ...
For wedding work, where there is enough light and room, the 24-105 is a great lens and I've used it on more than one occasion.
When the above doesn't hold, I fall back to the 17-55 f/2.8 - it's nice to have that ace in your hole.
Josh, I think your plan is a good one, provided you are a little flexible about it. As others have suggested, testing/borrowing/renting a candidate lens is a very good way to determine you will be able to use a lens and if it's performance is up to YOUR standards.
FWIW ...
For wedding work, where there is enough light and room, the 24-105 is a great lens and I've used it on more than one occasion.
When the above doesn't hold, I fall back to the 17-55 f/2.8 - it's nice to have that ace in your hole.
typical dgrinner advice--spend more; get it all!!! I love you guys!!!
The brides you sign up should be paying you back for the lens anyway.
Spend more, charge more.
And the best tool for the job is always the one you don't have in your bag.
Around here, we have lens envy.....I am sure there is one missing lens that would make your kit perfect and I am sure that if we did a survey that almost everyone could say they wish they had just one more lens. I did a workshop in Santa Fe in March. To challenge myself, I used only my 50 1.2 for the entire class. I could totally use it from start to finish for a wedding now. But I have other tools that will do the job equally or better. That is the real question. Can I do it or can I do it better with more.
FWIW, while I do like the sharpness of the 85mm, I must say that the 17-55 F2.8IS is THE MOST predictable lens in my bag.
Mine should be here today.... ::waiting....waiting::
But yeah as I said earlier, this is the lens I chose to upgrade to for reasons of weddings and close range sports (ex. martial arts where I'm not standing ridiculously far back from the action). I've got a wedding on the 24th that I plan to use this lens at and will then be able to give my opinions on it vs. the 24-105 I had been using.
Nah, this was advice to help you spend BETTER - buy it once, buy it RIGHT!
But yeah, spend more? Always
buy once buy right is how I ended up w/ my flash...this is VERY good advice so you don't see yourself griping later when you buy something that only does half of what you need.
Mine should be here today.... ::waiting....waiting::
But yeah as I said earlier, this is the lens I chose to upgrade to for reasons of weddings and close range sports (ex. martial arts where I'm not standing ridiculously far back from the action). I've got a wedding on the 24th that I plan to use this lens at and will then be able to give my opinions on it vs. the 24-105 I had been using.
You're going to love the lens for weddings. Between that and your 70-200, you are "loaded for bear!"
FWIW - urbanaries shoots with this combination (or at least she did the last time I checked in with her) and you KNOW what sort of magic she works!
I'd like to hear a report on that after the wedding.
No problem-o. Will gladly post some photos / my personal opinion in comparing the two. Considering the upgrade in speed, I am assuming a move favorable / positive review will be happening
Mine should be here today.... ::waiting....waiting::
But yeah as I said earlier, this is the lens I chose to upgrade to for reasons of weddings and close range sports (ex. martial arts where I'm not standing ridiculously far back from the action). I've got a wedding on the 24th that I plan to use this lens at and will then be able to give my opinions on it vs. the 24-105 I had been using.
So what is your opinion on the 17-55 f/2.8 IS in comparison to the 24-105 f/4 IS after using both?
So what is your opinion on the 17-55 f/2.8 IS in comparison to the 24-105 f/4 IS after using both?
I'm not Shima (I'll never be that good looking ) but I have had both lenses for some time and used both yesterday at a reception.
Optically, they are very similar - I think the 17-55 is simply wonderful
Build - I found last night, for the first time, that the zoom on the 17-55 is not moving quite as smoothly as it once was. It think, at the end of this season, I will be sending it to canon for some maintenance.
The 24-105 tended to hunt just a bit when mounted on my 30D. The 17-55 seldom does. I've gotta think this is a function of the maximum aperture of the 24-105 (f/4) versus that of the 17-55 (f/2.8)
I'm not Shima (I'll never be that good looking ) but I have had both lenses for some time and used both yesterday at a reception.
Optically, they are very similar - I think the 17-55 is simply wonderful
Build - I found last night, for the first time, that the zoom on the 17-55 is not moving quite as smoothly as it once was. It think, at the end of this season, I will be sending it to canon for some maintenance.
The 24-105 tended to hunt just a bit when mounted on my 30D. The 17-55 seldom does. I've gotta think this is a function of the maximum aperture of the 24-105 (f/4) versus that of the 17-55 (f/2.8)
LMAO thanks for the "looks" comment, hahaha
Anyway, I would agree with the lack of hunting... the I feel the 17-55 is much more responsive... Both lenses were very sharp on my 40D, though the 17-55 may win just a tad since it was better in low light therefore more accurate at getting locked on focus in low light.
I REALLY love the 17-23 that I didn't have w/ the 24-105... that ability to squeeze a moderate wide angle shot of the banquet hall and other nifty things is really useful.
I only sometimes miss the 56-105 range... most of the time I forget I ever had it, but I won't lie, there was once or twice here and there that I wished I could zoom just a tad further...
But yeah in conclusion, I am not looking back... if someone asked if I wanted to go back to the 24-105, I'd say no. I'm a speed whore though, I love fast glass
Next on the list o' things to buy: 100 f2.8 macro....... the 17-55 does alright w/ details photos, but I'd love a true macro for rings, flowers, settings, etc!
Comments
FWIW ...
For wedding work, where there is enough light and room, the 24-105 is a great lens and I've used it on more than one occasion.
When the above doesn't hold, I fall back to the 17-55 f/2.8 - it's nice to have that ace in your hole.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Please do!
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
typical dgrinner advice--spend more; get it all!!! I love you guys!!!
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
Spend more, charge more.
dak.smugmug.com
And the best tool for the job is always the one you don't have in your bag.
Around here, we have lens envy.....I am sure there is one missing lens that would make your kit perfect and I am sure that if we did a survey that almost everyone could say they wish they had just one more lens. I did a workshop in Santa Fe in March. To challenge myself, I used only my 50 1.2 for the entire class. I could totally use it from start to finish for a wedding now. But I have other tools that will do the job equally or better. That is the real question. Can I do it or can I do it better with more.
Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
http://flashfrozenphotography.com
But yeah, spend more? Always
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Josh,
FWIW, while I do like the sharpness of the 85mm, I must say that the 17-55 F2.8IS is THE MOST predictable lens in my bag.
Jeff
-Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
-My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture
But yeah as I said earlier, this is the lens I chose to upgrade to for reasons of weddings and close range sports (ex. martial arts where I'm not standing ridiculously far back from the action). I've got a wedding on the 24th that I plan to use this lens at and will then be able to give my opinions on it vs. the 24-105 I had been using.
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
FWIW - urbanaries shoots with this combination (or at least she did the last time I checked in with her) and you KNOW what sort of magic she works!
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Taken from urbanaries signature:
Canon 20D + BG-E2 Grip, 350D
50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS
Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro
ST-E2 Transmitter + 580 EXII, 580 EX
Almost the same, except I have the non macro 70-200 that Sigma makes. But yeah she makes pretty awesome magic with her stuff
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
I'd like to hear a report on that after the wedding.
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
I just did one last Friday and used the 17-55 F2.8IS exclusively...
HERE...
Jeff
-Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
-My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture
I think he meant in comparison to the 24-105 that Shima once owned!
I like the 17-55! I tried it on my friend's 30D, but I am going 5D in the future.
www.tednghiem.com
No problem-o. Will gladly post some photos / my personal opinion in comparing the two. Considering the upgrade in speed, I am assuming a move favorable / positive review will be happening
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
So what is your opinion on the 17-55 f/2.8 IS in comparison to the 24-105 f/4 IS after using both?
Website
My Smugmug
My Canon Gear:
5DMII | 24-105mm f/4L | 45mm TS/E | 135mm f/2.0L | 70-200mm f/2.8L IS | 50mm f/1.4 | 580EX II & 430EX
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
LMAO thanks for the "looks" comment, hahaha
Anyway, I would agree with the lack of hunting... the I feel the 17-55 is much more responsive... Both lenses were very sharp on my 40D, though the 17-55 may win just a tad since it was better in low light therefore more accurate at getting locked on focus in low light.
I REALLY love the 17-23 that I didn't have w/ the 24-105... that ability to squeeze a moderate wide angle shot of the banquet hall and other nifty things is really useful.
I only sometimes miss the 56-105 range... most of the time I forget I ever had it, but I won't lie, there was once or twice here and there that I wished I could zoom just a tad further...
But yeah in conclusion, I am not looking back... if someone asked if I wanted to go back to the 24-105, I'd say no. I'm a speed whore though, I love fast glass
Next on the list o' things to buy: 100 f2.8 macro....... the 17-55 does alright w/ details photos, but I'd love a true macro for rings, flowers, settings, etc!
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus