i know the advantages of having the 2.8 lenses for indoor photography. ive seen some photogs here list down their f4 lenses as part of their gear.

question: do you guys use your f4 lenses mainly with flash? and im curious as to how useful a 17-40L and a 24-105L would be for weddings.....theoretically the 2.8 should be better (theoretically because i do not have any real world experience hehe).

i know the advantages of having the 2.8 lenses for indoor photography. ive seen some photogs here list down their f4 lenses as part of their gear.

question: do you guys use your f4 lenses mainly with flash? and im curious as to how useful a 17-40L and a 24-105L would be for weddings.....theoretically the 2.8 should be better (theoretically because i do not have any real world experience hehe).

My former line-up for weddings was the tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 and the tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. Both fast lenses. My main workhorses. Now, I shifted to an ef-s 10-22 f3.5-4.5 and 24-105 f4L IS lineup. I sold the 28-75 f2.8 w/c was an excellent lens (I do miss it from time to time). I still have my 17-35 but I don't use it anymore and will keep it just in case I move to 135mm FF in the future.

The range of the new lineup, though slower meets my needs just right. Some prefere the f2.8. I don't. If I need DOF control or ultimate sharpness, I have a 100 f2 usm and a 50 f1.8 mk2. My experience has been that for group pictures and the like you actually need a deeper DOF. So for me, f4-f5.6 is just ok to use, thus I could live with an f4 lens as max aperture.

The reason why I ddin't get a 24-70 f2.8L is that I needed the IS more than the f2.8. I had a 28-75 f2.8 lens before, so I know my needs and preference. What I can tell you is this, I can shoot at 1/6-1/10 at f4 with no blur (if the subject is not moving) at 70mm. That's tough to do even a 1/20-1/25 at f2.8 with no IS. I also wanted the 105mm range of the 24-105L. I notice that 70-75mm is not enough for me. The 24-105L is also lighter and smaller.

As to whether you use if with flash or not, is it's still depends. If I need to fill in, I use it. If the scene requires more light you use it as a main source of light. Even if I had f1.8 I will use a flash if there are shadows that needs to be filled in.


-Mel

thanks for sharing that insight mel :)
sharp shots at 1/6-1/10... wow

My former line-up for weddings was the tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 and the tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di. Both fast lenses. My main workhorses. Now, I shifted to an ef-s 10-22 f3.5-4.5 and 24-105 f4L IS lineup. I sold the 28-75 f2.8 w/c was an excellent lens (I do miss it from time to time). I still have my 17-35 but I don't use it anymore and will keep it just in case I move to 135mm FF in the future.

The range of the new lineup, though slower meets my needs just right. Some prefere the f2.8. I don't. If I need DOF control or ultimate sharpness, I have a 100 f2 usm and a 50 f1.8 mk2. My experience has been that for group pictures and the like you actually need a deeper DOF. So for me, f4-f5.6 is just ok to use, thus I could live with an f4 lens as max aperture.

The reason why I ddin't get a 24-70 f2.8L is that I needed the IS more than the f2.8. I had a 28-75 f2.8 lens before, so I know my needs and preference. What I can tell you is this, I can shoot at 1/6-1/10 at f4 with no blur (if the subject is not moving) at 70mm. That's tough to do even a 1/20-1/25 at f2.8 with no IS. I also wanted the 105mm range of the 24-105L. I notice that 70-75mm is not enough for me. The 24-105L is also lighter and smaller.

As to whether you use if with flash or not, is it's still depends. If I need to fill in, I use it. If the scene requires more light you use it as a main source of light. Even if I had f1.8 I will use a flash if there are shadows that needs to be filled in.


-Mel

that was really very inspiring sir mel... for now i don't feel the need to have the fast lenses and be contented with the f4 zoom lens and other variable-aperture lenses that i have... but i'm still scouting for an affordable workhorse lens cause i grew tired of using my soft 28-135 lens... would the sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 be of help to me on wedding shoots?i have read all the reviews and technical whatevers about it and i know you don't have this lens in your line up but i was just hoping you could share your opinion regarding it, especially that it would be my first third party lens if ever and i'll be using it as my workhorse for weddings...

