Lense Recommendation

jeffreaux2 · June 26, 2011

I am considering switching to a full frame body. For those of you who shoot weddings, receptions, and other similar events/parties, would you choose a 24-70 F2.8 or 24-105 F4 IS?

I currently shoot a 17-55 F2.8IS on a 1.6x crop sensor, so the view through the 24-70 would look pretty familiar. It will be paired up with a 70-200 F2.8 IS. The overlap and stabilization of the 24-105 might also be nice.

Any advice? Pros? Cons?:dunno

Lets hear it!:D

Mitchell · June 26, 2011

Hey Jeff!

The 24-70mm is my go to lens for receptions. Great flexibility and one of Nikon's best performers. I can't speak to the IQ of the Canon counterpart, but the focal length range is perfect during the reception.

divamum · June 26, 2011

Jeff, I really, REALLY love the 24-70L 2.8 I wound up with. I had reservations - partly because of the cost, and partly because of the known variance from copy-to-copy - but once I did get a copy I like it has exceeded all of my expectations in all ways. It's not quite as sharp as my best primes (eg 135L) when it's wide open, but it's not far off and once you stop down a little it absolutely matches the primes. I use the 70mm end at 2.8 and 3.2 a lot and have been very pleased with its performance.

Frankly, even on a FF camera I think I'd feel lost without my wide apertures! Since you already have the 70-200is, it would be a seamless transition if you cover the entire range with similarly fast glass.

That said, there's always discussion of a Mk II "on the horizon", but as yet nothing concrete has been rumored. I personally got tired of waiting and just went for it when I had the money last spring; I haven't regretted it.

Ed911 · June 26, 2011

Mitchell wrote: »

Hey Jeff!

The 24-70mm is my go to lens for receptions. Great flexibility and one of Nikon's best performers. I can't speak to the IQ of the Canon counterpart, but the focal length range is perfect during the reception.

+1 for the 24-70 on FF cameras. Especially since you've already been shooting the XF equivalent. I like having the reach of the longer lens, but also like having the brightness of the 2.8. I have a D700...and my 24-70 stays on it. I also have a 70-200...and for the most part, since I've purchased it...it stays in it's case.

I recently shot a bike ride for MS using only my D700, SB900 for fill, and 24-70 f2.8. Pictures were fine...and cropped a little if I wanted a it a little closer...and here's where the MK2 shines...you'll have the ability to crop even more without losing IQ.

On the other hand, there's a lot of talk on the NIKON websites about paring the D700 with Nikon's new 24-105...so it's worth considering.
Just my two cents.

Matthew Saville · June 27, 2011

The Nikon 24-70 is a much better investment than the Canon 24-70, currently, as the Nikon is a few years newer than the Canon, and much sharper. And, the Canon 24-70 is due to be replaced with a mk2 version some time this year or next, judging by other Canon mk1-mk2 timelines.

However, it is still a go-to lens as far as rugged reliability and general sharpness are concerned. It's not exactly landscape-sharp, but it's certainly photojournalism-sharp.

If you're a serious professional shooting weddings even close to full-time, you should get one of these lenses in your bag. The 24-105 is great if you value stabilization more than aperture, and personally I think as a full-time wedding photographer myself, it would be a toss-up. Just make the decision based on your personal preference and shooting habits. I personally prefer lighter and smaller lenses, so I'd go for the 24-105 f/4 IS probably...

Having said that, I'm ACTUALLY a prime guy, at heart. If I bought a 24-105, it would only be used to cover those do-or-die situations where a prime simply isn't versatile enough. But whenever possible, I would probably be using a 35 or 85 prime instead. Again, it just comes down to personal style and preference!

=Matt=

Bakko · June 27, 2011

Hey Jeff,
I had the same question a few weeks ago.
I decided to go with the 24-105 L bec of the IS as well as the additional 35mm range.

