# Which 24-70 to buy for weddings & events?



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

I'm going to buy a 5d2 camera body next to my good ol' 60d for weddings and need a 24-70 standard zoom for it this application - or else I'd buy a 24-105. kit The question is: Which 24-70, the Tamron, the Canon mk1 or wait for the mk2?

As you see from my camera body choices, I'm on a tighter budget considering *all* things I'll need, so I really have to think about what an investment is worth in relation to return of invest and iq/af differences. Considering the clients I'll be able to acquire at first, they won't care much for iq or high mp prints but more about the picture content ("Am I on some pictures and do I look good on the group shot? Does everyone look happy?"). 

* Canon 24-70mk1: Good and proven lens with equally good and proven Canon usm af. This is €1800 new, and buying it used isn't that easy because they're not that much cheaper and there are said to be some duds out there. But it has a red ring which might make more of a "pro" impression to some clients?

* Tamon 24-70vc: At only $1000, this is really the lens I'm considering most. I could also dual-use it for a personal walk-around lens due to the IS. The iq is comparable to the Canon mk1 except for the bokeh, but the af is a little slower which might make the decisive difference for lower light run & gun? And is this ok enough for portraits in combination with my 100L?

* Canon 24-70mk2: Obviously not out yet, but at €2000+ this has to be good. But will it be *that* good that it beats the Tamron in combination with a good prime I could get for about the same combined price?

Edit: another advantage of Canon lenses is the cps support. But currently I'd only qualify for "silver" cutting the repair time a to max. 5 days, for the more interesting gold with max. 2 days or loaned equipment I'd need another ff body. And even with Tamron and w/o cps I can loan a lens elsewhere if the chips are down.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 20, 2012)

With budget being a large factor, I'd go with the Tamron. The time to get the 24-70 I has passed. For the price that it is going for new, I'd rather get the II. Reviews have stated that the Tamron should perform similarly to version I. Canon's II is twice the price and won't get you twice the performance.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 20, 2012)

I'm not a big fan using 3rd party lenses - sigma, tamron etc... I'm staying with Canon.

I bought 3 different copies of Canon 24-70 mrk I in the past, none of them gave me the sharpness that I'm looking for 

Now, mrk II...Yes the price is *HIGH*, but the MTF chart looks so good. I'm expecting this lens will be sharp as 70-200 f2.8 IS II or BETTER - *NO LESS*

PS. I have mrk II on pre-order,....will see


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm not a big fan using 3rd party lenses - sigma, tamron etc... I'm staying with Canon. I bought 3 different copies of Canon 24-70 mrk I in the past, none of them gave me the sharpness that I'm looking for



Interesting combination, you saying you don't like 3rd party gear while being disappointed by the 24-70 mk1 :-o ... So from what I'm hearing so far the smart move is either to get the €1000 Tamron and a good prime or the stellar 24-70 mk2 on its own - but I'm very interested in further input on how the Tamon would do as the "run & gun" lens for weddings & events.


----------



## DCM1024 (Jun 20, 2012)

We have been using the 24-105 for over a year for weddings and have been very pleased with it. The IS offsets the one stop difference of aperture. Good luck!


----------



## MK5GTI (Jun 20, 2012)

i'd shoot a wedding with 35 & 85mm prime. on full frame terms.

but for 24-70, i would get the Tamron VC out of the 3, how many client actually complain your Bokeh isn't "L" like?

if you are in smaller budget, the Sigma 24-70 HSM is also an option > Tamron 28-75 > Sigma 24-70 non-HSM.

with the above 3, you can buy youself a good 85mm F1.8 for low light, F2.8 isn't that fast anyways.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

I'd get the tamron, The original 24-70 is a good lens but a bit long in the tooth. The tamron is better in every way except built quality, Plus VC.

Unless you have the budget for the MK2, the tamron is the obvious choice.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 20, 2012)

The reason to get the 24-70L II version is that then you don't need primes in that range because the zoom will do just as well as the primes can, supposedly. So suppose a wedding photographer wanted a 35mm and a 50mm prime lens. Most would probably buy the L version let's say for sake of argument, even though this might not be true. That would run about 1399 for the 35L new, and 1499 for the 50L new. You only get two focal lengths for 2898. If you buy the 24-70L II zoom lens, you probably are going to get just as good of quality for weddings as the primes for 2299, saving $600, plus all the other focal lengths. It's not a bad deal. I have some proof at least on my end, because my 24-70L I copy was sharper than my 35L at f/2.8. That could be lens variation though. 

