Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

I have a Canon 40D - I need a good wedding lens! Please HELP!!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
I_SPY
I_SPY  4173 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Dec 2009 - 9:49 PM

Hello people!
I am a wedding photographer, currently using a Canon 40D, I have the kit lens 17-85, and a tamrom 70-200.

I am thinking of selling my kit lens (17-85) and buying myself a Canon L: series 24-70 f2.8, I dont do heavy amounts of weddings, but I would like to one day become a recognised wedding photographer. I use the ex 580ii flash gun with the gary fong.

my question is, which lens do You think I should buy?
Shall I go ahead and buy the 24-70 L: series £1,100 or shall I consider the 24-105 L: series? or shall I consider a different brand altogether, tamron, sigma?

I cant afford a range of lens, and spending £1,100 is a big ask!! I want to hopefully one day, upgrade to a 5D or something along them lines..

Can you PLEASE advise me on what to do, so I dont waste my money Sad

Many thanks for those who read and replied!

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
26 Dec 2009 - 9:49 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

I_SPY
I_SPY  4173 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Dec 2009 - 10:12 PM

Ok and another Question:
The canon 24 - 70 L series does not have IS ? is that important?
over the 24 - 105 which does have IS?

HELLLLPPPP!!!!

Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 813402 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
26 Dec 2009 - 10:23 PM

read here

User_Removed
26 Dec 2009 - 10:43 PM


Quote: I am a wedding photographer

Really..??

Why are you asking these kinds of questions then.?

(You haven't got friend with a surname of Bower by any chance have you..??)

Last Modified By User_Removed at 26 Dec 2009 - 10:44 PM
I_SPY
I_SPY  4173 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Dec 2009 - 10:58 PM


Quote: Quote:I am a wedding photographerReally..??

OK MIKE! SORRY - EVERYONE, I am NEW TO WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHY and need your advise (rather than sarcasm) I would like to know which lens to buy, the Canon series - 24-70 L series or the 24-105 L series? Also IS is only available on the 24-105 ? Is this a better lens to buy?
PLEASE ADVICE....


Why are you asking these kinds of questions then.?

(You haven't got friend with a surname of Bower by any chance have you..??)

User_Removed
26 Dec 2009 - 11:07 PM

That's better. Wink

Cole's link is very valid and there is some excellent guidance there.

I hope others come along and offer their guidance...


by the way...

My personal choice in focal lengths are:

12-24mm
50mm
80-200

Smile

Last Modified By User_Removed at 26 Dec 2009 - 11:11 PM
I_SPY
I_SPY  4173 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Dec 2009 - 11:14 PM

Smile

Thanks for "valid" input Mike, the lens which you state, are they prime lens? To be honest, I dont even know what to look for, prime or focus..
The only reason I said 24-70 and 24-105 l series, as everyone talks about them being the best lens for "low light" shooting,

frankly, I need advise which to bu, as £1,100 is a lot of money for me.. and I wont be upgrading any time soon.

I_SPY
I_SPY  4173 forum posts United Kingdom
26 Dec 2009 - 11:38 PM


Quote: read here

COLESLAW - Your a good man, (if you arnt a man, lol sorry!)
Yes I have read this POST already, but I have read it again for it to sink in more.

This is my understanding, please correct me if I am wrong.
If I use a flash gun, then the 24-70 is a better choice, but for a walkabout lens, and using a flash gun, then the 24-105 is a better lens?

I sometimes shoot in low light, but I always use my ex 5890ii flash gun. I NEED a lens which is going to produce pin shape images, I always shoot in RAW and currently use CS3/4 to edit images.

but after reading that post, Im now considering the 24-105 !?

ARRRGGHHHHH!!! Please help,,,,,,

User_Removed
26 Dec 2009 - 11:39 PM

£1100 is a lot of anyone's money. Wink


Quote: are they prime lens

A 'prime' lens is a fixed focal-length lens. From my list, the only 'prime' is the 50mm f1.8. The other two of my preferences ate 'zooms'. The 80-200 is a fast version (f2.8) whilst the 12-24 is a continuous aperture f4 example. None of them has internal stabilisation - use a tripod/monopod where required plus the low-noise/high ISO capabilities of my cameras (Nikon)

Down to specifics...


