Best wedding glass

2»

Comments

  • Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited May 13, 2008
    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.
  • joshhuntnmjoshhuntnm Registered Users Posts: 1,924 Major grins
    edited May 13, 2008
    My next lens will be the 24-105 f4 for my wedding work. I'll let you know how it goes when I get it.

    Please do!
  • joshhuntnmjoshhuntnm Registered Users Posts: 1,924 Major grins
    edited May 13, 2008
    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!!!mwink.gif
  • evorywareevoryware Registered Users Posts: 1,330 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    The brides you sign up should be paying you back for the lens anyway.

    Spend more, charge more.
    Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358

    dak.smugmug.com
  • ChatKatChatKat Registered Users Posts: 1,357 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    Ain't that the truth...
    evoryware wrote:
    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.
    Kathy Rappaport
    Flash Frozen Photography, Inc.
    http://flashfrozenphotography.com
  • Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    joshhuntnm wrote:
    typical dgrinner advice--spend more; get it all!!! I love you guys!!!mwink.gif
    Nah, this was advice to help you spend BETTER - buy it once, buy it RIGHT!

    But yeah, spend more? Alwaysmwink.gif
  • jeffreaux2jeffreaux2 Registered Users Posts: 4,762 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    Wow this thread took off!!!


    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.
  • ShimaShima Registered Users Posts: 2,547 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    jeffreaux2 wrote:
    Wow this thread took off!!!


    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.

    wings.gifMine 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.
  • ShimaShima Registered Users Posts: 2,547 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    Nah, this was advice to help you spend BETTER - buy it once, buy it RIGHT!

    But yeah, spend more? Alwaysmwink.gif

    15524779-Ti.gif 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.
  • Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    Shima wrote:
    wings.gifMine 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!
  • ShimaShima Registered Users Posts: 2,547 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    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!

    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 :)
  • joshhuntnmjoshhuntnm Registered Users Posts: 1,924 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    Shima wrote:
    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.

    I'd like to hear a report on that after the wedding.
  • jeffreaux2jeffreaux2 Registered Users Posts: 4,762 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    joshhuntnm wrote:
    I'd like to hear a report on that after the wedding.

    I just did one last Friday and used the 17-55 F2.8IS exclusively...

    HERE...
  • Moogle PepperMoogle Pepper Registered Users Posts: 2,950 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    rolleyes1.gif

    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.
    Food & Culture.
    www.tednghiem.com
  • ShimaShima Registered Users Posts: 2,547 Major grins
    edited May 14, 2008
    joshhuntnm wrote:
    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 :)
  • dawssvtdawssvt Registered Users Posts: 413 Major grins
    edited June 8, 2008
    Shima wrote:
    wings.gifMine 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?

    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



  • Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited June 8, 2008
    dawssvt wrote:
    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 mwink.gif) 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)
  • ShimaShima Registered Users Posts: 2,547 Major grins
    edited June 8, 2008
    I'm not Shima (I'll never be that good looking mwink.gif) 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!
Sign In or Register to comment.