And the poster who uses the 24-105L, don't count that out with a good high-ISO performer such as the 5D Mk II. It can do it.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> The reason to get the 24-70L II version is that then you don't need primes in that range because the zoom will do just as well as the primes can, supposedly. So suppose a wedding photographer wanted a 35mm and a 50mm prime lens. Most would probably buy the L version let's say for sake of argument, even though this might not be true. That would run about 1399 for the 35L new, and 1499 for the 50L new. You only get two focal lengths for 2898. If you buy the 24-70L II zoom lens, you probably are going to get just as good of quality for weddings as the primes for 2299, saving $600, plus all the other focal lengths. It's not a bad deal. I have some proof at least on my end, because my 24-70L I copy was sharper than my 35L at f/2.8. That could be lens variation though.
> 
> And the poster who uses the 24-105L, don't count that out with a good high-ISO performer such as the 5D Mk II. It can do it.



Your forgot the reason we shoot primes. SPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

MK5GTI said:


> i'd shoot a wedding with 35 & 85mm prime. on full frame terms.



I might do this too with more experience, but I've been advised that at least for starting wedding photography a 24-70 is the fool-proof option to go with...



DCM1024 said:


> We have been using the 24-105 for over a year for weddings and have been very pleased with it. The IS offsets the one stop difference of aperture. Good luck!



Thanks for the wishes - but at what shutter rates are you shooting in lower light with the f4 24-105 to freeze motion for what final print/screen size and in what iso ratings does that result?



bdunbar79 said:


> So suppose a wedding photographer wanted a 35mm and a 50mm prime lens. Most would probably buy the L version let's say for sake of argument, even though this might not be true. That would run about 1399 for the 35L new, and 1499 for the 50L new. You only get two focal lengths for 2898. If you buy the 24-70L II zoom lens, you probably are going to get just as good of quality for weddings as the primes for 2299, saving $600, plus all the other focal lengths. It's not a bad deal.



Weeellll, I thought about the 35L + 50L > 24-70iiL myself. But I'm not sure if one 24-70/2.8 is really sufficient, but I guess I'll want at least one prime for really low light as well. My most probable choice would be the $400 Sigma 50/1.4 which I can dual-use on my 60d for ~85mm portraits, too - but then its equal 35L + 50L = 24-70ii + s50 :-o


----------



## Zlatko (Jun 20, 2012)

The main problem with the Canon 24-70 version I is that it needs relatively frequent adjustments when given heavy-duty use such as wedding photography. When it goes out of adjustment, images start to get blurry, usually more on one side of the image. The lens then requires a trip to Canon for service, or to an independent repair shop. When fixed, it works fine again, for a while. 

Prime lenses are much more reliable in this regard. Also, for some reason, the 24-105 is more reliable than the 24-70 version I. 

The other problem is that when shot at the wide end of the zoom, the 24-70 version I will occasionally focus on the background rather than the subject, more so than other wide lenses. 

Although the 24-70 has been used very successfully by many photographers, I would recommend waiting for version II as there is a good chance that Canon has addressed the issues of version I.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 20, 2012)

All valid points above! Since the 50 primes are cheap, it wouldn't hurt. I was able to push higher shutter speeds with the 24-70L lens though, with higher ISO. Depends on how much set up time you have. Plus I had a flash. There's ways around an f/2.8 vs. f/1.2. So okay, I guess maybe I'd suggest to Marsu42 to pick a few lenses and shoot as assistant. When you start making money, then it would make sense to have all of the lenses. You could go 50 prime, 24-70 zoom, 85 prime, 135 prime, flash, tripod, 5D Mk II. There's not a lot of shots you can't get with that setup, if any. As you make money and money justifies, pick up the 35L prime. I admit I had it and used it, and it's a great lens. One of the Canon "trinity" lenses 8)

Edit: When I say 85 prime, at FIRST, I'm talking 85 1.8. It focuses faster than the 1.2L. Eventually though, when you get your photography to take you where you want, get the 1.2L. I to this day have both the 85's, and I use the 1.8 for indoor sports and indoor action shots, even though I have the 1.2L. It is a great lens and cheap! Just like the 50 f/1.4. Go cheaper first, then build up expensive lenses.