Quote: as everyone talks about them being the best lens for "low light" shooting,

Canon bodies have - for a long time - been market-leading (and remain so IMO) when it comes to low-level image noise. Provided you are a competent photographer who understands what the whole concept surrounding 'low-noise' is - and how to control it - means. (There is no 5-minute fix here Wink)

When it comes to lenses, there is no substitute for having the fastest (by that I mean the largest aperture i.e. f1.8 / f2.8) lenses you can afford.

That said, a 'low-noise' capable camera (like the 40D) can make up for the short-fall if one is forced (through financial circumstances Wink) to use 'slower' lenses.

Last Modified By User_Removed at 26 Dec 2009 - 11:41 PM
Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 813402 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
26 Dec 2009 - 11:50 PM

As you see in that thread, some says 24-70 is better, other says 24-105.
I have 24-70, and it is excellent.
Why not go to your local camera shop and try them out? Also try out sigma version of 24-70 and other cheaper ones. That why you will know which one you prefer and if the L lens is worth investing.
I don't think there is such thing as bad choice amongst the 24-70 and 24-105.

User_Removed
27 Dec 2009 - 12:42 AM

"I am a wedding photographer"

Er...... say that again....

Do you mean that you would like to be a wedding photographer?

That means being able to take about 300 images in the space of 2 hours and then getting proof prints back to the reception within another two hours.

Seriously, I don't know anyone who can realistically claim to be a "wedding photographer" without at least £5000-worth of kit, without at least 10 years experience of general professional photography and without at least one competent assistant.

Given all of that, maybe your questions suggest a gap somewhere?

Last Modified By User_Removed at 27 Dec 2009 - 12:42 AM
Slippery_Jim
27 Dec 2009 - 1:56 AM

I think that you had better look at this site, everything you need to know is here.

cameracat
cameracat  108575 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
27 Dec 2009 - 2:12 AM


Quote: That means being able to take about 300 images in the space of 2 hours and then getting proof prints back to the reception within another two hours.

Are you having a laugh....Smile

We used to do that in days of film, But rarely shot that many frames with TLR's....Wink Sure you might just might do that with a DSLR, But proofs to reception in 2 hours, I seriouly doubt that.

Perhaps you should have a word with EPZ member " Barrie Harwood " He is a pro wedding photographer.....!!!

I_SPY
I_SPY  4173 forum posts United Kingdom
27 Dec 2009 - 7:09 AM


Quote: I think that you had better look at this site, everything you need to know is here.

Thank you friend,, i will check the site out..

Last Modified By I_SPY at 27 Dec 2009 - 7:10 AM
I_SPY
I_SPY  4173 forum posts United Kingdom
27 Dec 2009 - 7:18 AM

Low noise? bokeh?
This is,I honestly thought there would be a simple answer, booi was I wrong.

ok, look i dont mind getting close to my subjects if i have to. I dont mmind having to take the few extra steps back/forward.

Only thing is, most of my shots a hand-held, i'd say about 80% of my shots are hand-held, the ONLY time I use my tripod is when taking group shots towards the end of the wedding, of if I ever switch to tamron 70-200 stand back and get close up of the couple etc...
other than that, Im currently using the 17-85 IS kit lens, and its an excellent lens for what it is..

All i wanted to now do is, upgrade this lens, i want a pin sharp lens, and yes £1,100 is a lot of money for me!!

Im still not sure what to go for, 24-70 or 24-105 as its got a further reach and its got IS !!????


Quote: £1100 is a lot of anyone's money.

Quote:are they prime lensA 'prime' lens is a fixed focal-length lens. From my list, the only 'prime' is the 50mm f1.8. The other two of my preferences ate 'zooms'. The 80-200 is a fast version (f2.8) whilst the 12-24 is a continuous aperture f4 example. None of them has internal stabilisation - use a tripod/monopod where required plus the low-noise/high ISO capabilities of my cameras (Nikon)

Down to specifics...

Quote:as everyone talks about them being the best lens for "low light" shooting,Canon bodies have - for a long time - been market-leading (and remain so IMO) when it comes to low-level image noise. Provided you are a competent photographer who understands what the whole concept surrounding 'low-noise' is - and how to control it - means. (There is no 5-minute fix here )

When it comes to lenses, there is no substitute for having the fastest (by that I mean the largest aperture i.e. f1.8 / f2.8) lenses you can afford.

That said, a 'low-noise' capable camera (like the 40D) can make up for the short-fall if one is forced (through financial circumstances ) to use 'slower' lenses.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.