Is anyone using this lens for weddings? I know it is only f/4 but most of my weddings are outdoors. The extra range (24-105) seems to be ideal for weddings. I already have a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.

Sorry forgot to say I mostly use a 5D.

Own it, never use it. The 'only f4' is the real killer for me - I rarely want to go below f2.8 for 95% of my pics (the dreaded formals being the exception).

Also, I find the results ok, but unremarkable.

I had it but sold it to go with the Canon 24-70 F2.8L and Im not looking back! I am EXTREMELY Happy with the switch!

Depends on your style of shooting perhaps. I use it with my Mark 3 and Quantum flash set up and love it! and most of the times I use smaller apertures between 8-16 for crisp looking pictures (tourist weddings here in Hawaii) that show thebackground nicely. And when I shoot formals, I'll throw on my 70-200 f/4 and use 5.6 @ 200 for compression for the portraits. If I want to isolate subject matter with bokah then i'll use a 50 f1.4. So it depends what f stop you prefer to shoot with. It all goes into your style, your preference, what the customer wants/expects and such. I dont do my tourist style when they hire me to do something more artistic and vise versa.
In my style and opinion, I LOVE this lens, and prefer it to the heavier 2.8 cousin. Though I "prefer" primes when shooting scenic (my main addiction). But the 24-105 comes in great when I want to travel with the least amount of equipment as possible.

I'm a newbie - one wedding under my belt, and it was an outdoor wedding. I used my 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for the added reach and my copy is a very sharp lens - loved the results. I've since purchased the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM and I'm planning to keep both for the time being. This subject has been beaten to death in this forum previously - might check the archives for additional comments (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board2/48/0).

Mike

I do not use it; prefering to use either a 24 1.4 or 24-70, however, I have seen very nice images posted from ChrisDM and Mike C. Looks like it can perform well in the right hands...

Tom

Don't use it!!! It's not f2.8 or better!!! (what a joke)

It's a Great Lens and is perfect for weddings!

Don't let others dicurrage you!

G,

Gogos wrote:
Don't use it!!! It's not f2.8 or better!!! (what a joke)

It's a Great Lens and is perfect for weddings!

Don't let others dicurrage you!

G,


Yes, don't let others dicurrage you.


Really though. It depends on your style that you want to develop. I had it and thought it was an excellent lens. I am not that great with strobe/flash so I decided that fast glass is better for me.

Matt

I use the 24-105 on one body, sure that extra stop would be nice but the reach is fantastic! I love it, the IS is great!

Most of the time I'm dragging the shutter and for the most part don't get too much trouble with bouncing flash in the church. If you find yourself in a lot of dark churches with snotty ministers I would say rather spring for the 24-70's extra stop... otherwise get the 24-105

Greg

the 24-105 is a beautiful lens however weddings necessitate the fastest and most advantageous glass that is available due to unprecedented lighting conditions and situations therefore the 2.8 is a must have....and definately gets my vote.
The extra f stop could be the deciding factor between HOT or NOT!!!

The 24-105 is probably most useful because of its IS. Say, taking evening portrait shots of people, you can drag the shutter while using flash, thus let the ambient light in as well as lighting up your subject (1/15 sec)... that's my thoughts anyway.

I use the 24-105/4L IS and like it mostly for the IS and its wide focal length range; for most storytelling images, it is perfect with the 5D; in very, very low light or in low light with fast action (fast dancing) or if I want less depth of field, I switch to a fast prime lens (max apoerture 1.2 or 1.8); I also have the Tamron 28-75/2.8 but, in low light, it is slow to focus

At 24mm, however, there is noticeable vignetting and wide angle distortion at the edges with the 24-105/4L IS; more than the 24-70/2.8L; so I avoid that focal length or avoid putting faces at the edges when using it

otherwise, a fantastic overall lens for weddings or travel with the 5D; some top wedding pros such as Jerry Ghionis use this lens with fabulous results; I would wholeheartedly recommend it

Good luck with your decision!

Gogos wrote:
Don't use it!!! It's not f2.8 or better!!! (what a joke)

It's a Great Lens and is perfect for weddings!

Don't let others dicurrage you!

G,


At the risk of diccuraging you, I have never heard anyone say that an f4 lens is great for weddings. I certainly don't think so. Is it OK for weddings? Maybe if all you shoot is outdoor weddings. I have the 24-105 and like it immensely. I also own the 24-70. The 70 does weddings with me and the the 105 comes on vacation with me.
In a dark church, that extra stop may be the deal breaker. I'd hate to screw up a wedding over a lens choice. It's not even a function of money as the two lenses cost around the same. If you're a Canon FF wedding shooter, you need the 24-70.
You may also add the 105 for other functions, but the addition of the 24-70 is (IMHO) the first lens that should be added to a bag.