Sorry, this ain't a wedding photo. Just posting as an example.

Canon 20D with 24-105 f/4L IS handheld at 1/13, f/4, 24mm, ISO 3200. No flash. Unedited.

http://static.flickr.com/67/205319971_67a2ca9994.jpg

how are the F4 lenses without IS like the 17-40 L and 70-200 L? are they useable even in low light? can someone post pics?

sir mel. the 24-105L does not hunt that much in low light focusing? thanks.

I also use the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 really good lens for the price. Using f/4 lenses specially L glass will definitely give you good results, and with IS all the more! If I have enough cash, I would get a Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS to get both a constant 2.8 aperture and IS technology! This lens has very good reviews, definitely on top of my wish list :)

how are the F4 lenses without IS like the 17-40 L and 70-200 L? are they useable even in low light? can someone post pics?
jon, with regards to my experience with 70-200 4L, yes it's useable in low light, provided you bump the ISO to 1600 or H (3200)... i have been spoiled by the IS of 28-135 that's why i'm still in the process of learning how to shoot without IS... here's a sample of a candid shot during a wedding... talagang mahirap hindi naka-fast lens in weddings...haaay:RedEye:
http://yaparazzi.multiply.com/photos/photo/3/1
http://yaparazzi.multiply.com/photos/photo/3/1

1/125, f/4 , ISO1600, focal length 200mm, and yes, with flash :)... i doubt i'll be able to capture this kid's antics without its help.

that was really very inspiring sir mel... for now i don't feel the need to have the fast lenses and be contented with the f4 zoom lens and other variable-aperture lenses that i have... but i'm still scouting for an affordable workhorse lens cause i grew tired of using my soft 28-135 lens... would the sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 be of help to me on wedding shoots?i have read all the reviews and technical whatevers about it and i know you don't have this lens in your line up but i was just hoping you could share your opinion regarding it, especially that it would be my first third party lens if ever and i'll be using it as my workhorse for weddings...


Bryan,

For weddings, because of the new lenses coming out that we didn't have 2-3 years ago, you have more choices.

IF you will stick it out with the 1.6x croppers cameras, best to go with a fast lineup or a slower lineup but with IS. Obviously, lenses with IS will be expensive. So, let's see if you want to cut down cost but still be able get high IQ with a fast lens that will match the Canon lenses.

If I will stick it out with the 1.6x crop cameras, I'd pick the 12-24 f4 tokina for my wide, a tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di-2 as my two lens lineup. It has the wide and stability of tokina and the speed and medium range of the tamron 17-50. With wides (e.g. 10-22 or 12-24), if you have f4, it's not much of a problem shooting at between 1/8-1/25 because the camera shake is not as much, unless you suffer from parkinson's diseases or drink lots of coffee. Tamron's 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 Di-2, is also very sharp, but you are stuck for 1.6x crop cameras and it's slower than the sigma or canon version.


If you need longer lengths, you can get a prime. Or wait it out for the tokina 50-135 f2.8 or sigma 50-150 f2.8. But then again, these lenses will vignette with the 5d and 1D cameras (assuming you own canon bodies).

As a wedding shooter, you need both the wide and the medium length tele-zooms. YOu can live by the 17-50 f2.8 di-2 then add the wider lens later on. Then once you get that, you can add the longer focal lengths. The wide is for group shots and you don't have space to backup.

If you intend to shoot weddings, seriously best get the tamron 17-50 f2.8 then a flash. That will tide you over, then you can get the other lenses as you earn money.

When I was starting, my line up was the tamron 17-35 f2.8 Di, tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di, and a 100 f2 usm prime with a 50 f1.8 mk2 and a 1.4x kenko pro TC. With this lineup, I have the speed, the sharpness of the prime at a much lower cost. Much, much lower! What I didn't have was the 10/12-22/24mm covered. And that hurt me on many occassions in tight spaces.

As you can see, my ef-s 10-22 and 24-105L covers the entire range very, very well. And this combo is good also with other activities, not just weddings. For me, this is the perfect combo. Others go the 24-70 f2.8L route. Others will go the 17-55 IS route. That one is also good. But then again, we are talking very expensive lenses here.

