I am upgrading to a 5d for wedding photography and need to replace my 17-85 IS that I used on my 20d/40d. I was wondering if anyone has considered using the 24-105 f4L IS for their "one" wedding lens...over the 24-70 2.8L? The range and IS seem to be very enticing, although I know the 24-70 is a stellar lens.

Does anyone have experience using the 24-105 for this application? Seems like the IS might compensate for the difference in fstop, but reality is often different.

So, if you had to pick between the two, which one would it be?

Thanks!

35L, but if only those two, the 24-70

F4 isn't enough. Often F2.8 isn't enough. Sometimes F1.4 barely cuts it.

The 24-105 is a great travel lens but it's a terrible wedding lens (unless you only do mid-day weddings )

24-70 is a great lens. Sharp colors, great bokeh. But if I had to choose my own on a crop body, I'd go for 17-55 2.8 IS or 24L.

24-70 is the better lens for weddings, but who is so mean that they are forcing you to collect more slow glass by choosing between the 2? People are doing wonderful things with a 50 1.8 these days, but unless your name is Mel you need something faster.

There's no such thing as "one" wedding lens. I'd recommend the 24-70 (on a full frame body) and the 35L for challenging lighting.

I agree with liza, one lens? Yeah right. Depends on style I suppose as I know a few working photogs that make a decent living with a rebel and kit lens - but it's all old school, posed, no PJ, etc, so it can be done, but it's boring to look at the photos IMO.

24-70 is THE lens.
16-35 for wider shots.
70-200 2.8 IS for closer in shots, ceremony, portraiture, candids.
THen add in maybe 15 fishsye, 50 1.2, 85 1.8 or 1.2.

I like fast primes for the shallow DOF they give, but the wide primes don't give you that shallow DOF so I'm not much into them. But then I don't have a really wide one (like a 14). I got a 28 and on a 1.6 crop it's like a 50 on a FF. I may change my mind when I get FF body.

Thanks everyone for your input.
Sorry if I was misleading, I never meant to imply that I was only going to use one lens for a whole wedding. I only wanted to know if you had to choose between those two lenses which ONE would you choose. I already have a 70-200 and a 501.4 so I have those ranges covered, I was just looking to see which would be the better choice of these two.

Sounds like the 24-70 is a clear winner hear for this purpose.
Next time I'll try to put more info up front

Thanks!

24L or 35L you will thank me later.

24L or 35L you will thank me later.

+1, you will thank me too ;-)

Not to beat a dead horse, but we have both and are fast trying to sell the 24-105L. Any takers??

That lens is just soft and that is why we don't want it. It is a good range for outdoor shooting, but not the best quality.

-Zach

You also need redundant cameras and lenses for backup purposes

I have both, and the 24-105 is great for landscapes/travel while the 24-70 gets the call for wedding/concert/events thanks to its 2.8 aperture.

Chris Miller
www.imagineimagery.com

24-70 on Body #1 if 5D, for crop Canon, then 17-55 IS.
70-200 on Body #2

Fast prime or two in bag.

Flash on each body, body #1 using flash frame.

Just thought I would go ahead and ask a question of my own on this thread since there are already a million about lenses, cameras, etc. (hope you don't mind). If I am going to be a "second shooter/assistant" during a wedding what kind of glass should I be looking to get? Right now the fastest lens I have is a 50mm f/1.8 and a Tamron 90mm macro, but I am also considering either a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8+Canon 35mm f/2 or a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 "IS". The difference between f/2 and 2.8 sounds like a lot, so I am wondering if in a wedding the image stabilization would be able to make up for this (say I shoot at 1/30th second for most of the wedding and it is lit by candles and one overhead light--so pretty dark) could I use the Canon 17-55 without having to bump up my ISO to 1600? I find ISO 1600 acceptable in certain situations with my 350D, but in a wedding I would like to keep it 800 and under. Would I be able to do this with the 17-55, or would I need something faster?

Since I am only in High School, and my parents won't let me get a job until next year my budget will be limited until summer (at which time I am also getting a car), so I figure I will have about $1000 to spend on lenses (most likely less, so I am trying to keep what I hope to get under $800). Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Edit: Most churches in my area don't allow flash so that really is not an option, and I prefer to try and shoot with natural light any way with my pop-up for fill when needed, so take that into consideration. Thanks!

f/4 at a wedding you better have godlike capabilities of creating light in reception halls. I would go with the 24-70 out of those 2, but I never really liked that lens either.

If I only had 1 lens for a wedding, it would be the 35L.

to do a wedding, and get a nice variety of shots, you will need at least 3 good "core" lenses...

the zoom route:
wide zoom... 16-35L is best, 17-40L may work if you're really good
medium zoom... 24-70L is best
telephoto zoom... 70-200 f/2.8L IS is best, work your way down from there

the prime route:
something wide... 16 or wider
something less wide... 24 or 35
something medium... the 50
something more... one of the 85's
something telephoto... 135 or 200

other lenses you'll want eventually...
85L
100mm macro

shooting a wedding with only 1 lens really limits you...

in fact, I would much rather take a wide zoom + telephoto zoom alone rather than just one medium zoom

you'll use the wide for getting the scene... the church... the environment
also handy for groups

you'll use the telephoto for getting the couple close up, and the portraits

when I do weddings I almost always use at least 2 bodies at once, one wide and one tele (you can do it with one if you are quick at lens changes!)

F/2.8 is pretty much the minimum... you'll be in a lot of dim churches or banquet halls, and often you won't be allowed to use flash... even then you'll want the wide apertures to help with AF in the dim light...

BTW 70 to 105mm isn't really that much difference...

sboerup wrote:
f/4 at a wedding you better have godlike capabilities of creating light in reception halls. I would go with the 24-70 out of those 2, but I never really liked that lens either.

If I only had 1 lens for a wedding, it would be the 35L.

+1

+1 for 35L.. it's just amazing

Thanks.
Again, I should have put more information. Many of you are assuming Im only using one body and one lens. This isnt the case, and Im not a newbie to weddings. I always use two bodies at once, and almost always have my 70-200 on the second body for reach when I need it. I was just asking about the two lenses, mainly because that's what Im familiar with.

Having said that, I do like the idea of the 24 or 35L , although I may feel a bit uneasy about having a prime with no option to move in closer or out farther. Those of you who shoot with these primes, have you found it to be constricting with no zoom? How do you get around those situations when you cant pull back far enough or zoom in close enough?