24-105 or 24-70 for weddings, events, travelling (priority in that order)

[xopher]

Without taking money into account, which of these lenses would you choose?

As of this moment, I am a stronger believer in shooting only prime lenses (I own 35L.85L.135L), however, I'm tempted to get a zoom for Weddings, Events, and Travelling.

In the past, I've encountered some venues with VERY poor lighting  and set up as a result of poor organizers without much consideration of the photography. At these instances, I find myself shooting a lot at f2 for consistency reasons with high high ISOs (ISO 6400 - 10000 on 5D3) or I find myself missing moments because I lack the room to move about.

This really bugs me and I feel a flash coupled with one the two aforementioned 2 lenses will able to solve my problems. I understand the merits of having a f2.8 over a f4 lens in low light IF theres no flash involved, however, if we factor one in, how much does it the f2.8 really help? My other photographer friend is telling me 2.8 because of the low light capabilities, but like i said before, I don't feel this applies to me because A) I have f1.2-1.4 primes for when SHTF and B) I personally find there are marginal benefits for low light when a flash is involved. The 24-105 in my case APPEARS to be the ideal choice because its more compact, has IS (dreams of trying out cinematography later on), and a longer range.

What do you more seasoned photographers think about this? Are there factors I have forgotten to take into account?

Also, how much better is the glass on 24-70? (Yes this bugs me )

[Trevor]

I use zooms extensively for event type shooting. I wouldn't ever shoot a prime in these situations ...

Anyway, the 24-70 is very good. As it happens, I have a project I want to shoot at 35mm f4 ...  So I took some test shots with the 24-70 against the 35 ... I was shocked at how much better the zoom was ... Sharper and resolving more detail - the contrast was clearly better too. Not a result I would have expected.

I've also recently become a user of FoCal and I find the results from the three zooms (16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200) to be much more consistent that the primes. The distribution of data points seem to fit the curves perfectly, whereas the primes are a bit more random. I wonder if this translates more consistent autofocus?



(Don't use IS for shooting movies)

[PackLight]

I am assuming you are talking about the new 24-70mm II not the old version.

I think you are missing one of the things you get by going with the f/2.8, which is the additional DOF control. To me I see this as important.

[xopher]

DOF control is important but i see myself using this particular lens for group shots

[dswatson83]

I'd get the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC. Just as good if not better than the v1 of Canon but you get stabilization. I wish Canon made that lens. If you need to get canon, I would not get an f/4 lens for weddings...you really need to stay at f/2.8 quite often just to get enough light.

[SteenerMe]

Yes! the 24-70 II is a special lens. The 24-105, while a fine lens, doesnt come close to comparison in image quality. Also low light focusing will be much nicer @ 2.8.  It is THE finest zoom in that focal length available.   . 

[agierke]

i primarily shoot weddings and my kit includes the 24-70mm 2.8 (vs 1) and the 70-200mm 2.8 (non IS). i also have the 35mm 1.4 and would like to add a 85mm 1.2 so in a sense i am on the other side moving towards your direction.

that being said, i would not trust anything slower than a 2.8 in really low light situations so any of the F4 glass wont make it into my bag. 2.8 just lets you see better and auto focus seems to benefit from the extra stop of brightness. i have had variable aperture lenses in the past that seemed plagued with focus hunting issues in real low light so for me its 2.8 or faster.

in terms of exposure capabilities...i run an auxiliary strobe radio synced off of my 580 EX so i am usually shooting at F4 thru F5.6 and then dragging shutter as needed to incorporate any of the event lighting so the 2.8 doesnt factor into my exposure considerations.

the last thing i would point out is that on a full frame camera the difference between 70mm and 105mm is minimal imo. if you are concerned about lack of reach on full frame for weddings then you really should be looking at the 70-200mm 2.8. its an absolute star performer!

the 24-70mm 2.8 (especially the v2) just outshines the 24-105mm imo. im also not a fan of IS as i believe there are far better ways to gain exposure but maintain image quality without resorting to the tenuous nature of dragging shutter in a handheld situation. 

[Zlatko]

DOF control is important but i see myself using this particular lens for group shots

If used for group shots, the 24-105/4 is perfectly good.  Many group shots require f/4 or smaller anyway.  But occasionally a small group is in the same plane of focus and can be shot at f/2.8 - f/3.5 (or even f/2 with a prime).

However, for general use at weddings, I much prefer the new 24-70/2.8 II — in addition to primes.  It is more compact and overall better than the original version.  F/2.8 allows for much less use of flash than an f/4 zoom.  An f/2.8 zoom will also focus better indoors than an f/4 zoom.

that being said, i would not trust anything slower than a 2.8 in really low light situations so any of the F4 glass wont make it into my bag. 2.8 just lets you see better and auto focus seems to benefit from the extra stop of brightness.
....
the last thing i would point out is that on a full frame camera the difference between 70mm and 105mm is minimal imo. if you are concerned about lack of reach on full frame for weddings then you really should be looking at the 70-200mm 2.8. its an absolute star performer!

Good points!

[infared]

Yes! the 24-70 II is a special lens. The 24-105, while a fine lens, doesnt come close to comparison in image quality. Also low light focusing will be much nicer @ 2.8.  It is THE finest zoom in that focal length available.   .

