Canon 24-70 f/2.8 vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS for wedding photography in a 5D mark ii Guys, I'm thinking about buying a 5D mark ii for wedding photography. According to your experience which lens will do better with the 5d mkii for this matters? 24-70 given its wider aperture or 24-105 given its longer focal distance and IS? I haven't tried the ISO capabilities of the 5DmkII but I wonder if I will really miss f/2.8 to f/4 having the ability of rising the ISO. Most of the ceremony is at slow pace,so IS will be of use also. What are your thoughts? tnx in advance Canon 24-70 f/2.8 vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS for wedding photography in a 5D mark ii Guys, I'm thinking about buying a 5D mark ii for wedding photography. According to your experience which lens... » Read More Canon 24-70 f/2.8 vs Canon 24-105 f/4 IS for wedding photography in a 5D mark ii Guys, I'm thinking about buying a 5D mark ii for wedding photography. According to your experience which lens will do better with the 5d mkii for this matters? 24-70 given its wider aperture or 24-105 given its longer focal distance and IS? I haven't tried the ISO capabilities of the 5DmkII but I wonder if I will really miss f/2.8 to f/4 having the ability of rising the ISO. Most of the ceremony is at slow pace,so IS will be of use also. What are your thoughts? tnx in advance « Show Less
1787338
Any thoughts for general / home photography? I have a Digital Rebel XSI and recently bought the 70-200 mm F2.8 IS version mainly to photograph school events without the annoying flash, and take closeups of my rapidly-growing kids. I have been going back and forth between the two lenses (24-70 F2.8 vs. 24-105 F4.0 IS) but my instinct is that F2.8 is much better than F 4 even with IS. Any guidance appreciated from a professional.
1787339
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full... » Read More Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. « Show Less
1787340
The 24-70 2.8 is a magnificent lense. I would not even think of buying the 24-105.
360247
For a first try at a wedding? Possibly. I, myself, would prefer to use a large aperture zoom (like a 17-55mm f2.8 or 24-70mm f2.8) for the ceremony and many other activities of the wedding and reception. This is due to not having to move as much compared to a fixed lens like the 50mm. For portraits and the like the 50mm f1.4 is absolutely brilliant.
220612
Yes I would take the 24-70 2.8 because of the speed. This lens is my go to lens, it is a work horses. I back it up with my 70-200 2.8.
518359
Question doesn't say anything about usage of lens. 135 has the fastest focusing probably from all Canon EF lenses, it's sharp and produce shallow DOF. But it's fixed. The other two 24-70 and 24-104 are zooms = more versatile lenses. 24-70 is f2.8 what's advantage for focusing in a dark and produce shallower DOF than 24-105. 24-105 has extended range and IS. So if you need universal lens and you shoot a lot in dark conditions - 24-70 f2.8 If you travel a lot or you need longer end than 70mm and focusing speed isn't critical to you - 24-105 f4 If you need longer lens with fast focusing for concerts, headshoots, or you live in darker world - 135 f2 If your concern is technical quality you can't miss with any of them. Marian
678610
I had the f4 version, and sold it to a friend to buy the F2.8II. Frankly, the increase in IQ is there but very slight. I would have no qualms about going back to the F4 version, it's a stunning lens. So unless you have a specific need for F2.8 (weddings for example as others mention), the added weight of the 2.8 to me is hard to justify. These are both exceptional lenses, the difference is like comparing a Bentley and a Rolls-Royce.
8517
I own and use both the 7D and 1D Mark IV in addition to the 5D II. Clearly the Mark IV is superiorin low light to the 7D. If you don't mind the extra weight and expense of the Mark IV, you shouldbuy the Mark IV. My only reservation is that I cannot use my circular fisheye lens to full effect withthe Mark IV because it is not full frame.
608744
I think the 17-50 is 2.8 fixed with 17-70 its 2.8-4 depending on distance. I shoot weddings primarily and love the 17-70 because I get great macro shots of the ring, closeups of bouquets etc, but at the same time I can get great group shots and being between 2.8-4 I just raise ISO when Im closer to 4. But if you prefer consistent aperture and don't care for macro the 17-50 is great too.
358175
Generally, it is a personal style/preference depending on the desired effect. If you're looking to up your game with the subject matter you've mentioned, I wouldn't buy a 24. If you're shooting with an aps sized sensor you're gonna have a multiplier effect on your lens making you 50 even better a lens. I would, in your situation, investigate a fast (2.8) zoom lens in the "standard" range (28-80). I love canon's 17-55 2.8is. This awesome if you have an aps size sensor. Good luck!
13732
I LOVE the 135. I replaced my 70-200 and upgraded (in my opinion) to the 135. I use it as my only long lens for weddings. For reg. portraits I use the 85 1.8 and it is phenomenal.
523652
The 24-105 f/4L IS USM lens works great with the 7d, it's the lens I'm currently using as a 'walk around' lens on my own 7d. We also use that lens on my wife's 40D. Sometimes we argue over who gets to use that lens. Good choice!
759249
My brother has loan his 50 1.4 to me. I like. I may get the 24-70 2.8 - we get so many positives about it. Use the 24-70 indoors and the 4f lens where there is good light??Thanks for your suggestions.
1351158
I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own. I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a... » Read More I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera.If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own. « Show Less
2023167
We purchased the 5D Mk2 and the new 100L IS Macro 2.8. - the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro Lens creates a very high quality foreground/background blur: bokeh is excellent OOF (Out of Focus) highlights are rendered very smoothly. 100mm on a full frame body is a great lens. It is on our 5D most of the time. We use the 24-105 as a travel lens and have tested it against the 24-70 - the IS, size and reach of the 24-105 outway the 2.8 on the 24-70?? Thanks for your response.
759243
Get the 24-70 for indoor/low light use over the 24-105. IS ONLY helps with camera shake NOT moving subjects. For moving subjects, the extra stop from the 2.8 trumps 4.0 + IS every time, all the time. So with reference to what DavInAZ wrote above, the IS does not make the 24-105 better in low light than the faster 2.8. An extra stop will always be an extra stop. An easy way to think about it is, if you are moving go with the IS, if the subject is moving go with the faster lens. Obviously, if you can have both (as with the 70-200 f2.8L IS), then you are golden.
987142
I owned the 50D and now own a 7D. I have had my 17-55 f/1.8 IS for over 2 years. I bought the 24-105 a year ago to replace my 17-55 hahaha yea let me say right now I am not selling my 17-55 and when shooting indoors the 17-55 f/2.8 is will be my first choice over the 24-105 f/4 IS. Indoors f/4 is slow period. I ended up buying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to shoot indoors for low light and I LOVE it. Anyways on a crop body I would pick the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS for indoors unless its a really well lit room or I am using my 580 EXII. I am leaning to primes anymore and would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 for you. Another option is Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 85 f/1.8 and you spend less then either of those lenses heck you can throw in a 50 f/1.8 and have 3 lenses for the price of 1 if you don't mind switching lenses. Nick
933396
The main difference on the 24-70 2.8 will be the 24mm setting compared to the 35mm setting on the old lens. You can take a much wider shot with the new lens. In addition, the 24-70 is a "G" type lens which means there is no aperture ring on the lens. Aperture must be controlled through a compatible camera. The 24-70 2.8 is more expensive. The macro focusing gets a little closer on the 35-70 (.91ft) as opposed to 1.2 ft with the 24-70.
1784427
The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies.