Which is best 24-70L f2.8 or 70-200L f2.8 w/IS for wedding/portrait? Hi, I am wanting to upgrade to an L lens and I was wondering which is the best lens to buy to for wedding/engagement portraits...I have a 75-300USM f4-5.6 already, so I was leaning towards getting the 24-70L and getting the 70-200L a bit later, but everything that I am reading generally leans towards the 70-200L. I can only afford one lens right now. Any advice?? Which is best 24-70L f2.8 or 70-200L f2.8 w/IS for wedding/portrait? Hi, I am wanting to upgrade to an L lens and I was wondering which is the best lens to buy to for wedding/engagement... » Read More Which is best 24-70L f2.8 or 70-200L f2.8 w/IS for wedding/portrait? Hi, I am wanting to upgrade to an L lens and I was wondering which is the best lens to buy to for wedding/engagement portraits...I have a 75-300USM f4-5.6 already, so I was leaning towards getting the 24-70L and getting the 70-200L a bit later, but everything that I am reading generally leans towards the 70-200L. I can only afford one lens right now. Any advice?? « Show Less
861799
What is the size of your image sensor? If it's an APS-C size like EOS 400D, the 70-200 may be a bit long? If it's regular Canon digital like EOS-1D or full frame like the 5D it will be just right. 24-70 is handy if you have two or more or if you shoot your portraits loose. 70-200 if you like to shoot tight. Have you considered the 100mm or 135mm f/2.0 prime lenses (to throw distracting backgrounds out of focus?"
861800
That's a tough one. My first thought is to go with the 24-70 since that rounds out your focal-length suite nicely. But as you know, the 70-200L IS (esp the f/2.8) would be a lot better for portraits, and the long shots you'll need during the wedding itself. It's close, but I think I'd go for the 70-200.
861801
Hmm, I guess that I should just take the plunge and get them both.... I have a couple of months before the wedding, so that will give me enough time to save for both....talk about a huge chunk of change, but then again, the lenses are worth the investment! Thanks to both of you for the advice!!!
501356
I don't think this is a good question. For a number of reasons. First of all, no wedding is the same. Second of all, weddings are one of the more important events that a photographer can shoot (important to the couple getting married, maybe not so much important to the general public). So you don't want to get caught with "the best wedding lens." You want to be prepared with the best arsenal of camera lenses. Third, you're putting a lot of faith in one individual piece of equipment when more than likely it will fail at the precise moment you don't want it to do so. So, here are some lenses you might want to consider: Canon 24-70 f/2.8 USM L Canon 70-200 f/2.8 USM IS (I or II) L Canon 16-35 /2.8 USM L Canon 85 /1.2 USM L Canon 50 f/1.2 or 1.4 USM L or non-L (respectively) These all have different functions and they ALL come in hand in different circumstances. I mean, some might even say that the Canon 300 f/2.8 IS USM L is their most needed lens for a wedding. It all depends on the client's needs, the characteristics of the wedding, and your style. Don't pigeon hole yourself.
1810954
Good questions. If you want the best lens you've ever used, sell your 75-300 and get the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS USM II. It is hands down the best lens I've ever used. It's fast and will make every shot look like a pro. Nothing beats having a 2.8 aperture. It's expensive, but so worth it. Another great lens would be any of the Canon 50mm primes. Or the 40mm pancake prime. I like the 50mm f1.4 but the 50mm f1.8 is amazing too. There's even a 50mm f1.2 but it's way expensive.
220605
Hi JohnDo yo have a FF or 1.6! This one is perfect for 1.6 crop and good for FF too. However it's not exactly a portrait lens {by definition}, you can look at 85mm f1.2 mkii for that if you want a perfect portrait lens.24-70 is far more sharper than 24-105 though.
1864061
Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are... » Read More Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. « Show Less
1509565
I have shot 3 weddings with this lens and I haven't had a problem with it, it's been great. I have used the 70-200 and its just a bit faster that the 80-200 but I can't really tell the difference.
1810953
either the 200 2.8L or 70-200 2.8L are excellent for that purpose. They are significantly better than the lenses you own. In that focal length they are top of the line.
1357474
I never owned 28-70 but been told that it's a great lens with excellent image quality. I have the 24-70 and it's my go-to lens for all purpose shooting on a full-frame body. Superb IQ at premium price but has no VR. I believe 28-70 is slightly heavier, shorter and fatter than 24-70; however, build quality of both 28-70 and 24-70 is excellent. Are you not satisfied with the IQ of 28-70? Do you need something wider than 28mm? Are you using DX or FX body? Like the last commenter, I too would miss 24mm wide angle if I had 28-70. If I had a 28-70, I would sell it and buy 24-70 Nikon, but that's me. http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/04/nikon-28-70-28d-vs-nikon-24-70-28g.html
1125759
Not "THE" best... But it's pretty darn good for it. Its a fast lens 2.0L and it gives you a nice range. It is said that the "BEST" is the 70 - 200 2.8L Good luck. I love both lenses by the way.
1150472
"Nick Kovacs says:way too slow...I tried it and quickly purchased a 70-200 2.8"LOL, how can the 24-70mm f/2.8L be slower than the 70-200mm f/2.8L which is equally "fast"? I own both and I notice no difference between the two, other than their reach of course.
220609
Hi John,If light is an issue, you would definitely need a lens with f2.8 or less. and with 24-105 you can at best get f4.0 so I believe you will have to choose between quality and range.If you want quality in low light conditions then go for the 24-70 mm. If range is a greater priority then you can go for the 24-105 f/4.0 L IS
1849073
A fantastic prime lens. Super crisp even in the corners. Depends upon how big of a group and what the perspective is. I would typically use a longer lens for most wedding group shots. Something like 35mm prime or the 16-35mm L2.8. I think the 14mm is a killer lens, but probably not the lens that i would use for group shots usually.
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
1011445
I shoot weddings and started out with the original 100 macro, I then upgraded to the 100 IS macro (which is amazing) but that lens got dropped and I had to ship it out to have it repaired just before an event so I ordered the 50mm just as a place holder till I got the 100 back. I was able to make some decent images with it and it will certainly get you closer to your subjects than a non macro lens however it doesn't even come close to either of the 100 macro lenses. So short answer: if you have the money go for the 100 2.8 IS it's absolutely worth it, but if money is tight and you're simply looking to add another trick to the back then the 50 will get you by for the moment, what you will be missing is sharpness/clarity but you'll still be able to get in close and get "macro" images.
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.
1716981
This Lens is phenomenal! I also have the 6d and together they are great. Don't waste your money on the 24-70. At first, I was not too sure about the 28-70L , but after Using it at a few events, it is proven to be an awesome lens. My copy is tack sharp and the only difference is 4mm.
220606
Zoom with your feet! Kidding aside, there are quite a number of factors you might consider in buying a specific lens. A few of which are (1) Aperture to address lighting, (2) 'Practicality' of a zoom reach, and (3) Price. I would only pick the 24-105mm if I don't have enough dough for the 24-70mm. But supposing money isn't an issue, it seems to me that your primary concern is lighting for taking portraits. Someone here already said the answer. Go for a prime. :) I personally sold my 24-105mm and got the 24-70mm because of that f/2.8 aperture. Point #1 above is on my high priority list. And I know it's redundant but I also have the 24mm f/1.4. Zoom with your feet! Kidding aside, there are quite a number of factors you might consider in buying a specific lens. A few of which are (1) Aperture to address lighting, (2) 'Practicality' of a zoom reach, and (3) Price. I would only pick the 24-105mm if I don't have enough dough for the 24-70mm. But supposing money isn't an issue, it seems to me that your primary concern is lighting for taking portraits. Someone here already said the answer. Go for a prime. :) I personally sold my 24-105mm and got the 24-70mm because of that f/2.8 aperture. Point #1 above is on my high priority list. And... » Read More Zoom with your feet! Kidding aside, there are quite a number of factors you might consider in buying a specific lens. A few of which are (1) Aperture to address lighting, (2) 'Practicality' of a zoom reach, and (3) Price. I would only pick the 24-105mm if I don't have enough dough for the 24-70mm. But supposing money isn't an issue, it seems to me that your primary concern is lighting for taking portraits. Someone here already said the answer. Go for a prime. :) I personally sold my 24-105mm and got the 24-70mm because of that f/2.8 aperture. Point #1 above is on my high priority list. And I know it's redundant but I also have the 24mm f/1.4. « Show Less