----------



## DB (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm going to buy a 5d2 camera body next to my good ol' 60d for weddings and need a 24-70 standard zoom for it this application - or else I'd buy a 24-105. kit The question is: Which 24-70, the Tamron, the Canon mk1 or wait for the mk2?
> 
> 
> * Canon 24-70mk1: Good and proven lens with equally good and proven Canon usm af. This is €1800 new, and buying it used isn't that easy because they're not that much cheaper and there are said to be some duds out there. But it has a red ring which might make more of a "pro" impression to some clients?



At the start of this year I bought a mk 1 24-70mm f/2.8L (recent manufacture: UZ11xx date code) and it is razor sharp with wonderful colour. Ten million happy couples can't be wrong! I paid €1039 incl P&P in late December for it, now I know that prices have been climbing, but you can still get this lens new from the same online store that I bought mine from for 2/3rds of the price you quoted (see link below):

http://www.store-pro-photo.com/lenses/canon-24-70mm-ef-f-2-8l-usm.html


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

DB said:


> but you can still get this lens new from the same online store that I bought mine from for 2/3rds of the price you quoted (see link below)



I'm in Berlin/Germany I'm afraid, and due to the weak Euro prices are climbing and the used gear market is much smaller than in the US.



dilbert said:


> Or to look at it differently, the 1/25 with the 2.8 becomes 1/60 with the 1.8, 1/80 with 1.4 and 1/100 with 1.2.



But as you know there's a cost - if the subject is close, the dof even at f1.8 is so thin it's unusable for standard run&gun portraits or small group/couple shots. I have the (extremely crappy) 50/1.8 and know about the dof limitations. Imho while wedding clients don't want life-size prints, they do care about people's eyes/faces being out of focus because it kills the *perceived* picture sharpness. And with a thin dof, I'm more likely to screw up.



dilbert said:


> Since all of your subject matter is going to be middle of the frame (or it should be), edge sharpness is not likely to worry you.



I agree, that's why the Tamron is my current favorite - but better safe than sorry and ask around.



bdunbar79 said:


> Since the 50 primes are cheap, it wouldn't hurt.



Yes, as long as it isn't the 50L... and Sigma 50/1.4 vs Canon 50L is the same "double the price" issue as 5d2/5d3 or Tamron 24-70 vs Canon 24-70ii.



bdunbar79 said:


> So okay, I guess maybe I'd suggest to Marsu42 to pick a few lenses and shoot as assistant. When you start making money, then it would make sense to have all of the lenses. You could go 50 prime, 24-70 zoom, 85 prime, 135 prime, flash, tripod, 5D Mk II.



But with all these lenses *I* will need an assistant -) ... however, given the local prices into account few people will shoot with an assistant anyway, so I'll have to work this out on my own. Luckily, I have lots of advice from a pro who has shots weddings (he now does animal portraits & macro, he says he's fed up with being the wedding clown ).

Getting more lenses along the way is certainly a good idea, now it's just about the basic setup now to get into weddings and see if it works out. For the time being, I have a 100L IS so I hope that'll make up for not having a 85/135 prime.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jun 20, 2012)

If you can find a good used 28-70 2.8L, it'd save you money. I've had mine for 10 years. It produces amazingly sharp images.


----------



## AJ (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> DCM1024 said:
> 
> 
> > We have been using the 24-105 for over a year for weddings and have been very pleased with it. The IS offsets the one stop difference of aperture. Good luck!
> ...


Let me give you an answer to that question. The shutterspeed will be somewhere between 1/60 s and your flash synch speed. Yes, to do wedding photography means you must master hotshoe flash.

My suggestion is 24-105 for standard zoom. Use this lens with flash. Then for shallow-dof shots use a long lens (e.g. 70-200/2.8) and perhaps also a shorter prime (e.g. 50/1.4). You'll have versatility with the 24-105, allowing you to work quickly, and you can use the prime for slower work (e.g. artsy shots during hair or getting dressed).


----------



## thepancakeman (Jun 20, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > The reason to get the 24-70L II version is that then you don't need primes in that range because the zoom will do just as well as the primes can, supposedly. So suppose a wedding photographer wanted a 35mm and a 50mm prime lens. Most would probably buy the L version let's say for sake of argument, even though this might not be true. That would run about 1399 for the 35L new, and 1499 for the 50L new. You only get two focal lengths for 2898. If you buy the 24-70L II zoom lens, you probably are going to get just as good of quality for weddings as the primes for 2299, saving $600, plus all the other focal lengths. It's not a bad deal. I have some proof at least on my end, because my 24-70L I copy was sharper than my 35L at f/2.8. That could be lens variation though.
> ...