Very long story short, I ended up returning the 24-105 and buying the 24-70mm, and it almost
never leaves my camera

tenoverthenose · June 27, 2011

Everything mentioned is of good quality. One issue with the 24-105L is that is only a f4 lens - it only focuses in low light at f4. That extra stop of light when focusing can make a big different at weddings. That having been said, if I had to pick between the 24-70 or 24-105, I'd pike the 24-105. But I really don't like the 36-70 mm range for my photography. If it were me, I'd just get a 35mm prime and rock the existing light.

jeffreaux2 · June 27, 2011

Mitchell wrote: »

Hey Jeff!

The 24-70mm is my go to lens for receptions. Great flexibility and one of Nikon's best performers. I can't speak to the IQ of the Canon counterpart, but the focal length range is perfect during the reception.

Thanks for your input Mitchell.

The 17-55 F2.8 I use on my 50D is a super combination for events/receptions. I have shot entire weddings with it. The 24-70 on a 5D2 should be identical in flexibility....except...Ill be able to push higher ISO's for better shutter speeds....hopefully negating the need for stabilization.

As for IQ.....well....since experimenting with my old yashica medium format.....I pixel peep a lot less. Our modern gear is by far much better than anything used in previous generations. Im sure that lens on a 5D2 would produce acceptable...if not exceptional...image quality.

jeffreaux2 · June 27, 2011

divamum wrote: »

Jeff, I really, REALLY love the 24-70L 2.8 I wound up with. I had reservations - partly because of the cost, and partly because of the known variance from copy-to-copy - but once I did get a copy I like it has exceeded all of my expectations in all ways. It's not quite as sharp as my best primes (eg 135L) when it's wide open, but it's not far off and once you stop down a little it absolutely matches the primes. I use the 70mm end at 2.8 and 3.2 a lot and have been very pleased with its performance.

Frankly, even on a FF camera I think I'd feel lost without my wide apertures! Since you already have the 70-200is, it would be a seamless transition if you cover the entire range with similarly fast glass.

That said, there's always discussion of a Mk II "on the horizon", but as yet nothing concrete has been rumored. I personally got tired of waiting and

just went for it when I had the money last spring; I haven't regretted it.

Well Im in no particular rush to drop the dough for new gear but I doubt I'd be willing to wait much for a MkII. You know how those rumour mills are anyways....right!

Thanks for your input. Im suprised that you are satisfied with 24mm for a wide end on a crop sensor. I had a 28-75 Tamron (excellent lens BTW) that always frustrated me when trying to shoot wide. Even the wide end was too long for a 1.6x crop body.

Wanna trade it for a "perfect" Canon 17-55 F2.8IS?.....

J/K

Its gonna be a big sell off for me. Probably everything but one lens and the flashes.

jeffreaux2 · June 27, 2011

Ed911 wrote: »

+1 for the 24-70 on FF cameras. Especially since you've already been shooting the XF equivalent. I like having the reach of the longer lens, but also like having the brightness of the 2.8. I have a D700...and my 24-70 stays on it. I also have a 70-200...and for the most part, since I've purchased it...it stays in it's case.

I recently shot a bike ride for MS using only my D700, SB900 for fill, and 24-70 f2.8. Pictures were fine...and cropped a little if I wanted a it a little closer...and here's where the MK2 shines...you'll have the ability to crop even more without losing IQ.

On the other hand, there's a lot of talk on the NIKON websites about paring the D700 with Nikon's new 24-105...so it's worth considering.
Just my two cents.

Thanks Ed!!

jeffreaux2 · June 27, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

The Nikon 24-70 is a much better investment than the Canon 24-70, currently, as the Nikon is a few years newer than the Canon, and much sharper. And, the Canon 24-70 is due to be replaced with a mk2 version some time this year or next, judging by other Canon mk1-mk2 timelines.

However, it is still a go-to lens as far as rugged reliability and general sharpness are concerned. It's not exactly landscape-sharp, but it's certainly photojournalism-sharp.

