canon 24-70 f/2.8 vs 24-105 F/4 IS

Trying to decide which one of these to buy for wedding photography.

I am not to concerned about the 1 stop drop in light of the f/4 lens, but am
more interested in the extra Zoom upto 105mm.

The real question is, for weddings, particularly in the church when things
are relatively slow moving, can i rely on the 2 - 3 stops that the IS will
give me to make up for the 1 stop above.

If yes, then I guess the only downside is that the f/2.8 will give a
brighter view in the viewfinder and enable easier focus lock, but the USM on
both should help things.

Any views welcome.

I am using this on a 1.6 crop factor canon, so understand the Zooms will be
more.

Cheers in advance.

Alex C

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Trying to decide which one of these to buy for wedding photography.

I am not to concerned about the 1 stop drop in light of the f/4 lens, but
am
more interested in the extra Zoom upto 105mm.

The real question is, for weddings, particularly in the church when things
are relatively slow moving, can i rely on the 2 - 3 stops that the IS will
give me to make up for the 1 stop above.

If yes, then I guess the only downside is that the f/2.8 will give a
brighter view in the viewfinder and enable easier focus lock, but the USM
on
both should help things.

Any views welcome.

I use both on a Canon 30D. The extra stop on the 24-70 is mostly useful to
limit the depth of field. The 24-105 sometimes gives me more DOF than I
want. Also the extra stop allows you to use a higher shutter speed and
hence stop the action - not that this applies to most weddings. I'm not sure
if there's any difference in image quality, but if I had to choose which to
keep it would probably be the 24-105 because of it's increased range of
focal length.

John

"Eatmorepies" wrote in message
...

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Trying to decide which one of these to buy for wedding photography.

I am not to concerned about the 1 stop drop in light of the f/4 lens,
but
am
more interested in the extra Zoom upto 105mm.

The real question is, for weddings, particularly in the church when
things
are relatively slow moving, can i rely on the 2 - 3 stops that the IS
will
give me to make up for the 1 stop above.

If yes, then I guess the only downside is that the f/2.8 will give a
brighter view in the viewfinder and enable easier focus lock, but the
USM
on
both should help things.

Any views welcome.

I use both on a Canon 30D. The extra stop on the 24-70 is mostly useful to
limit the depth of field. The 24-105 sometimes gives me more DOF than I
want. Also the extra stop allows you to use a higher shutter speed and
hence stop the action - not that this applies to most weddings. I'm not
sure
if there's any difference in image quality, but if I had to choose which
to
keep it would probably be the 24-105 because of it's increased range of
focal length.

John



Thank John,

Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I had an
exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent of 1/250th @
f/4 exposure?

That alone would suffice, acknowleging your point on DOF.

Cheers

Alex

Alex wrote:
"Eatmorepies" wrote in message
...

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Trying to decide which one of these to buy for wedding photography.

I am not to concerned about the 1 stop drop in light of the f/4
lens, but am
more interested in the extra Zoom upto 105mm.

The real question is, for weddings, particularly in the church when
things are relatively slow moving, can i rely on the 2 - 3 stops
that the IS will give me to make up for the 1 stop above.

If yes, then I guess the only downside is that the f/2.8 will give a
brighter view in the viewfinder and enable easier focus lock, but
the USM on
both should help things.

Any views welcome.

I use both on a Canon 30D. The extra stop on the 24-70 is mostly
useful to limit the depth of field. The 24-105 sometimes gives me
more DOF than I want. Also the extra stop allows you to use a
higher shutter speed and hence stop the action - not that this
applies to most weddings. I'm not sure if there's any difference in
image quality, but if I had to choose which to keep it would
probably be the 24-105 because of it's increased range of focal
length.

Many churches are VERY poorly lit, which makes non-flash photography
dificult. For me, the range of the 24-70 is only useful *enough* on a
cropped sensor. On my full-frame, I prefer the 24-105. If I'm shooting
with my 10D (something which is basically never, now...), I'd be happy to
use the 24-70 for candids...though I would still see no reason not to use
the 24-105.