Yup, changing lenses is much quicker than just zooming in or out. ;D

No, seriously though, I know many people do great with primes, but personally if I'm in a dynamic situation (such as a wedding reception) I just miss too many shots if I'm using a prime. That being said, speed (and DOF) is the big reason I would agree with the recommendations for a 24-70 over the 24-105. We have a 24-105 and while the range is great, I almost never use it because it's simply not fast enough and doesn't generate enough background blur to pull the subjects out.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

AJ said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > DCM1024 said:
> ...



BTW, hes right. Marsu42, You will need to very competent in on-camera flash as you wont have an assistant. Direct Fill flash for outdoor use and bounce for indoors. You can use the bounce card or strap an index card to your flash. It works really well. Slow-sync for dances for fun effects but dont intrude too much.

It will always impress a couple to get amazing photos but without them even noticing you there. Its pretty easy to get spotted with the flash popping every other second. Two little primes and two small bodies and most no-one will notice you. Its fun work and have fun!

Pancakeman, I respect your use of zoomz. They're great at what they do, but Some prefer to be more daring and use two primes on two bodies. You'll have to swap sooner or later, why not get the advantage of Speed on your side?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> DB said:
> 
> 
> > but you can still get this lens new from the same online store that I bought mine from for 2/3rds of the price you quoted (see link below)
> ...



Ohhhhhhhhhh got ya. Yeah then at first I'd definitely waive the 85/135 combo in favor of your 100. My memory isn't quite as sharp as it used to be, you mentioned that 

Well heck in that case you can get the other lenses b/c you're not worried about 85/135. You can use 100 on FF for wedding aisle shots.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

AJ said:


> Let me give you an answer to that question. The shutterspeed will be somewhere between 1/60 s and your flash synch speed. Yes, to do wedding photography means you must master hotshoe flash.



I know about the flash, I'll get a used 580ex2 or even bite the bullet and get a 600rt even for the 5d2 because it should be more future proof and has the 200mm reflector.

But exposing 24-70 (or 24-105) between 1/60 and 1/200 (5d2) or 1/250 (5d3) x-sync is quite a large span, so 1/60s at 70mm doesn't sound too attractive for shooting people. And the question is how high I'd have to raise the iso to get it to 1/125s higher, because as I understand it on the 5d2 I shouldn't got higher than iso3200?

I'll be using even a 24-70 often at f3.5 or f4 for dof safety, but have the versatility of the f2.8 when I need it. The question is if the versatility of the 70-105 zoom range is able to beat this shutter speed safety margin, because I can always crop a 21mp image, but cannot eliminate motion blur or do miracles with iso6400+ noise reduction?


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 20, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I'd get the tamron, The original 24-70 is a good lens but a bit long in the tooth. The tamron is better in every way except built quality, Plus VC.
> 
> Unless you have the budget for the MK2, the tamron is the obvious choice.


+1
If I didn't have my Canon 24-70mm MK1, I would get Tamron 24-70mm VC now. Many reviews say Tamron 24-70mm overall is better than Canon 24-70mm MK1. For wedding Canon 24-70mm MK2 may be the best; however, it's not out yet.


----------



## AJ (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> And the question is how high I'd have to raise the iso to get it to 1/125s higher, because as I understand it on the 5d2 I shouldn't got higher than iso3200?


That depends on how much ambient you want to mix in. In most churches you should be able to get away with 1600 iso or thereabouts for background 0 EV (as metered) when shooting f/4. In darker places (e.g. dancefloor, outdoor patio after dark) the background will be darker with this setting (foreground is lit by flash of course) unless you light the background with flash as well (bounced flash, second off-camera flash).


----------



## John Thomas (Jun 20, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'd get the tamron, The original 24-70 is a good lens but a bit long in the tooth. The tamron is better in every way except built quality, Plus VC.
> ...



+1 -0.5

-0.5 is about Canon 24-70 Mk II. It has no VC. And there are plenty of situations in which one needs VC at weddings. I rather preffer not to use flash for many reasons - one of the most important being that the people must be natural in order to get "the shot" and the flashes of the flash break the intimate atmosphere of a wedding.