If you stick it out with the tamron's or tokina ( I have had both the tamron's) you will get L class images at much lower cost. A 28-75 Di is about P23k. A canon 24-70 f2.8L is about P68k.

Don't pooh-pooh, these lower cost lenses. In terms of IQ, they are up there with the Ls. What they lack are weather sealing, ring usm, FTM, and other stuff. If I were starting again, I'd probably drop the 17-35 I had then, and go straight to the tokina 12-24 f4 and the tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di-2, and my 100 f2 usm, plus the 1.4x TC. It's a better lineup than I had. Now, the problem with this lineup is that I can't use this with 35mm FF.

To me this is not a problem. I'd worry about the FF when the prices of these cameras go down below P100k. No sense in worrying about it if you can't afford it. Get the lenses you need now especially if you will earn money from it. If it's just a hobby, best to wait and save till you can afford it.

If you want compatibility with FF, get a tokina 12-24, tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di.
I don't own any sigma lenses so I can't speak for or against the 17-70. But the range may compromise quality and your lens will be slow at the long end. That can be a problem on slow shutter speeds without IS helping to steady you. :Mad:

If you play around with your budget, you will see that a 2 lens set from 3rd party will set you back about P50k. Not bad really, because these are L class in quality of image. Now, you can still lower this if you choose other lenses, but I bet you will be copromising too much if you go with say, an 18-85 ef-s, or a 28-135 IS, or slower lenses.


- Mel

Most of my group shots are at 5.6. So, f4 lens are ok. Maybe just add 30/1.4 to take care of all your available light shots.

Bryan,

For weddings, because of the new lenses coming out that we didn't have 2-3 years ago, you have more choices.

IF you will stick it out with the 1.6x croppers cameras, best to go with a fast lineup or a slower lineup but with IS. Obviously, lenses with IS will be expensive. So, let's see if you want to cut down cost but still be able get high IQ with a fast lens that will match the Canon lenses.

If I will stick it out with the 1.6x crop cameras, I'd pick the 12-24 f4 tokina for my wide, a tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di-2 as my two lens lineup. It has the wide and stability of tokina and the speed and medium range of the tamron 17-50. With wides (e.g. 10-22 or 12-24), if you have f4, it's not much of a problem shooting at between 1/8-1/25 because the camera shake is not as much, unless you suffer from parkinson's diseases or drink lots of coffee. Tamron's 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 Di-2, is also very sharp, but you are stuck for 1.6x crop cameras and it's slower than the sigma or canon version.


If you need longer lengths, you can get a prime. Or wait it out for the tokina 50-135 f2.8 or sigma 50-150 f2.8. But then again, these lenses will vignette with the 5d and 1D cameras (assuming you own canon bodies).

As a wedding shooter, you need both the wide and the medium length tele-zooms. YOu can live by the 17-50 f2.8 di-2 then add the wider lens later on. Then once you get that, you can add the longer focal lengths. The wide is for group shots and you don't have space to backup.

If you intend to shoot weddings, seriously best get the tamron 17-50 f2.8 then a flash. That will tide you over, then you can get the other lenses as you earn money.

When I was starting, my line up was the tamron 17-35 f2.8 Di, tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di, and a 100 f2 usm prime with a 50 f1.8 mk2 and a 1.4x kenko pro TC. With this lineup, I have the speed, the sharpness of the prime at a much lower cost. Much, much lower! What I didn't have was the 10/12-22/24mm covered. And that hurt me on many occassions in tight spaces.

As you can see, my ef-s 10-22 and 24-105L covers the entire range very, very well. And this combo is good also with other activities, not just weddings. For me, this is the perfect combo. Others go the 24-70 f2.8L route. Others will go the 17-55 IS route. That one is also good. But then again, we are talking very expensive lenses here.

If you stick it out with the tamron's or tokina ( I have had both the tamron's) you will get L class images at much lower cost. A 28-75 Di is about P23k. A canon 24-70 f2.8L is about P68k.

