ChrisDM wrote:
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).
IS allows you to use slower shutter speeds than you would normally be capable of, but.....Yeah Chris is right but I was thinking mainly of the ceremony when the couple is standing still

marko1953 wrote:
IS allows you to use slower shutter speeds than you would normally be capable of, but.....Yeah Chris is right but I was thinking mainly of the ceremony when the couple is standing still

Even standing still 1/15 or 1/20 is probably the lowest safe minimum .. and to get crisp shots when there is movement like walking a shutter of 1/60 or higher would be best.

But it's kind of a double edged sword with many of the ceremony shots being taken at longer focal lengths which need higher shutter speeds to offset hand shake blurring.

For example I like to shoot from off to the side & behind the altar to get a shot of their faces during the ceremony .. for this I need to be 50 or more feet away and use a focal length of 100-200mm. So my (non IS) shutter speeds need to be 1/100 to 1/200 to offset hand shake (maybe a little lower if I can find a pillar to lean on). For these shots IS is of great help as it can cut my required shutter speeds in half but still allow me a shutter speed high enough to freeze motion.

As always there are trade-offs .. but there is a market for a $3,000 F2.0 24-100mm IS zoom if someone cared to make one. I reckon every wedding shooter on the planet may want one.

IS will allow you to alter aperture or shutter speed (increase if necessary, thereby stopping action), depending on what you need.

Steve

IS will allow you to alter aperture or shutter speed (increase if necessary, thereby stopping action), depending on what you need.

What

bjornssh wrote:
IS will allow you to alter aperture or shutter speed (increase if necessary, thereby stopping action), depending on what you need.

Steve

This is incorrect. IS does not affect aperture or shutter speed any way, even indirectly, and has no effect or ability to stop action whatsoever.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

An f4 lens is great for weddings.There, I said it.

When the light gets low even 2.8 is too slow for me. I carry the 24-105 and 70-200f4 IS and my partner the 24-70 and 70-20 f2.8. In dim churches I need my 50 1.4 or 85 1.2 anyway. I'd much have the reach of the 105. I find that for more useful.

Anyway we have more light in Oz.

Gordon

I'm not a wedding pro, but speaking as a prior owner of the 24-105 f/4 L I was pretty disappointed. Maybe it was just my copy, but the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and even the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 spanked it in terms of image quality. And the 70-200 f/2.8 and especially the 70-200 f/4 are also in a whole class of their own above the 24-105 in terms of image quality.

Maybe I had a bad example, but when I was shooting portraits I never ever reached for the 24-105.

Not a bad carry around do-everything-with type of lens, but jack of all trades are typically masters of none.

-Carraig

carraig wrote:
I'm not a wedding pro, but speaking as a prior owner of the 24-105 f/4 L I was pretty disappointed. Maybe it was just my copy, but the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and even the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 spanked it in terms of image quality. And the 70-200 f/2.8 and especially the 70-200 f/4 are also in a whole class of their own above the 24-105 in terms of image quality.

Maybe I had a bad example, but when I was shooting portraits I never ever reached for the 24-105.

Not a bad carry around do-everything-with type of lens, but jack of all trades are typically masters of none.

-Carraig

This is very disappointing! Has anyone else had this kind of experience with the 24-105 ? I also have the Tamron 28-75 and the canon 70-200 2.8, I don't wamt to take a backward step in getting the 24-105 if this is what it would be.

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,

Oh I'm sorry - you are quite right, there is no need for a lens faster than f4 ever!

What was I thinking......

marko1953 wrote:
carraig wrote:
I'm not a wedding pro, but speaking as a prior owner of the 24-105 f/4 L I was pretty disappointed. Maybe it was just my copy, but the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 and even the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 spanked it in terms of image quality. And the 70-200 f/2.8 and especially the 70-200 f/4 are also in a whole class of their own above the 24-105 in terms of image quality.

Maybe I had a bad example, but when I was shooting portraits I never ever reached for the 24-105.

Not a bad carry around do-everything-with type of lens, but jack of all trades are typically masters of none.

-Carraig

This is very disappointing! Has anyone else had this kind of experience with the 24-105 ? I also have the Tamron 28-75 and the canon 70-200 2.8, I don't wamt to take a backward step in getting the 24-105 if this is what it would be.

As per my previous post the 24-105 is 'fine', whereas the 24-70 is lovely - as a result mine will be sold in due course.

One of the reasons my 24-105 is my primary landscape lens is that it is quite remarkable stopped down. I can't tell the difference between it and my 24-70 or my Zeiss 35-70 when shot at ideal apertures. But if I'm shooting wide open, that means I need speed or blurred background. Which also means I would never choose a slow zoom for that job. So once again, common sense here: Slower lens with IS stopped down for landscapes, faster lens at wider apertures for moving subjects. That's photography 101 isn't it?

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

marko1953 wrote:
Has anyone else had this kind of experience with the 24-105 ? I also have the Tamron 28-75 and the canon 70-200 2.8, I don't wamt to take a backward step in getting the 24-105 if this is what it would be.

There are a handful of independent online tests of the 24-105 such as seen on PhotoZone, The Digital Picture, Castleman, Bob Atkins, etc. which offer non-subjective testing on lens performance aspects such as sharpness, contrast, distortions, etc. These are VERY much better sources of information than the seat-of-the-pants comments sometimes found on forums.

