Which 24-70 to buy for weddings & events?

[Marsu42]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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?

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

[dilbert]

I wouldn't leave home without an 85 and 50 prime lens simply because they're faster and very cost effective purchases. Even if you go for both 1.8's. that's a 1.33 stops faster than the 2.8's. So a shot with any of the 24-70/2.8s is 1/60, with the 1.8s you get 1/150.

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.

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.

[Zlatko]

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]

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 

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.