Don't pooh-pooh, these lower cost lenses. In terms of IQ, they are up there with the Ls. What they lack are weather sealing, ring usm, FTM, and other stuff. If I were starting again, I'd probably drop the 17-35 I had then, and go straight to the tokina 12-24 f4 and the tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di-2, and my 100 f2 usm, plus the 1.4x TC. It's a better lineup than I had. Now, the problem with this lineup is that I can't use this with 35mm FF.

To me this is not a problem. I'd worry about the FF when the prices of these cameras go down below P100k. No sense in worrying about it if you can't afford it. Get the lenses you need now especially if you will earn money from it. If it's just a hobby, best to wait and save till you can afford it.

If you want compatibility with FF, get a tokina 12-24, tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di.
I don't own any sigma lenses so I can't speak for or against the 17-70. But the range may compromise quality and your lens will be slow at the long end. That can be a problem on slow shutter speeds without IS helping to steady you. :Mad:

If you play around with your budget, you will see that a 2 lens set from 3rd party will set you back about P50k. Not bad really, because these are L class in quality of image. Now, you can still lower this if you choose other lenses, but I bet you will be copromising too much if you go with say, an 18-85 ef-s, or a 28-135 IS, or slower lenses.


- Mel

Gwabe sir mel, this advise covered most of my concerns on buying lenses! thanks so so much for this very sound advise! if only my mentor was as articulate, as eloquent, and as helpful as you, ang saya ko sana lalo shooting weddings, hehe... now it's time to take a break on my vid editing and do my research on the lenses you mentioned... thanks again sir mel and more power to you!!

F4 lenses are great! Especially the L versions, they're lighter than their 2.8 counterparts, much cheaper, and they're very sharp wide open. Other lenses which are not sharp wide open is another story. You may think you have a 3.5-5.6 lens when in fact what you have is an f8 lens.

Most of the time i don't miss the f2.8 at all. And if i really want a good background blur, i'd prefer using a prime. The difference in the background blur isn't that much between an f4 and f2.8. Skill in knowing how the background blurs is more important. ;) For weddings it's mostly f5.8 to f8 anyway.

IMHO, the 24-105 IS L is a fantastic all around lens for weddings and pretty much everything else. I have some specialty lenses for the wides and macros, but all around, this lens just does everything extremely well. The size, the handling, especially the speed of the USM focussing, and the way it locks on to the subject is confidence inspiring.

The IS allows me to get away with so many shots that are below the shutter speed/focal length rule. It's like a whole slew of shutter speeds and fstops that suddenly became useable again. The IS just lends so much flexibility. With non-IS lenses, you have to constantly be aware of the shutter speed. Even if it makes accurate focus in low light, if the shutter speed isn't up there, the picture is useless.

With IS, the odds are in your favor that you'll get a decent shot. If it's dark, and you get slower than 1/10, just take a couple extra shots and there's a very good chance you'll have ones that are magically sharp. I feel the IS is a greater advantage in low light than a 2.8 non-is lens. Provided you're not shooting sports.

To Brian and Enjoy,


Mind you I am not dissing the 24-70L or other combis. There's more of 24-70Ls out there than my 24-105L. It boils down to a matter of preference and style. My picks is not any better or worse. It's a compromise, like anything else. In a perfect world, you'd want 10-150mm f2.8L IS that cost U$1,000 and is as light and as big as the 24-105. :)

If you have an f2.8 lens, you basically solve the low light problem for a zoom. That's as fast as you go for zooms. But if you are really into DOF and bokeh, as Enjoy said, go for primes. A 50 f1.8 mk2 can be had for about P4k.

If you ask me, a budget lineup but is good in IQ are:

1. tokina 12-24 f4
2. tamron 17-50 f2.8 di-2
3. 50 f1.8 mk2

Then add a tokina 50-135 f2.8 later on.

You're wedding setup that is relatively fast is complete. What you don't have is the benefit of IS. As someone else has posted, you can get 1/6-1/15 sec at f4 at 70mm with an IS (assuming subject is not moving). To me that is worth more than f2.8. But I do know I need a f2.8 or an f2 or f1.8 or better. I go to primes if that is what I want.