If you're a serious professional shooting weddings even close to full-time, you should get one of these lenses in your bag. The 24-105 is great if you value stabilization more than aperture, and personally I think as a full-time wedding photographer myself, it would be a toss-up. Just make the decision based on your personal preference and shooting habits. I personally prefer lighter and smaller lenses, so I'd go for the 24-105 f/4 IS probably...

Having said that, I'm ACTUALLY a prime guy, at heart. If I bought a 24-105, it would only be used to cover those do-or-die situations where a prime simply isn't versatile enough. But whenever possible, I would probably be using a 35 or 85 prime instead. Again, it just comes down to personal style and preference!

=Matt=

Thanks,

I primarily shoot portraits. I have turned away all of the folks who have approached me for weddings for the last year and a half, but will be taking one on for next spring. Maybe more.

I think the 2.8 max aperture will suit me better for both weddings and the on location portraits shoots that I do.

Thanks for weighing in.

jeffreaux2 · June 27, 2011

Bakko wrote: »

Hey Jeff,
I had the same question a few weeks ago.
I decided to go with the 24-105 L bec of the IS as well as the additional 35mm range.

Very long story short, I ended up returning the 24-105 and buying the 24-70mm, and it almost
never leaves my camera

This is EXACTLY the kind of input I needed to hear.

Thanks...and welcome to DGRIN.:D

jeffreaux2 · June 27, 2011

tenoverthenose wrote: »

Everything mentioned is of good quality. One issue with the 24-105L is that is only a f4 lens - it only focuses in low light at f4. That extra stop of light when focusing can make a big different at weddings. That having been said, if I had to pick between the 24-70 or 24-105, I'd pike the 24-105. But I really don't like the 36-70 mm range for my photography. If it were me, I'd just get a 35mm prime and rock the existing light.

The focusing ability...as you state can take a HUGE hit at smaller max apertures.

All my current glass is 2.8 or faster. Still, now and then when shooting in deep shade the 50D has focusing problems. Not enough contrast. The 5D2...I think...uses a very similar focus system. My best luck in these situations has come from using an STE2 as a focus assist.

Thanks for commenting.

divamum · June 27, 2011

jeffreaux2 wrote: »

Thanks for your input. Im suprised that you are satisfied with 24mm for a wide end on a crop sensor. I had a 28-75 Tamron (excellent lens BTW) that always frustrated me when trying to shoot wide. Even the wide end was too long for a 1.6x crop body.

I always felt restricted by the gap between 50 and my 85 prime, which the 24-70 fills admirably. I've kept the Tam 17-50 to cover the wide end on the rare occasions I need it, but I don't reach for it often now that I have the 24-70.

Scott_Quier · June 29, 2011

I have the 5DII, the 24 - 105, and a Tamron 28-75.

For most of the wedding/recption, the 24-105 was my weapon of choice. I just like the length provided and the 1-stop disadvantage was not that big a deal. When I was shooting with a 50D and the 17-55 f/2.8, I was shooting at ISO 800 as the upper limit. With the 5DII, going to 1600 is a no brainer and even higher if ncessary.

However, there are times when the wider aperture is nice to have and that's when the Tammy comes out. I'm lucky in that my Tammy has proven to be a very sharp copy (even wide open) so I don't feel I'm loosing in the resolving power department.

P.S. - an update is in the works!

mmmatt · June 29, 2011

Jeff the 24-70 f2.8L is the bomb. It focuses super fast in low light and the range is perfect for a ff body. 24mm gives a little WA distortion and you can play with it by putting your subject in the corner and aiming off access. 70mm is just enough compression to de-accentuate noses and other projections on a head shot type crop. "IS" doesn't do anything with a moving subject, but fast glass does. A full stop is a lot of light when you are in a dark room. It is all about the speed. another little bit of zoom or IS can be good for some things but in event photography it is all about speed imho. IS won't help with a moving subject and there is a huge difference in a lenses ability to focus in low light when there is a full stop difference. the little bit of difference in focal length with the 105 is minimum when you think how much resolution you have to play with and crop into. f4 lenses also won't even use the outside additional focus points around the center point if I remember right. Speed is king for weddings my friend. Regardless of what you have your camera set at a lens will always focus at it's largest aperture... I don't think a lot of people think about that!