F4 is not a deal breaker, particularly if you're skilled using flash. Even with fast lenses I've often shot at F4 or smaller to ensure enough DOF on many shots.

And in REALLY low light (or when you need very selective DOF) 2.8 is not enough, you need 2.0 or faster.

For prep shots I'm mostly at F4 or smaller and bouncing flash, ditto the reception and formals. For the ceremony I'm at 2.0 from a distance with a 100 or 135 and no flash .. 70mm is usually not long enough. The couples shots with selective DOF is with the 100 2.0, or 85 1.8.

I love this lens, but I don't bring it to weddings because I shoot mostly photojournalistic style, which means of course that my subjects are moving which means of course that faster apertures are a priority to me. The convenience of zooms for wedding work is also a priority to me, which is why the perfect wedding lens for me is my 24-70L (on my 1 series) and the 17-55IS on my 40D. The 24-70's smoother bokeh is also a huge plus for wedding work over the 25-105... But I also own the 24-105L, and it is a fantastic travel/landscape lens, where lighter weight and greater depth of field are more important than speed and bokeh. It's simply a matter of matching the right tool to the job.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

Thanks for all your replies. I was just wondering though, with IS you gain 2 or 3 stops (using lower shutter speeds I mean), and with the 5D you can shoot at ISO800 or above with little noise so why are some saying the extra stop of the 24-70 is so important? (BTW in Australia here the 24-70 is about 1/3 more than the 24-105).

I'm a big fan of F4 zooms mixed with faster primes. The 17-40 and 70-200 4 IS are big on my like list. I've never read a deal-breaker review of the 24-105, many people like it a lot.

I already know before the wedding which lens I am going to use in church having been to the rehearsal, and if I cannot get the reach with the 24-70mm 2.8 I would happily use the 24-105mm f4IS, or if the 105 was short for a full frame shot, then the 70-200mm2.8IS. I would have already been told where I can go, so pick the lens to fill the frame, thats why I prefer zooms in church, as you would have to move with your feet to do the same on a 50/85/100/135/200L lens

Mike

marko1953 wrote:
Thanks for all your replies. I was just wondering though, with IS you gain 2 or 3 stops (using lower shutter speeds I mean), and with the 5D you can shoot at ISO800 or above with little noise so why are some saying the extra stop of the 24-70 is so important? (BTW in Australia here the 24-70 is about 1/3 more than the 24-105).

A stop is a stop is a stop, nothing more nothing less. But in those twilight hours a stop can be the difference between getting the shot or not. So for me, I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it! But like I said earlier, it really depends on what you shoot. If you shoot moving subjects then the faster aperture is the no-brainer. But if you predominantly pose your subjects then go for the greater zoom range, lighter, and slower lens.

AF on the 2.8 can be better and the viewfinder with 2.8 is slightly brighter as well.

Please correct my reasoning if it is wrong, but given the 2-3 stops provided by IS on the 24-105 lens, except for DOF, the 24-105 should have a low-light advantage over the 24-70.

Steve

bjornssh wrote:
Please correct my reasoning if it is wrong, but given the 2-3 stops provided by IS on the 24-105 lens, except for DOF, the 24-105 should have a low-light advantage over the 24-70.

Steve


Exactly my point, especially if you can bump up the ISO with confidence.
What is the great advantage of the 24-70?

bjornssh wrote:
Please correct my reasoning if it is wrong, but given the 2-3 stops provided by IS on the 24-105 lens, except for DOF, the 24-105 should have a low-light advantage over the 24-70.

Steve


The flaw in your logic is that IS does not increase shutter speeds. Faster apertures increase shutter speeds. So while IS is great for stationary subjects, like landscapes, fast glass gets the call when there is motion (like weddings).

marko1953 wrote:
Exactly my point, especially if you can bump up the ISO with confidence.
What is the great advantage of the 24-70?

An extra stop, higher shutter speeds, better bokeh. Ever tried to shoot a wedding in a church where flash is not allowed with the 105? As mentioned earlier, if your subjects are stationary (still), then the 105 will suffice, but if there's movement, the 105 (with it's IS) is useless.

BTW, I have owned and sold both the 24-105 and 24-70. Now my slowest lens is the 135L.