A final advice. If you plan to buy lenses, have a plan. Then stick to it. Break that plan only if there are other models out there that sprouted up that are much better or makes your plan look better. But otherwise stick to it.

BUILD a lineup. Don't think in single lenses. Then acquire them slowly through the years. My plan is the 10-22 / 24-105L / 70-200 f2.8L main lineup. That's the plan. The rest of the lenses are supporting lenses (50 f1.8 mk2, 100 f2 usm, 1.4x TC). The old tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 will be retained for backup and in case I get a 35mm FF dslr in the future.

The only one I don't have is the 70-200 f2.8L IS. It will take me 2-3 years to save up for that. But that's how long I am willing to wait to get it. Even if it takes 5 years, I will save up for it. I broke my plan a bit and have the 50-200 f3.5-4.5L to tide me over till I can get this lens. 3-5 years is a long time not to have a long lens. So, this is the exception you might make. But for shorter focal lengths, w/c you tend to use more often anyway for weddings, best to resolve the issue in 2 years. The first year alone, you should get a 17-50 f2.8 or a 28-75 (use the kit lens for the wide temporarily). Go for the 10/12-20/24 on the 2nd year.

Sometimes our long range plans change due to new lenses that come out. The 24-105L is such a lens. My plans for the 70-200 f2.8L IS might also change if there is a 50-135/150 f4L IS that can come out. But I don't worry about those since they are not available yet. But the 17-50 f2.8 is something that might have swayed me and not the 28-75 f2.8 Di had there been a tamron 17-50 f2.8. I didn't consider the sigma 18-50 f2.8 because it was too problematical. But there was no 17-50 2.6 years ago. Nor was there a 24-105L.

If you think in terms of a lineup, you won't have "dead" lenses that are not used at all. In fact, your main lineup should represent 95-98% of your usage. That is why you really focus on getting them. Your primes might be "dead" in some way, but not really if they perform other roles that your main lenses cannot do. But if you go down to barebones, you really need about 2-3 lenses only as your main. But in truth, as time goes on, you will like to fill in these gaps. So, you'll end up with 5-8 lenses. But at the end of the day, it's still the 3 main lenses that you will use often. Actually for weddings, you will use 2 lenses - the ultra wide and the wide-to-medium zoom. That's about 95% or more of your wedding requirements.

Oh, the only thing that the lineup doesn't have and can't do very well are two:

1. a true macro lens (e.g. 100 f2.8 usm macro)
2. A long lens 300-400mm range.


-Mel

Yup, Tokina's 12-24 f/4 is indeed an excellent lens... The build quality and optics is something to look forward too--You just have to get a good copy :)

any idea how much this tokina lens cost?

any idea how much this tokina lens cost?

got it for around 28k... that was months ago.. prices of this tokina glass kept on fluctuating... basically depends on the demand.

got it for around 28k... that was months ago.. prices of this tokina glass kept on fluctuating... basically depends on the demand.

thanks levi:) its cheaper than the canon 10-22 by 10k (if my pricing is correct). Will consider this lens as soon as I'm ready to buy a wide lens. Thanks again

thanks levi:) its cheaper than the canon 10-22 by 10k (if my pricing is correct). Will consider this lens as soon as I'm ready to buy a wide lens. Thanks again

bunny,

I've thought about the tokina and the ef-s 10-22, and as per my own advice, just dug in and got the wider 10-22. The tokina at that time was P26k and I got the 10-22 for P33. A 7k difference. Was it worth it?

Optically, they'd probably be close, except for the purple fringing that tokina's have now and then. But I'll tell you this. 2mm on the wide end is a LOT. You'd not notice an 85mm vs 100mm in close range, but a 10mm vs 12mm is a lot. And that is what tilted my choice.

Of course, the ef-s cannot be used in 1D's and 5d or older cameras, unlike the tokina, even if it is also a cropped type lens. But I knew that before hand, and I still have on the side my tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.0 Di in case I have to go 135mm dslr.