My .02

Matt

mjordanphoto · June 30, 2011

Not that I have a lot of experience on the event end of photography (yet!), but the 24-70 was the first "L" series lens I bought... heck, it was the first non-kit, not 50 1.8 lens that I bought, and it's rarely off my camera. I was originally shooting with it on a 50D, and yes, I missed the wideness... and now I've upgraded to a 5D MkII, and it's an outstanding match. I would venture a guess that about 65% of my shots are taken with the 24-70, 30% with the 70-200 (non-IS, 2.8), and 5% with the 50 1.8.

I did try out the 24-105 f/4, and it just wasn't for me. I really missed the speed and bokeh that the 24-70 offered. While the IS is welcome (and I would absolutely upgrade to a 24-70 2.8 IS if they ever released it!), it doesn't do anything for stopping motion, and the one-stop difference has been great in taking low-light shots.

If you end up with the 24-70, I don't think you'll be disappointed!

ziggy53 · June 30, 2011

tenoverthenose wrote: »

Everything mentioned is of good quality. One issue with the 24-105L is that is only a f4 lens - it only focuses in low light at f4. That extra stop of light when focusing can make a big different at weddings. That having been said, if I had to pick between the 24-70 or 24-105, I'd pike the 24-105. But I really don't like the 36-70 mm range for my photography. If it were me, I'd just get a 35mm prime and rock the existing light.

jeffreaux2 wrote: »

The focusing ability...as you state can take a HUGE hit at smaller max apertures.

All my current glass is 2.8 or faster. Still, now and then when shooting in deep shade the 50D has focusing problems. Not enough contrast. The 5D2...I think...uses a very similar focus system. My best luck in these situations has come from using an STE2 as a focus assist.

Thanks for commenting.

This is very important. The f2.8 aperture activates the high-precision capabilities of the center AF sensor. In low light this makes a tremendous difference. The f2.8 constant aperture of the Canon EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM is a primary reason to recommend it for wedding/event photography on a FF body.

Using a flash with focus-assist light, or the ST-E2 wireless transmitter with its AF assist light, provides a high-contrast pattern in addition to some extra AF illumination, all which combine to provide greatly improved auto-focus accuracy and speed.

The Canon 580EX is the best AF assist that I have tested in that the AF assist pattern and spread changes with the focal length to provide optimum coverage.

I do find that the AF accuracy of the Canon 5D MKII is less than the AF accuracy of even the Canon 40D. It's not bad but I do find myself taking more captures for anything critical. This is using an old EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM on the 5D MKII vs EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM on the 40D.

jvrooman2006 · September 23, 2011

jeffreaux2 wrote: »

Thanks,

I primarily shoot portraits. I have turned away all of the folks who have approached me for weddings for the last year and a half, but will be taking one on for next spring. Maybe more.

I think the 2.8 max aperture will suit me better for both weddings and the on location portraits shoots that I do.

Thanks for weighing in.

Hi All,
This is my first time posting. I just let pentax and moved to a nikon d700 for weddings. I'm looking at starting with a 24-70 2.8. My question is: should I get the sigma brand new or the nikon used in good condition? Obviously, the nikon is well loved, and I have heard some cons about the sigma. Yet, used lenses scare me. What would you do? Thanks for the insight!

Qarik · September 23, 2011

if you get a chance to inpsect the used lens..I would go for that. the d700 and nikkor 24-70mm is just killer combo. I tried 2 copies of the new sigma 24-70mm HSM. It's pretty good as well..the nikkor is just stellar though.

Shima · September 24, 2011

I like the 16-35 and 70-200 for my ceremony coverage, but the rest of the time I'm addicted to my primes on my 5D2's... mostly I'm in love with 35L and 85L, though my other primes do make some appearances too.

Lense Recommendation

Comments