I agree. I just did a lot of research on the 24-70 II...balanced against primes. I already own a 50mm f/1.4 Sigma and the  Canon 85L...so I was considering puchasing the Canon 24mm L & the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 or the new Canon zoom.  Either way I would be spending the same amount of money.
I had sold my Canon 24-105 back in the spring to buy the new 24-70mm...but then there were all of the delays...and this GREAT Sigma 35mm appeared out of nowhere.  I was torn. The price of the new zoom really put me off.
In the end I bought the new Canon Zoom.  It is REALLY sharp and many times it is just great to have that zoom range in your hands an not be changing out primes. Way more interactive..with trade-offs.
The 24-105 is a good lens...but I was never WOWED by it.
Check out this comparison of it to the new 24-70mm II:
http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/09/comparison-canon-24-70-f28l-ii-vs-24.html
..from a sharpness and DOF the new 24-70mm blows the 24-105mm out of the water. (but the 24-105mm is a very good zoom for the money).
I LOVE primes....but I am a little wowed by this new zoom. Could just be the honeymoon period...but my feeling is that it is very prime-like, both in contrast and sharpness (even wide open)....and...unfortunately, you are DEFINITELY paying for that privilege! I do not think you would be unhappy if you bought this lens. I know that I am very content with the decision I have made.
(SteenerMe...I just noticed that U and I have almost the EXACT same range of lenses...no wonder I agreed with you! LOL.)

[AudioGlenn]

Yes! the 24-70 II is a special lens. The 24-105, while a fine lens, doesnt come close to comparison in image quality. Also low light focusing will be much nicer @ 2.8.  It is THE finest zoom in that focal length available.   .

I agree. I just did a lot of research on the 24-70 II...balanced against primes. I already own a 50mm f/1.4 Sigma and the  Canon 85L...so I was considering puchasing the Canon 24mm L & the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 or the new Canon zoom.  Either way I would be spending the same amount of money.
I had sold my Canon 24-105 back in the spring to buy the new 24-70mm...but then there were all of the delays...and this GREAT Sigma 35mm appeared out of nowhere.  I was torn. The price of the new zoom really put me off.
In the end I bought the new Canon Zoom.  It is REALLY sharp and many times it is just great to have that zoom range in your hands an not be changing out primes. Way more interactive..with trade-offs.
The 24-105 is a good lens...but I was never WOWED by it.
Check out this comparison of it to the new 24-70mm II:
http://www.ronmartblog.com/2012/09/comparison-canon-24-70-f28l-ii-vs-24.html
..from a sharpness and DOF the new 24-70mm blows the 24-105mm out of the water. (but the 24-105mm is a very good zoom for the money).
I LOVE primes....but I am a little wowed by this new zoom. Could just be the honeymoon period...but my feeling is that it is very prime-like, both in contrast and sharpness (even wide open)....and...unfortunately, you are DEFINITELY paying for that privilege! I do not think you would be unhappy if you bought this lens. I know that I am very content with the decision I have made.
(SteenerMe...I just noticed that U and I have almost the EXACT same range of lenses...no wonder I agreed with you! LOL.)

+1 for the 24-70 2.8 II.  I'm selling my 24-105 because it just doesn't compare in sharpness/IQ, etc.  The shallower DOF is nice too but if I really want to isolate my subject, i'll use the 70-200 2.8 IS II...remember that longer focal lengths also contribute to shallower DOF so at 2.8 on that lens, your DOF is even shallower). 

The 24-105 f/4L  just didn't wow me either.  And if you're planning on doing video, get a tripod.  Don't use/rely on IS.  Also, f/4 for video isn't that great.  I personally ALWAYS use primes for video anyway and since you already have some..you're set there.

One more minor thing is that at 2.8, your flash doesn't have to work as hard compared to f/4 to get the same amount of exposure.  The wider aperture will allow more light from the speed light in at the same power level.  This equates to lower recycle times and overall less battery usage.

[agierke]

i should add that i rarely shoot at a F2.8 on weddings (if ever) because it is too shallow a depth of field for the types of shots im using the 24-70 for. usually im doing group shots with that lens and even 2 people is too much for the shallow depth of field that the F2.8 provides. F4 is really the last resort for me with F5.6 being preferred.

on my 70-200 i use F2.8 more often as that focal length typically means i'm trying to isolate an individual and depth of field is less important. its all dictated by the number of individuals

for weddings and events i use multiple strobes (flash + monohead combo) and ISO to control exposure. if more ambient is needed to avoid the "flashy" look then i drag shutter to compensate (but conservatively). i won't open up my aperture because the "look" of the photo suffers when my subject falls out of the depth of field.

i'm a big subscriber to the notion of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" and apply that to the use of wide open apertures, use of IS, and dragging of shutters.

[roadrunner]

Without taking money into account, I would say the 24-70 II without a doubt, every single time. I primarily shoot weddings, and unlike the other photographer who says he rarely shoots @ 2.8 (Not saying he is wrong, just a different shooting style) I find the need to shoot wide open quite often. Not during the formal portraits, of course, but during the ceremony an extra stop would be amazing.

I say this as a current owner of the 24-105L, and I personally avoid it like the plague during the ceremony. I stick to the 70-200 2.8L IS II or primes, as I am not satisfied with the sharpness or the aperture of the 24-105. The 24-105 is a fine lens in its own right, as it is cheap, constant aperture, built better than the 28-135, features IS, and it a great walk around lens with satifactory (Not great) image quality, but if given the choice, I would go with the 24-70L II.