Just ordered a new lens.

[OdiN]

Just ordered a new Canon 17-55mm IS from B&H. Shipped overnight as I'm doing some shooting Friday.

Mainly it's for weddings and I wanted to have it for my wedding next weekend. Don't really need it for certain on Friday.

Excited to get a hold of it. I'm selling my 24-105 F/4IS as I find myself not using it nearly as much and it's F/4. This lens is F/2.8 with IS. I'm keeping my 17-40mm F/4L so if I do end up with a 1 series body in the next year I will have a good wide angle for it, though may look into the 16-35 II.

I will have the 17-55mm F/2.8 IS and 70-200mm F/2.8L IS for weddings - killer combo there. I don't see myself missing 56-69mm range at all.

Also thinking about setting up a remote unit for during the ceremony...toying with the idea - not sure yet.

Also ordered a couple of these: http://flashzebra.com/0070.shtml

I've got 2 PW Receivers and a Transmitter. Much better way of attaching them to a lightstand - and can even go on a flashhead.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Yep, a killer combo. I use the 17-55 2.8 IS and 70-200 F4L IS and am quite happy. I still utilize my 10-22 quite a bit though.

 

[OdiN]

I've also got a 10-22mm

 

[foghorn67]

I have the same combo, and I don't miss the narrow gap at all. You will love it.

 

[OdiN]

It's shipped

Should arrive tomorrow. Now...if only the office is open when UPS comes. Otherwise I'll just have to pick it up at the UPS facility.

 

[finbarqs]

f/4 is plenty! the 24-105mm f/4 L is usually a GREAT walk around for FF bodies. There's arguments (especially between wedding photographers) that F/2.8 is TOO shallow. Especially if you're shooting weddings, you dont' want only the bride's Nose to be in focus, or only the bride's eyes. Or if you shoot a group, you don't only wanna have one person in focus... The point is, F/4 is sometimes too shallow for group shots. Obviously you'll get to know your lens in which you'll find out at which aperture setting will you get 2 people in focus, 3, 4, etc.

Don't think F/2.8 is always "king" here. More important than a fast lens is a speedlite 580

 

[OdiN]

Try shooting a wedding in a dimly lit church which does not allow flash photography.

2.8 becomes quite necessary, along with high ISO. The IS helps as you're using longer shutter speeds to get enough light in.

While the 24-105 is a nice lens - I find I hardly ever used it, so there was no sense keeping it around collecting dust. If I get a FF body or a 1.3X crop body, I may pick a copy up again. But for now I have all the range I need in the 17-55 + 70-200.

I have shot plenty of weddings with many images at 2.8 and they are fine and plenty is in focus. Obviously with group shots you are not shooting at 2.8. I usually am more around f/8 with groups. But with groups, you don't have to worry about light. I have portable strobes, etc.

 

[GTaudiophile]

The 24-105 F4L IS didn't serve my purposes on the 20D either. I too sold it for the 17-55.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: finbarqs
f/4 is plenty! the 24-105mm f/4 L is usually a GREAT walk around for FF bodies. There's arguments (especially between wedding photographers) that F/2.8 is TOO shallow. Especially if you're shooting weddings, you dont' want only the bride's Nose to be in focus, or only the bride's eyes. Or if you shoot a group, you don't only wanna have one person in focus... The point is, F/4 is sometimes too shallow for group shots. Obviously you'll get to know your lens in which you'll find out at which aperture setting will you get 2 people in focus, 3, 4, etc.

Don't think F/2.8 is always "king" here. More important than a fast lens is a speedlite 580

Just because you have a 2.8 lens doesn't mean you are shooting wide open all the time. We do use what is called for. Speedlites are great. Yeah, I have lots of them. But not every venue allows the use of flashes.

 

[bub]

Good luck. I just sent a 17-55 f/2.8 IS 'refurbished by Canon' back to bhphotovideo. Pics were blurry. The pros would say 'soft'.
Reordered a 24-105mm f/4 L IS EF USM @ about the same cost.
We shall see.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: bub
Good luck. I just sent a 17-55 f/2.8 IS 'refurbished by Canon' back to bhphotovideo. Pics were blurry. The pros would say 'soft'.
Reordered a 24-105mm f/4 L IS EF USM @ about the same cost.
We shall see.

Was it only soft wide open or what?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: bub
Good luck. I just sent a 17-55 f/2.8 IS 'refurbished by Canon' back to bhphotovideo. Pics were blurry. The pros would say 'soft'.
Reordered a 24-105mm f/4 L IS EF USM @ about the same cost.
We shall see.

It's a very well regarded lens and also regarded as a very sharp lens. What I would have done is gotten a brand new one, not refurb. Then if it's soft, send it to Canon right away and have them recalibrate it.

 

[777php]

I just bought a 24-70 f/2.8L lens a few days ago and am super excited to get mine. I was debating between that and yours but I at one point want to go full frame so i felt i could live with the 1.6 factor.

 

[OdiN]

I had a 24-70 at one time. I didn't like it. I felt it was too heavy for its range. Though it was my first L lens and now I cart around the 70-200 like nothing lol.

It did take great photos though. Just didn't like the feel at the time. I can't remember what I traded it for - may very well have been the 24-105.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: finbarqs
f/4 is plenty! the 24-105mm f/4 L is usually a GREAT walk around for FF bodies. There's arguments (especially between wedding photographers) that F/2.8 is TOO shallow. Especially if you're shooting weddings, you dont' want only the bride's Nose to be in focus, or only the bride's eyes. Or if you shoot a group, you don't only wanna have one person in focus... The point is, F/4 is sometimes too shallow for group shots. Obviously you'll get to know your lens in which you'll find out at which aperture setting will you get 2 people in focus, 3, 4, etc.

Don't think F/2.8 is always "king" here. More important than a fast lens is a speedlite 580

Umm.....You make it sound like f/2.8 is fixed when it's not. f/4 won't do f/2.8 but f/2.8 does f/4 and that's why f/2.8 is better. It gives you more options.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: OdiN
I had a 24-70 at one time. I didn't like it. I felt it was too heavy for its range. Though it was my first L lens and now I cart around the 70-200 like nothing lol.

It did take great photos though. Just didn't like the feel at the time. I can't remember what I traded it for - may very well have been the 24-105.

I really hope Canon makes an IS version of the 24-70 but I just don't see how they'll do that without making it even heavier. Perhaps they'll pull a rabbit from their had and make parts of it out of carbon fiber?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: OdiN
I had a 24-70 at one time. I didn't like it. I felt it was too heavy for its range. Though it was my first L lens and now I cart around the 70-200 like nothing lol.

It did take great photos though. Just didn't like the feel at the time. I can't remember what I traded it for - may very well have been the 24-105.

I really hope Canon makes an IS version of the 24-70 but I just don't see how they'll do that without making it even heavier. Perhaps they'll pull a rabbit from their had and make parts of it out of carbon fiber?

Yeah IS on that would be great! But it already seems like it's as heavy as the 70-200, though it isn't. I haven't handled one since I've had the 70-200 though, and I think that lens got me used to the heavier lenses because I have no problems with it.

 

[finbarqs]

not saying that F/2.8 glass ISN'T better, i'm just saying that it seems that you'd be able to do more with the 24-105mm. obviously with IS, you can stop your hand shakes (for at least a couple of stops) but you can't stop them! I was just thinking that I would try and avoid F/2.8 when shooting portraits as much as possible... I usually would try and stop down as much as I can without compromising my shutter (being below the 1/60th mark) to get as much as I can in focus. I know there's a formula, but I'm too lazy to pull it out.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: finbarqs
not saying that F/2.8 glass ISN'T better, i'm just saying that it seems that you'd be able to do more with the 24-105mm. obviously with IS, you can stop your hand shakes (for at least a couple of stops) but you can't stop them! I was just thinking that I would try and avoid F/2.8 when shooting portraits as much as possible... I usually would try and stop down as much as I can without compromising my shutter (being below the 1/60th mark) to get as much as I can in focus. I know there's a formula, but I'm too lazy to pull it out.

For portraits of a single person, you want a large aperture in order to blur the background. The 70-200 makes a good lens because you can stand back, zoom in, set at 2.8 and really blur that background out and focus on the subject. For groups, it makes sense to use a smaller aperture so you have a larger DOF. But for portraits you really shouldn't stop down a whole lot.

The range of the 24-105 on a 1.6X crop body is, while useful on the long end, lacking on the wide end. With weddings, wide shots are very necessary and 38mm just isn't wide enough. Because I have the 70-200 for a telephoto, the 24-105 ends up not being used - that and F/4 limits me to where I can use it in indoor settings.

Also, 2.8 glass isn't necessarily "better" - just lets you get in more light. With 2.8 I may be able to use ISO 800 for dimly lit areas, vs. having to crank it to ISO 1600 with an F/4 lens, introducing more noise. While 1600 is acceptable on the 40D, it's not ideal and I use it only if really necessary.

For your shutter formula, you usually don't want to go slower than 1/Lens Focal Length. So if you are shooting at 100mm, you want to use at least 1/100th shutter, though with IS you can go a couple stops slower.

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: finbarqs
not saying that F/2.8 glass ISN'T better, i'm just saying that it seems that you'd be able to do more with the 24-105mm. obviously with IS, you can stop your hand shakes (for at least a couple of stops) but you can't stop them! I was just thinking that I would try and avoid F/2.8 when shooting portraits as much as possible... I usually would try and stop down as much as I can without compromising my shutter (being below the 1/60th mark) to get as much as I can in focus. I know there's a formula, but I'm too lazy to pull it out.

There's nothing better than sweet, sweet bokeh. And you-often-need/it-makes-it-easier to have big apertures (like f/2.8, f/1.8, etc) to get it.

edited for the nitpicky...

 

[bub]

GTaudiophile - No. All pics seemed to be soft with my 17-55.

OdiN - I guess opinions vary. The difference between a new and a 'refurbished by Canon' 17-55 2.8 IS is only approx. $100. I have not read much of that lens being soft. However, apparently they are prone to dust. The refurbished ones have been sealed. Or so I read. So I bought the refurbished. Big mistake in hindsight.

I have received the 24-105 F/4L. The few shots I've taken so far are good. About the same size and weight as the 17-55.

It's a dilemma, however. F2.8 is nice. Canon has the 24-70 F2.8L. But no IS.

And both the 17-55 and the 24-105 are the same physical size and they double the weight of my XTi. It's a moose!

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: finbarqs
not saying that F/2.8 glass ISN'T better, i'm just saying that it seems that you'd be able to do more with the 24-105mm. obviously with IS, you can stop your hand shakes (for at least a couple of stops) but you can't stop them! I was just thinking that I would try and avoid F/2.8 when shooting portraits as much as possible... I usually would try and stop down as much as I can without compromising my shutter (being below the 1/60th mark) to get as much as I can in focus. I know there's a formula, but I'm too lazy to pull it out.

I really don't understand why you'd aviod f/2.8 and try to step down as much as possible when shooting portraits. Have you seen portraits shots of lenses like 85mm f/1.2 or 200mm f/1.8? What's that formula you're talking about?

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: finbarqs
not saying that F/2.8 glass ISN'T better, i'm just saying that it seems that you'd be able to do more with the 24-105mm. obviously with IS, you can stop your hand shakes (for at least a couple of stops) but you can't stop them! I was just thinking that I would try and avoid F/2.8 when shooting portraits as much as possible... I usually would try and stop down as much as I can without compromising my shutter (being below the 1/60th mark) to get as much as I can in focus. I know there's a formula, but I'm too lazy to pull it out.

I really don't understand why you'd aviod f/2.8 and try to step down as much as possible when shooting portraits. Have you seen portraits shots of lenses like 85mm f/1.2 or 200mm f/1.8? What's that formula you're talking about?

It depends on the situation. Often if the background is distant I may stop down to get more of the subject perfectly sharp. This may happen with outdoor shots for engagement series, etc. Also, most studio work is not done at wider apertures.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: fanerman91

Originally posted by: finbarqs
not saying that F/2.8 glass ISN'T better, i'm just saying that it seems that you'd be able to do more with the 24-105mm. obviously with IS, you can stop your hand shakes (for at least a couple of stops) but you can't stop them! I was just thinking that I would try and avoid F/2.8 when shooting portraits as much as possible... I usually would try and stop down as much as I can without compromising my shutter (being below the 1/60th mark) to get as much as I can in focus. I know there's a formula, but I'm too lazy to pull it out.

There's nothing better than sweet, sweet bokeh. And you need to have big apertures (like f/2.8, f/1.8, etc) to get it.

No, you don't.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: finbarqs
not saying that F/2.8 glass ISN'T better, i'm just saying that it seems that you'd be able to do more with the 24-105mm. obviously with IS, you can stop your hand shakes (for at least a couple of stops) but you can't stop them! I was just thinking that I would try and avoid F/2.8 when shooting portraits as much as possible... I usually would try and stop down as much as I can without compromising my shutter (being below the 1/60th mark) to get as much as I can in focus. I know there's a formula, but I'm too lazy to pull it out.

I really don't understand why you'd aviod f/2.8 and try to step down as much as possible when shooting portraits. Have you seen portraits shots of lenses like 85mm f/1.2 or 200mm f/1.8? What's that formula you're talking about?

I think he's talking about the 1/focal length shutter speed guide. I find personally my rule is that+1 stop, especially on the long end. I can't keep steady for the life of me.