Most of the time I prefer more DOF than 2.8 allows anyway, so I'd usually
stop down past that. If that is the case, then I may as well use the IS
version.

Thank John,

Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I
had an exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent
of 1/250th @ f/4 exposure?


Regarding resistance to CAMERA motion blur...yes. That's a legitimate
claim. Just remember the obvious (but often forgotten) fact that subject
motion is still sensitive to low shutter speeds.

Mark²
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:44:55 -0000, "Alex"
wrote:


"Eatmorepies" wrote in message
...

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Trying to decide which one of these to buy for wedding photography.

I am not to concerned about the 1 stop drop in light of the f/4 lens,
but
am
more interested in the extra Zoom upto 105mm.

The real question is, for weddings, particularly in the church when
things
are relatively slow moving, can i rely on the 2 - 3 stops that the IS
will
give me to make up for the 1 stop above.

If yes, then I guess the only downside is that the f/2.8 will give a
brighter view in the viewfinder and enable easier focus lock, but the
USM
on
both should help things.

Any views welcome.

I use both on a Canon 30D. The extra stop on the 24-70 is mostly useful to
limit the depth of field. The 24-105 sometimes gives me more DOF than I
want. Also the extra stop allows you to use a higher shutter speed and
hence stop the action - not that this applies to most weddings. I'm not
sure
if there's any difference in image quality, but if I had to choose which
to
keep it would probably be the 24-105 because of it's increased range of
focal length.

John



Thank John,

Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I had an
exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent of 1/250th @
f/4 exposure?

From the viewpoint of correcting camera motion yes, it pretty much
works that way. But remember that that doesn't correct _subject_
motion.

Here's one of the first shots I took with my 30D, the same day I got
it--that's with the 17-85IS. Note that that is hand-held at 1/4
second and 17mm.

It's not sharp to the resolution limits of the lens and camera but it
looks fine printed 8x10. Note though the blurring of the debarking
passengers.

The other shot in the set is at 1/10 also handheld.

That alone would suffice, acknowleging your point on DOF.

Cheers

Alex

J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:44:55 -0000, "Alex"
wrote:


"Eatmorepies" wrote in message
...

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Trying to decide which one of these to buy for wedding photography.

I am not to concerned about the 1 stop drop in light of the f/4
lens, but am
more interested in the extra Zoom upto 105mm.

The real question is, for weddings, particularly in the church
when things are relatively slow moving, can i rely on the 2 - 3
stops that the IS will give me to make up for the 1 stop above.

If yes, then I guess the only downside is that the f/2.8 will give
a brighter view in the viewfinder and enable easier focus lock,
but the USM on
both should help things.

Any views welcome.

I use both on a Canon 30D. The extra stop on the 24-70 is mostly
useful to limit the depth of field. The 24-105 sometimes gives me
more DOF than I want. Also the extra stop allows you to use a
higher shutter speed and hence stop the action - not that this
applies to most weddings. I'm not sure if there's any difference in
image quality, but if I had to choose which to keep it would
probably be the 24-105 because of it's increased range of focal
length.

John



Thank John,

Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I
had an exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent
of 1/250th @ f/4 exposure?

From the viewpoint of correcting camera motion yes, it pretty much
works that way. But remember that that doesn't correct _subject_
motion.

Here's one of the first shots I took with my 30D, the same day I got
it--that's with the 17-85IS. Note that that is hand-held at 1/4
second and 17mm.

Did you forget something, Alex?


(How about a link?)
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 20:44:55 -0000, "Alex"
wrote:


"Eatmorepies" wrote in message
...

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Trying to decide which one of these to buy for wedding photography.

I am not to concerned about the 1 stop drop in light of the f/4
lens, but am
more interested in the extra Zoom upto 105mm.

The real question is, for weddings, particularly in the church
when things are relatively slow moving, can i rely on the 2 - 3
stops that the IS will give me to make up for the 1 stop above.

If yes, then I guess the only downside is that the f/2.8 will give
a brighter view in the viewfinder and enable easier focus lock,
but the USM on
both should help things.