So I suggest you visit PhotoZone, etc. and read their reviews on any lens you are considering. BTW they all rate the 24-105 very highly, and it actually out-performs the 24-70 in the sharpness category. By all credible accounts it is one of the best zoom lenses Canon makes.

In terms of IQ the 24-105 and the 24-70 are pretty much equal .. your decision between the two will be based on maximum aperture, IS, weight, price, and in this case sample variance .. the 24-70 is notorious for bad copies.

And if you're considering low-light abilities or selective DOF then aperture becomes very important, and 2.8 usually is not fast enough. For that kind of work I depend on my 1.2 primes.

I love my 24-105... maybe I have a good copy, whatever. It's a little slow for dark weddings, but definitely worth bringing, IMO. It works well if there's enough light, and it works well with flash.... so unless you want/need to *really* isolate the subject (that isn't easy to do even at f2.8 on a crop camera) then it works well. We put it on my wife's camera for candids. I find the IQ better than the much respected 17-55 most of the time… you lose a stop and can’t get as wide, but many things are a compromise at best, anyway. YMMV.

I owned and sold the 24-70/2.8L

I now use the 24-105/4L IS for weddings instead mounted on my Canon 5Ds; the 105mm allows me to stand further away and not be as obtrusive during those intimate moments; the IS allows for up to 3 stops more handholding ability of the camera during those slow and intimate moments

unlike race car driving or sports, the action at weddings is relatively slow and 1/60 seconds is plenty fast enough to freeze all but some fast action dancing in dim light

for those instances where light level is very low and the action may be fast (such as the fast dancing in dim light mentioned above)
f4 (and even f2.8) is really too slow even at very high iso (3200 iso still a very useable ISO with the 5D)

my personal preference is to partner the 24-105L IS with one or two fast primes to be used under those special circumstances

I have no trouble handholding the 24-105 during ceremony available light flash or in dark dressing rooms and can say I couldn't have done any better with the 24-70/2.8

I have both but the 24-105 is the only one that goes to weddings and events. Been that way since I got one of the first copies of this lens.

Just for S&G I took the 5D/24-70 combo to an evening birthday party last month just to see if I've been 'wrong' about my choice for the last couple of years.

In (M)anual I metered the lighting at 1/60, f/2.8, ISO 1600. I felt stuck. Stuck at ISO 1600.

With the 24-105 I could have shot at either 1/30, f/4, ISO1600 OR 1/15, f/4, ISO 800... even down to ISO 400 for all the static details...and turned out better IQ overall. JMO, and I'm *never* bringing the 24-70 again. I'd rather have the options that the 24-105 afford me.

THat is the GREATEST lens ever made - plain and simple. The only fools who ignore the potential of IS are the drunk and the addicted.

It's my favorite lens for group portraits, and it's excellent for outdoor ceremonies. I tend not to use it otherwise.

I used to own it with my 5D. loved to use it for reception. great range. sold it, then sold the 24-70L, then sold the 16-35L, now I mainly use the M8 + 28 and 50.

I just tried one out today lonaed out from my local brick and mortar(go local go!!). In comparision to my 24-70 and 17-40/70-200 mostly at f4 and the lengths of 24mm and 70mm.

I thought it was going to be the holy grail of light weight and stunning optics. it seems to be more ok weight and goodish optics. I was actually surprised that a five year old semi mashed up 24-70 at f4 was a we bit better in the middle and a moderate better at the edges on a 1dm2 than it. I kind of thought it would be moderately than the heavy fatboy. Oh well what I have is fine I was thinking of getting one for travel and it's still great but not as oolala as I thought it might be. I wonder how the micro focus might play a part in this stuff as the next camera purchase rolls closer. Maybe the next body has it as a kit at a deal. Eventually we will end up with one of everything....

ps IS can be handy inside but as always it's limited by subject movement, still if it's a 'free' add on I'll take it.

deewaltguy wrote:
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.

Well, if I could only have one lens for a wedding, on a 5d, it would be this or the 35/1.4


Be encouraged, its a great lens and produces what the person who can use it well asks of it.

Just because it is a f/4 lens does not mean it can not create a great bokeh in the background.


Flower girl at a reception..I shot it a little too tight yes i know..give the new guy a break

I use it as my main lens..I do not have a 24-70 yet so I cant compare, but it does the job for me.

I did a comparison of the bokeh between the 24-105 and the 24-70, and found the 24-70 to be a bit smoother. Of course you can create bokeh with literally any lens, but in this case the 24-70 wins:

ChrisDM wrote:
I did a comparison of the bokeh between the 24-105 and the 24-70,

Thanks for those Chris .. were the settings the same for both?

Mike Mahoney wrote:
ChrisDM wrote:
I did a comparison of the bokeh between the 24-105 and the 24-70,

Thanks for those Chris .. were the settings the same for both?

You're welcome Mike, they were both shot wide open. I wanted to know what each could do at its best.

Chris,

I agree that the 24-70 bokeh is a little better and smoother at the same focal length comparing f/2.8 vs f/4.

However, the point that many miss when making the bokeh comparison is that when framing the subject (like for a head shot) at 70/2.8 vs. 100/4, there is very little difference. Just look at Nathan Hobbs' shot above.