Lens question for Canon users

A

Alan W

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
Yes
Okay, so my 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 are very good on my 5dmkI's.

But shooting weddings its very handy to have a mid range zoom too.

I have had a 24-105 for ages now and despite being my mainstay wedding lens I have become more critical of the results since using the above primes.

To sum up my feelings about the optical quality of the 24-105 I think that it is a good all round lens that performs extremely well in optimum lighing conditions but falls short when the lighting becomes a little more challenging ie wide dynamic range.

Although I would have liked the 70-200 f2.8 mk II version, I recently bought a 70-200f4 IS L and it blows the 24-105 out of the water.

I have recently heard that a lot of wedding togs in the Canon FF camp are using two bodies, with the 70-200 f2.8 on one and the 16-35 f2.8 on the other.

I have considered trading the 24-105 in for a 24-70 but have heard mixed reviews about the latter and a friend has recently done the same 'upgrade' and isn't sure thatthis was of any benefit.

So I am now considering selling the 24-105 and buying either the 16-35 f2.8 mkII or the 17-40 f4.

So after all that I suppose my question is... if I get one of the wider zooms

1) will I miss the 35/40 to 70 zoom zone and

2) How does the 17-40 and 16-35 compare to the 24-105 optically?
 
Have you throught about renting a lens to test out before taking the plunge?

A prime is very shape if you got the time and space for weddings but for those critial moments a zoom is more beneficial.
 
I find my 24-105L sharp as a razor.

The 24-70 has limited use and is a little short, it's a bit soft wide open and getting a sharp one is a bit hit and miss (I'm on my second). This is the main thing, at 24mm it's a bit crap, at 2.8 it's a bit soft and most of the time you aren't going to be dead straight on with the subject matter when you need it most (in the church).

If low light performance is a concern I would seriously, seriously, consider a 5D mkII upgrade for £1000, at least 2 stops greater iso performance taking your F4 down to an effective F2.

Or keep the 24-105 and use flash. (Not going to help you much in a church though, granted.)

Best solution is the 70-200mm 2.8 IS MkII as it's mind numbingly sharp, fast and as it's just out isn't due for a replacement for about 8 years. That taken into consideration means it will hold it's value extremely well.

and

Buy a 5D MkII from Hdew or similar for £1599 and flog the Mk1 for £600.

Nearly all my stuff is with the 70-200 now, it's so sharp.
 
i swapped my 17-40 for a Tamron 28-75mm to use alongside a 70-200mm F4L, as i found it too wide for me on FF, the Tamron doesn't have the build quality but its constant f2.8 and the IQ is on a par with the Canon if not sligtly better.
 
I have the 24-105! I think you would miss the gap between 35/40m and 70mm! Plus on a full frame body you will get quite a bit of barrel distortion with the 17-40mm on close ups!

I have both the 24-105 and the 17-40 and to be honest I very rarely use the 17-40 at weddings! I have contemplated the "upgrade" to the 24-70, but I think I would miss the length and the IS!!
 
geofftelforduk said:
I have the 24-105! I think you would miss the gap between 35/40m and 70mm! Plus on a full frame body you will get quite a bit of barrel distortion with the 17-40mm on close ups!

I have both the 24-105 and the 17-40 and to be honest I very rarely use the 17-40 at weddings! I have contemplated the "upgrade" to the 24-70, but I think I would miss the length and the IS!!
Click to expand...

Both the 17-40 and 24-105 suffer from barrel distortion at the wide end. But if you have Lightroom v3 it can be corrected very quickly now.
 
jerry12953 said:
Both the 17-40 and 24-105 suffer from barrel distortion at the wide end. But if you have Lightroom v3 it can be corrected very quickly now.
Click to expand...

True, but I think I would prefer to get it right initially than having the extra burden of processing multiple images for barrel distortion!
 
Firstly, you're right about the results of the 85 f/1.8 on full frame. To be honest, I think it is just primes vs zooms in general. I recently upgraded to Lightroom 3 and when I've been playing around with the Lens Correction, toggling it on and off highlights the distortion introduced by the lens quite well. With the 85, nothing discernible happens at all!