Any views welcome.

I use both on a Canon 30D. The extra stop on the 24-70 is mostly
useful to limit the depth of field. The 24-105 sometimes gives me
more DOF than I want. Also the extra stop allows you to use a
higher shutter speed and hence stop the action - not that this
applies to most weddings. I'm not sure if there's any difference in
image quality, but if I had to choose which to keep it would
probably be the 24-105 because of it's increased range of focal
length.

John



Thank John,

Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I
had an exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent
of 1/250th @ f/4 exposure?

From the viewpoint of correcting camera motion yes, it pretty much
works that way. But remember that that doesn't correct _subject_
motion.

Here's one of the first shots I took with my 30D, the same day I got
it--that's with the 17-85IS. Note that that is hand-held at 1/4
second and 17mm.

Did you forget something, Alex?


(How about a link?)
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson



I was just going to ask the same, but it's not me that made the last post
....

Alex.

Alex wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I
had an exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent
of 1/250th @ f/4 exposure?

From the viewpoint of correcting camera motion yes, it pretty much
works that way. But remember that that doesn't correct _subject_
motion.

Here's one of the first shots I took with my 30D, the same day I got
it--that's with the 17-85IS. Note that that is hand-held at 1/4
second and 17mm.

Did you forget something, Alex?


(How about a link?)
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson



I was just going to ask the same, but it's not me that made the last
post ...

Alex.

Oops. Make that Mr. Clarke.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Trying to decide which one of these to buy for wedding photography.

I am not to concerned about the 1 stop drop in light of the f/4 lens, but
am
more interested in the extra Zoom upto 105mm.

The real question is, for weddings, particularly in the church when things
are relatively slow moving, can i rely on the 2 - 3 stops that the IS will
give me to make up for the 1 stop above.

If yes, then I guess the only downside is that the f/2.8 will give a
brighter view in the viewfinder and enable easier focus lock, but the USM
on
both should help things.

Any views welcome.

I am using this on a 1.6 crop factor canon, so understand the Zooms will
be
more.

Cheers in advance.

Alex C


My wife uses both, I only use the 24-70 for weddings (and sometimes the
70-200 f2.8L). She uses the 24-105 as her main daylight lens, but the
24-70L picks up focus better in low light situations because of the extra
stop, and, I believe, the center focus point of the 30D is more sensitive at
f2.8. For what it's worth, we use them on 5Ds, but we used to use the
24-70s on 20Ds.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

"Alex" wrote in message
...

"Eatmorepies" wrote in message
...

"Alex" wrote in message
...
Trying to decide which one of these to buy for wedding photography.

I am not to concerned about the 1 stop drop in light of the f/4 lens,
but
am
more interested in the extra Zoom upto 105mm.

The real question is, for weddings, particularly in the church when
things
are relatively slow moving, can i rely on the 2 - 3 stops that the IS
will
give me to make up for the 1 stop above.

If yes, then I guess the only downside is that the f/2.8 will give a
brighter view in the viewfinder and enable easier focus lock, but the
USM
on
both should help things.

Any views welcome.

I use both on a Canon 30D. The extra stop on the 24-70 is mostly useful
to
limit the depth of field. The 24-105 sometimes gives me more DOF than I
want. Also the extra stop allows you to use a higher shutter speed and
hence stop the action - not that this applies to most weddings. I'm not
sure
if there's any difference in image quality, but if I had to choose which
to
keep it would probably be the 24-105 because of it's increased range of
focal length.

John



Thank John,

Does the IS really give you 3 stops as the marketing says. So if I had an
exposure of 1/30th @ f/4, I would essentially get equivalent of 1/250th @
f/4 exposure?

That alone would suffice, acknowleging your point on DOF.

Cheers

Alex


Actually, I think the IS advantage for that lens is stated at 4 stops, which
seems to run pretty true. As long as your subjects have the courtesy to
remain still, or at least to move sloooowwwllllyyy. ;-) Of course, if you
are using flash, it's all academic.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm