Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 5, 2011, 9:00 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
iowa_jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Central Iowa
Posts: 589
Default

The newer 24-70, not yet released, is rumored to have IS. That might be worth waiting for if a person had the funding. Of course the 2.8 will have an advantage for shallow DOF. I still think that one stop isn't enough to get away from needing a flash, but coupled with IS it'd be a winner, truly one stop ahead of the 24-105.

Then the question becomes is 24mm wide enough? if not, then the 17-55mm is the winner given the f2.8 and IS. When I want wide angle, 18 wasn't enough, so I'm looking at the 10-22, but this is another $850. Seems like Canon knows what they are doing by pricing the 17-55 where they did - painfully expensive for non-L build, but probably eliminates the need for the 10-22 for most.
iowa_jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2011, 9:38 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The other thing with 2.8 and a flash is, that at 2.8 the flash does not need to fire a powerful. Allowing it to have short recycle times when shooting in burst so you get a longer burst period. And the flash burst is not as intense, which can be less intrusive.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2011, 10:01 AM   #13
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

I shoot mostly full frame and the 24-105 for me is king combined with the 70-200mm f2.8. With those two I can shoot everything happily, I will pop on a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and Canon 85mm f1.8 at times for shallower depth of field.

The key I think has to be how she likes to shoot, none of us work exactly the same way. As an example, until she gets to the group shots then 24mm on a crop could well be wide enough.

For me I could work with a 24-105 on a crop body and then have a wide angle option for groups (the Sigma 17-70 you have is plenty good enough for that).

There has been talk about the 15-85, great lens, just not a wedding lens. What hasn't been mentioned (unless I missed it) is that when wide it is f3.5 but when you zoom to 85mm you hit f5.6 so losing a lot of light.

In honesty if she is wanting to avoid flash almost altogether than possibly even f2.8 won't be fast enough so might be a need to look at some wider fast primes.

So back to the beginning of what I said it is going to be dependent on how she is going to want to shoot.

We don't have many people on here who are shooting for paid work so would great to get to see some of what she is photographing. Encourage her to get along here or if you rather just post a link her to her site/flickr or whatever she uses.
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2011, 1:41 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,748
Default

Heres my take. Its great to be able to use natural light but the problem with weddings is the rainy day and you are forced to use a back up plan. I have seen photogs who struggle here because they haven't thought it through, you do need to have an external light source so plan for it and know how to use it. Good Luck
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2011, 2:43 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark1616 View Post

For me I could work with a 24-105 on a crop body and then have a wide angle option for groups (the Sigma 17-70 you have is plenty good enough for that).
Looks like I got the wrong lens listed. It isn't the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM OS (image stabilization), it is actually the 17-70 2.8-4.5 DC. Although I am not sure there is a significant difference in IQ, the body looks exactly the same and the elements are probably the same as well?

Perhaps another option is the new Sigma 17-50 2.8, retail it isn't far away from the Canon at $980, but it looks like they can be had fairly easily under $600. Just found some very good reviews on the lens.

Last edited by rodH; Jun 5, 2011 at 3:28 PM.
rodH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2011, 3:01 PM   #16
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

The older version (non OS) is the better of the lenses, I use it quite a bit as does my wife now, will give very good results. Even if you only use it as a wide lens for lower light and get the 24-105 for longer stuff that would work really nicely. 17mm and f2.8 on that lens is very sharp.
__________________
Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.

Have fun everyone!


See what I'm up to visit my Plymouth Wedding Photography
site or go to my blog.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2011, 5:05 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark1616 View Post
The older version (non OS) is the better of the lenses, I use it quite a bit as does my wife now, will give very good results. Even if you only use it as a wide lens for lower light and get the 24-105 for longer stuff that would work really nicely. 17mm and f2.8 on that lens is very sharp.
Mark, thank you. I think I actually remember reading that when doing to research and specifically avoiding the stabilization version for that reason.

In your opinion, would the Sigma 17-50 or Canon 17-55 be a big enough upgrade over the Sigma 17-70? Right now my wife isn't overly impressed with the 17-70 for the portaits that she shoots. She always gravitates back to her Canon 50 1.4.

This is her site http://ronahawkinsphotography.blogspot.com/

you will notice a lot of teenager pics on there right now because Sr pictures and invitations are being sent out, so she has been doing a lot of those lately. But 1/2 of her shots are kids or babies, with some family and engagement stuff mixed in. At the bottom of the link there is a link to look at older photos.

Last edited by rodH; Jun 5, 2011 at 5:10 PM.
rodH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2011, 5:14 PM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41
Default

This is the stuff she loves to do




Last edited by rodH; Jun 5, 2011 at 5:19 PM.
rodH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2011, 5:21 PM   #19
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41
Default



rodH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2011, 5:23 PM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41
Default

Dang, those are huge, hopefully I don't get in trouble. If you need to delete them, feel free.

I should also mention that we have a Sigma 70-300mm 4-5.6 APO (no IS) lens. (geez, starting to look like a Sigma fan boy). I know it is a pretty cheap lens, but some people seem to do pretty well with it, but I doubt it is up to task to take wedding pics?

Last edited by rodH; Jun 5, 2011 at 11:24 PM.
rodH is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:27 PM.