+1 also for 50mm primes.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a big fan using 3rd party lenses - sigma, tamron etc... I'm staying with Canon. I bought 3 different copies of Canon 24-70 mrk I in the past, none of them gave me the sharpness that I'm looking for
> ...



If am you - I would try Tamron NOW and mrk II later. Buy it from authorized dealer - you have 30days to return it. See which lens is best for you. My feeling is mrk II will be a MUST have lens in the bag, similar to 70-200 2.8 IS II  

Having IS or VC is great for slowing down shutterspeed, however, you still can't freeeze the object-motion. Why not go for smaller, lighter and sharper.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Oh, add a macro just in case you want close ups of something small.



I've got a 100L, as stated in every of my posts (look under my name to the left), mentioned in my first and many successive posts in these thread...



Dylan777 said:


> My feeling is mrk II will be a MUST have lens in the bag



My current "must" is to get some money out of pro photography after 1 year or so, and not spending it 



John Thomas said:


> And there are plenty of situations in which one needs VC at weddings.



Are there? Plenty? All I'm all in favor of a "free" IS of a Tamron lens that performs like the Canon mk1 and is much cheaper, and I'll use the IS for my personal spare time shots. But except for totals of the church and such no situations would spring to my mind that wouldn't involve people, thus rendering the IS advantage nearly moot at these focal lengths?


----------



## DCM1024 (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> MK5GTI said:
> 
> 
> > i'd shoot a wedding with 35 & 85mm prime. on full frame terms.
> ...



I like 1/100, ISO ranges from 100 (outdoor) to 6400 (if I have to in low light and/or no flash allowed). I had recommended the 24-70 I and 70-200 F/2.8 IS II to my boyfriend as the preferred zoom kit, but they were out of budget. We elected to go with the 24-105 and upgrade lenses later. I've been so pleased with the 24-105 and 5d2 combo, though, that replacing it with a 24-70 is not a priority at the moment. The largest enlargements I've had requested thus far are 20x24. I am also new to wedding photography and just completed my 10th wedding last weekend. It's going well - the brides are thrilled with their photos and are actively referring me to other brides  Would have loved the opportunity to work as a 2nd shooter for someone who really knows the tricks of the trade. Instead, I tagged along with my boyfriend who is an established wedding videographer. This was done with the bride's approval, of course, and I made it a point not to interfere with the official photographer. So, the first 5 weddings I shot for free, no pressure because nothing was expected of me, tested settings and started building a portfolio. Once I had a portfolio started, the paid jobs started coming in.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, add a macro just in case you want close ups of something small.
> ...



How often do you hear "get the right tool for the right job". Also, Canon L lenses hold their values better than 3rd party lenses.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> How often do you hear "get the right tool for the right job". Also, Canon L lenses hold their values better than 3rd party lenses.



Asking what the right tool is what this thread is about - and "right" doesn't mean "most expensive", not even in an enthusiast's forum. For me, the re-sale value is only of concern for lenses I might actually want to sell again, but if I get the 24-70ii I'll keep it and the money is gone for good.



DCM1024 said:


> I had recommended the 24-70 I and 70-200 F/2.8 IS II to my boyfriend as the preferred zoom kit, but they were out of budget.



For me "budget" is relative to what a business is about: Earning money after some sane period of time rather than spending it. I *could* get a 5d3, 24-70ii and a 70-200/2.8ii, but I'd be near broke then and I serious doubt that would be smart business in relation to my first clients' expectations and my first salaries. 



DCM1024 said:


> I had recommended It's going well - the brides are thrilled with their photos and are actively referring me to other brides



Congrats to your successful business start! Please don't move to Berlin/Germany, will you :-> ... I guess being a women does help in this business since it's not that common, allows you more freedom and maybe people tend to be more relaxed? Well, can't change this fact now for me and have to work with what I am


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 20, 2012)

I will say that I couldn't have shot the weddings without a 24-70 zoom lens. It was just so staple. You can't ignore flexibility in a wedding because you must take the shot NOW. I'd wait for reviews on the 24-70L II. Wait awhile and see what Bryan Carnathan has to say, what users have to say, etc. It will pay for itself after a few weddings and you'll get the shots. Consider it down the road. I had instances where I had no idea what focal length I should use, so I put the 24-70 on and adjusted until I got proper framing. Same with the 70-200 zoom lens. For framing shots I already knew, I used a prime. You have to do both. Go to the church and practice. Imagine how you want to frame the aisle shots and front of the church shots and where you want to be. Take your lenses with you and get the focal length ahead of time. It can pay huge dividends!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 20, 2012)

By the way I am working on getting a few of my wedding photos to post on here, so stay tuned in case you're interested.