In my opinion (none wedding tog albeit) the 17-40 would be of limited use for weddings on full frame, similar story with the 16-35. 17mm on FF is ultra-wide with all the lovely distortion that brings, unless your subject is smack in the middle of the frame expect some seriously distorted faces. I also doubt these distortions will be any better than the 24-105 in the overlapping range (24 to 35 and 24 to 40).

The 24-105 does a damn good job given its range and its range for me is the prime advantage of it over the faster max aperture of the 24-70. However, if lighting (or the lack there-of) is the main challenge to your 24-105 then perhaps the 24-70 would work better for you. You could focus in much lower light with the f/2.8. Yes the IS of the 24-105 helps you get a sharp shot in low light but all bets are off if you can't focus in the first place.

As I said, I'm not a wedding tog. However, if I were then I suspect I would have the 24-70 in my bag (or more likely on my camera).

There are also strongish rumours that the long waited for 24-70 L f/2.8 IS is in testing for imminent release. Although this has been "coming soon" for quite some time.
 
geofftelforduk said:
True, but I think I would prefer to get it right initially than having the extra burden of processing multiple images for barrel distortion!
Click to expand...

Absolutely.....the question is, though, which lens is better in this respect?

In my experience the 17-40 is just a little worse, but not much!

At 24mm and longer the 17-40 is fine, while the 24-105 is good from about 35mm.

The new Lightroom lens distortion correction is a very easy 1 or 2 click process, as the software has lens profiles built in. Having said that, when at the coast I found I had to add a little more correction manually to get the horizon perfectly straight. Not sure if that is my lens or if the profile is slightly out!
 
This thread is predicated on the belief that the 24-105L is not sharp. I would dispute that (and so would others it seems) and get it checked.

Even if there was a problem with the 24-105L, a 17-40 doesn't seem like the answer to me.

I think Chris' suggestion of a body upgrade for better low light performance in post #3 is a better solution.
 
I don't think an f/4 lens is ever the wisest choice for the wedding tog, at least not if you will be shooting with it indoors. Personally I'd go tooled up with....

5D2 + 24-70/2.8L
1D3 + 70-200/2.8L IS
7D +17-55/2.8 IS as backup
16-35/2.8L II, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 100/2.8L IS Macro as alternatives and further backups.

It's not just shutter speeds and ISO you need to consider but also DOF, bokeh and AF performance to think about.
 
jerry12953 said:
Hoppy, you must be an insomniac!
Click to expand...

Haha! Pretty much. And I was at the dentist for 8.45 :eek: When you get to my age Jerry... ;)

tdodd said:
I don't think an f/4 lens is ever the wisest choice for the wedding tog, at least not if you will be shooting with it indoors. Personally I'd go tooled up with....

5D2 + 24-70/2.8L
1D3 + 70-200/2.8L IS
7D +17-55/2.8 IS as backup
16-35/2.8L II, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 100/2.8L IS Macro as alternatives and further backups.

It's not just shutter speeds and ISO you need to consider but also DOF, bokeh and AF performance to think about.
Click to expand...

You forgot the flash gun/s Tim. And the kitchen sync :D

Seriously though, you make a good point. With something like a wedding, low f/number is not always the answer as very shallow DoF can be a liability as often as it's desirable. You need the high ISO option, and the flash too both for fill-in outside and bounce/bounce-fill indoors.

Building on this, and bearing in mind that you can do a (merely) competant 'record of the day' job with pretty much the kit zoom and a flash, it is the professional's ability to differentiate their shots by using their skill with more advanced creative techniques, and investment in specialist equipment, that really sets them apart from weekend warriors.

That looks like a lot of kit, which it is, but the total cost will probably less than the price of the car that got you there, ie cheap, in the overal scheme of things if that's what it takes to keep you ahead.
 
I would have mentioned flash guns, but the topic is about lens choice, and that is influenced by body choice (or perhaps it's the other way round).