Again, as I said in my earlier post, have a lens plan. And stick with it. Break it only if there are new lenses that are better or suits your needs better. Don't compromise on this plan too much because bodies will change through the years, not lenses unlikely. I have an 18 year old 50-200 f3.5-4.5L lens w/c still works up to this date. True it has a slower AF, not as contrasty, but the color is L and the resolution is up there bordering the primes at the center.

3-5 years from now Canon will introduce newer sensors that have better dynamic range, better low light or high ISO capabilities, etc. It will be in the 12-14mp range, maybe even 16mp. You will be tempted to upgrade your 30d or 40d by then. But your lenses will likely still be there.

The only time I see that you need to upgrade or change lens lineup is when they come up with liquid glass or some other truly revolutionary material that blows glass, fluorite, UD, or ED out of the water. And that is still a decade or so away. And even then, your lens lineup will still likely be there.


-Mel

Hi... I'm just new in photography, and just started to build my equipments... just wanna ask anybody pls. who knows where could I buy this Tamron 17-50 f2.8 di-2.... i am very much convince in the forum, as a replacement of the kit lens of my canon 350d...

thanks

my friend told me that patrick uy shot claundine baretto using a 300 2.8 wow, while entering the church and blurring everyone around her. i can't imagine that you use than lens in wedding photo. wow!

sir mel. the 24-105L does not hunt that much in low light focusing? thanks.

Im using 24-105mm f4L as my all around lens..lighter and sharper than 24-70mm f2.8L..the IS is very useful in low lights and it doesnt hunt in lowlighting..fast AF

keep shooting.
r
eggie santos

http://regs777.multiply.com/

@ Sir Mel and Reggie,
Are there stores in Hidalgo that sells Tamron 24-105mm f4L and what is the price range. I have a very limited budget. Thanks.

@ Sir Mel and Reggie,
Are there stores in Hidalgo that sells Tamron 24-105mm f4L and what is the price range. I have a very limited budget. Thanks.

hi rodel, i think youre reffering to canon 24-105 F/4L IS.:) i think its in the 65K-75K range.

Im using 24-105mm f4L as my all around lens..lighter and sharper than 24-70mm f2.8L..the IS is very useful in low lights and it doesnt hunt in lowlighting..fast AF

keep shooting.
r
eggie santos

http://regs777.multiply.com/

i second to that.:)

My goodness, Levi and Mel, your inputs really reduced the confusion for those of us who are looking to collect or purchase Canon lenses... Thanks a heap (subscribed to this thread hehe)

A question...

How would you know if a Sigma, Tamron, Tokina lens is EF mount (not EF-S) and with IS?

i second to that.:)

Hi Reggie,

What's the body you're using? I seem to be having a problem with my 24-105 sharpness ... and really?? You say its "... and sharper than 24-70mm f2.8L" ... were you able to test it? I was actually planning on trading my 24-105 L to a 24-70 L ... with this, I'll have to re-evaluate and wait for your reply ... thanks!

Hi... I'm just new in photography, and just started to build my equipments... just wanna ask anybody pls. who knows where could I buy this Tamron 17-50 f2.8 di-2.... i am very much convince in the forum, as a replacement of the kit lens of my canon 350d...

thanks


Hey there, please share to me the info once you get it please. Thanks and cheers!

Hi Guys,

I have the 24-105L that I use for weddings. I used to have the 24-70 2.8L, but I opted to the 24-105 with the IS, since I use the 5D and I can bump the iso up to 1600 with just a touch of flash if needed. Im not a big fan of the bokeh of the f4 though, but i have my tele to use for portraits if i need a dreamy bokeh.

F4 lenses are pretty useful. For reception party shots, I always use f4 - f5.6 with my 17-35 Nikon + flash.

WHAT THE HELL!! THREAD NECRO!!!

this was posted like 2006 hahahaha.....ive already bought my 24-105L and i do use it when shooting in weddings (not a pro photog just when friends do decide to get hitched i try to get some snaps).

Hey there, please share to me the info once you get it please. Thanks and cheers!

You can buy them from Henry's or Avenue at Hidalgo.

Thanks Rom!