----------



## DCM1024 (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > How often do you hear "get the right tool for the right job". Also, Canon L lenses hold their values better than 3rd party lenses.
> ...



There are alot of female wedding photographers here in the US. What I get that my male photographer friends have trouble getting is boudoir


----------



## bkorcel (Jun 20, 2012)

I use the EF 24-70 F2.8L USM and it has performed well. I suppose if I had to make the choice again I might choose the 24-105L with the IS mode even though it's F/4. The IS easily makes up the difference in 2.8 vs 4 allowing somewhat lower shutter speeds for static subjects.

I try not to mix brands in my shoots so I can maintain consistent color and contrast..which is why I only use Canon L lenses.

Other brands can be just as good but I like consistency and so far canon has delivered that.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jun 20, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> I use the EF 24-70 F2.8L USM and it has performed well. I suppose if I had to make the choice again I might choose the 24-105L with the IS mode even though it's F/4. The IS easily makes up the difference in 2.8 vs 4 allowing somewhat lower shutter speeds for static subjects.



That was my thinking when I bought the 24-105, but what I quickly realized is that people are very rarely static, so IS is of no help. If I had to do it over again, I would have gotten the 24-70 (and am now considering adding the Tamron version to the kit.)


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> By the way I am working on getting a few of my wedding photos to post on here, so stay tuned in case you're interested.



Sure, esp. if it's the "... and that's why you need equipment xyz, it couldn't be done without" type of shots!



thepancakeman said:


> That was my thinking when I bought the 24-105, but what I quickly realized is that people are very rarely static, so IS is of no help.



With very few exceptions (like in this thread) that's what people have been telling me, too: except if you shoot with multiple primes or are ready to accept tradeoffs like higher iso or more flash (if you're allowed to), there's hardly any way around a 24-70/2.8's combination of low light capability & flexibility.


----------



## fifowarehouse (Jun 20, 2012)

Kinda fun to see people getting excited on the NEW 2012 Tamron 24-70 and prefer this over the 10yrs old Canon 24-70.

2012 Vs 2002 Technology - Do you think this a fair comparison? 

About we wait for mrk II to come out and compare 2012 Vs 2012


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > By the way I am working on getting a few of my wedding photos to post on here, so stay tuned in case you're interested.
> ...



Ya know, all this gear talk is great and a way to kill time while CS3 saves files. In the End, The photographer is what makes or breaks a wedding. A Cool, Level head and A good scouting day will do more than 2,000,000 ISO, Hyper Lens Speed or any equipment mumbo jumbo will do for you on that day.

I highly recommend getting a reportage list and A day to scout the venues. Then, you'll know what you really need.


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 20, 2012)

fifowarehouse said:


> Kinda fun to see people getting excited on the NEW 2012 Tamron 24-70 and prefer this over the 10yrs old Canon 24-70.
> 
> 2012 Vs 2002 Technology - Do you think this a fair comparison?
> 
> About we wait for mrk II to come out and compare 2012 Vs 2012


That's true if MK2 price would be 1299 + IS.


----------



## fifowarehouse (Jun 20, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> fifowarehouse said:
> 
> 
> > Kinda fun to see people getting excited on the NEW 2012 Tamron 24-70 and prefer this over the 10yrs old Canon 24-70.
> ...



This is Canon L lens, NOT Tamron. Wonder where Tamron lenses are made? Japan or somehere else?


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 20, 2012)

fifowarehouse said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > That's true if MK2 price would be 1299 + IS.
> ...


Japan. You should do your homework just google it. By the way the Tamron lens is L quality.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

fifowarehouse said:


> 2012 Vs 2002 Technology - Do you think this a fair comparison?
> This is Canon L lens, NOT Tamron. Wonder where Tamron lenses are made? Japan or somehere else?



For me, my equipment can come right from the dark side of the moon and can be dated 1980 as long as it serves the purpose. Doing comparisons isn't about being fair towards manufacturers or being right, but just about making the best decision as a consumer given the current choices.

In fact, I could even do with less red rings and white paint on my lenses, I've been told that having the latest, most shiny gear isn't necessarily a good sign for a pro but makes you look like a noob. Which I am. But no need to hand a sign around my neck.