I know I've listed a lot of kit, but that's only because that's what I have at my disposal. In truth I would probably be able to do everything I would wish with just the 5D2 + 24-70 and 1D3 and 70-200 (and a pair of 580EXs). Everything else would be "just in case".

I just don't see why someone who is kitting up for weddings, as Alan appears to be, would choose an f/4 lens ahead of an f/2.8 option. On that basis the 24-70 trumps the 24-105 and the 16-35 trumps the 17-40, admittedly with a hefty price premium for the pleasure.

The point about the fast aperture is that it's nice to have. You don't have to use it but sometimes it is pretty bloomin' essential. The only reason I would take a 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 is in case f/2.8 did not cut it. Otherwise than that the L zooms should have more than sufficient IQ for shooting on a pair of 5Ds. It's not like a 5D is going to test the resolution of a good quality lens, zoom or not.

As for DOF, isolating the subject is a powerful creative tool and, quite honestly, f/2.8 gives more than enough DOF for most needs. Looking at the keepers from my most recent wedding, 63% of the images were shot at apertures faster than f/4. Many of the shots at smaller apertures were not stopped down for DOF, but to allow me to use fill flash at max sync speed in bright sunshine.

Also, flash is not always the answer. Sometimes it is not permitted. Sometimes the surroundings do not lend themselves well to bouncing. The wedding tog should be prepared for shooting with available light only, as far as possible. The latest cameras from Canon and Nikon make that an easier proposition. The 5D MK I? It could be a bit of a stretch. I speak as someone who has had to shoot a wedding service at 200mm, 1/60, f/2.8, 3200 ISO, no flash. I wasn't terribly happy at the quality of the results then. With an f/4 lens I would have been struggling more.
 
tdodd said:
I would have mentioned flash guns, but the topic is about lens choice, and that is influenced by body choice (or perhaps it's the other way round).

I know I've listed a lot of kit, but that's only because that's what I have at my disposal. In truth I would probably be able to do everything I would wish with just the 5D2 + 24-70 and 1D3 and 70-200 (and a pair of 580EXs). Everything else would be "just in case".

I just don't see why someone who is kitting up for weddings, as Alan appears to be, would choose an f/4 lens ahead of an f/2.8 option. On that basis the 24-70 trumps the 24-105 and the 16-35 trumps the 17-40, admittedly with a hefty price premium for the pleasure.

The point about the fast aperture is that it's nice to have. You don't have to use it but sometimes it is pretty bloomin' essential. The only reason I would take a 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 is in case f/2.8 did not cut it. Otherwise than that the L zooms should have more than sufficient IQ for shooting on a pair of 5Ds. It's not like a 5D is going to test the resolution of a good quality lens, zoom or not.

As for DOF, isolating the subject is a powerful creative tool and, quite honestly, f/2.8 gives more than enough DOF for most needs. Looking at the keepers from my most recent wedding, 63% of the images were shot at apertures faster than f/4. Many of the shots at smaller apertures were not stopped down for DOF, but to allow me to use fill flash at max sync speed in bright sunshine.

Also, flash is not always the answer. Sometimes it is not permitted. Sometimes the surroundings do not lend themselves well to bouncing. The wedding tog should be prepared for shooting with available light only, as far as possible. The latest cameras from Canon and Nikon make that an easier proposition. The 5D MK I? It could be a bit of a stretch. I speak as someone who has had to shoot a wedding service at 200mm, 1/60, f/2.8, 3200 ISO, no flash. I wasn't terribly happy at the quality of the results then. With an f/4 lens I would have been struggling more.
Click to expand...

All true :thumbs:

And as you say this thread is about lenses, but the point I would make about weddings is that if that was my business, and thank heavens it's not, I would throw everything at it.

All the my knowledge and skill, such as it is, applied to the most advanced equipment - fast lenses, long lenses, short lenses, high ISO cameras, multiple remote flash, post processing and all that has to offer (lots), the works - whatever it takes to make my images different and better than the competition.

I think that just being 'good' and 'competent' isn't enough these days. You've got to be super-special and different.

Edit: I'd try and throw in a few regular shots too ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top