RLPhoto said:


> I highly recommend getting a reportage list and A day to scout the venues. Then, you'll know what you really need.



Oh, you can be sure I'll to that allright. But there's no harm in getting lots of advice before buying equipment for thousands of $$$. And if I have adequate equipment, this is at least one thing that is less likely to go wrong next to all other things I can screw up when building a business for myself.

Besides, while LR on my older Laptop is rendering hundreds of previews, I've got even more time then you participating in pointless rumors


----------



## fifowarehouse (Jun 20, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> fifowarehouse said:
> 
> 
> > 2012 Vs 2002 Technology - Do you think this a fair comparison?
> ...



See pix below - if you have to travel from East to West- which option do you prefer? Don't tell me latest technology is NOT matter.

By the way, buy yourself a new latest laptop so you can be more productive.


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 20, 2012)

fifowarehouse said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > See pix below - if you have to travel from East to West- which option do you prefer? Don't tell me latest technology is NOT matter.
> ...



Tell me which CPU you prefer.
1. Intel T3500(Q3 2010)
2. Intel X7560(Q3 2008)

newer != better


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 20, 2012)

fifowarehouse said:


> See pix below - if you have to travel from East to West- which option do you prefer? Don't tell me latest technology is NOT matter.



You asked the wrong guy - I've sold my car and much prefer my bicycle and trains, so I'd take the environmentally clean 2 live horse powers any day. Also, if driving at 150mph you're missing all the good landscape shots. And from where I live in Berlin, I can walk from East to West in 5 minutes 

Concerning the laptop: this is a link in the toolchain that has *no* impact on iq, unlike camera bodies or esp. lenses. So I'd rather process good pictures slowly than crappy ones in a blaze - for me it would only matter if my business generates so many pictures that it affects my ability to work efficiently. A good Nikon photog just told me that he won't upgrade to the d800 because the added mp needed more processing power while he wouldn't sell more, just like the 5dc->5d2 upgrade described above.


----------



## cpsico (Jun 21, 2012)

bkorcel said:


> I use the EF 24-70 F2.8L USM and it has performed well. I suppose if I had to make the choice again I might choose the 24-105L with the IS mode even though it's F/4. The IS easily makes up the difference in 2.8 vs 4 allowing somewhat lower shutter speeds for static subjects.
> 
> I try not to mix brands in my shoots so I can maintain consistent color and contrast..which is why I only use Canon L lenses.
> 
> Other brands can be just as good but I like consistency and so far canon has delivered that.


The 24-105 has tons of lens flare in the same situations the 24-70 handles very well. If you are using strobe lights it can make a big difference!!


----------



## VanWeddings (Jun 21, 2012)

i'd throw in my vote for the tamron. i've had it for a while now and it is super sharp with a good VC system. i highly doubt the average client would ever complain that you didn't use a canon 24-70 mkii


----------



## John Thomas (Jun 21, 2012)

> Quote from: John Thomas on June 20, 2012, 01:11:25 PM
> And there are plenty of situations in which one needs VC at weddings.
> 
> Are there? Plenty? All I'm all in favor of a "free" IS of a Tamron lens that performs like the Canon mk1 and is much cheaper, and I'll use the IS for my personal spare time shots. But except for totals of the church and such no situations would spring to my mind that wouldn't involve people, thus rendering the IS advantage nearly moot at these focal lengths?



Yes, there are plenty of situations, at least in my case. It is not only the fact that the low light forces you (ok, me) to IS becasue I cannot obtain 1/70s at longer end, there are cases in which you (I) suddenly see "the shot" and because I'm in rush to catch it, my hand isn't steady enough. IS compensates this as well.

Also, perhaps is better to say my humble opinion about "useless" IS on slow shutter speeds because "human subjects are constantly moving" - there are (at least) two things to consider here: 

1.) there are enough situations in which your subject (candid scene / portrait) can be catched at 1/20, even at 1/10. 

2.) From our experience we know at what shutter speed we can freeze a moving man (and how much we want to freeze from his movement), depending on what he does. This, at (my) events is usually between 1/30 till 1/60-1/80. I preffer to have the camera near to the lowest shutter speed possible in order to have lowest ISO possible. And IS helps here.

just my2c & HTH

PS: Perhaps is better to mention that I preffer to shot mood, atmosphere shots and go to select events. Harsh, bright (neon) lights aren't my kind. But perhaps I'm mistaken.


----------

