Lens for wedding

[BZSPhotography]

its a perfect lens I'm in the same situation you are in. I ended up narrowing it down into 2, the Canon 28-70 f2.8 L or the Canon 24-105 f4 L. after doing loads of research, i ended up choosing the canon L 24-105 for its image stabilization and the extra focal length which i favored over the 24-70's extra f stop. Both are great lenses, pretty much the same image quality and sharpness.

I would have still went with the extra f-stop. The depth of field is usually favored by clients plus the additional speed is really needed for weddings. Typically I'll have to take two or three shots of someone to get a good shot where they arent blinking or doing something else to ruin the pic.

I agree, depth of field is certainly an upside. Yet, the 24-70 does NOT have image stabilization. And from experience, IS comes in handy during weddings.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

L lens means pro lens and you're saying a TAMRON is better? Glad I didn't chose Canon

 

[RyanSands]

Canon's L series of lenses don't always trump the competition. Neither do all of Nikon's best lenses. And if they did this world would be a very boring place. In this case I compared both lenses and could not see any noticeable difference between the two. Except that the Tamron was definitely sharper and maybe the Canon had very slightly better bokeh. Plus the fact that the Canon is nearly 3 times the price. My goal whenever I post in any photography related forum is to help out the original poster in any positive way I can. Not just suggesting the most expensive lens possible for their situation because the internet says its good. In this case the OP was asking opinions on a lens costing only $230...hardly anywhere in the realm of the way pricier Canon 24-70 or Canon 24-105. Hense why I suggested a lens that only costs $449 vs. $1275.

 

[RyanSands]

EchoingWhisper - "L lens means pro lens and you're saying a TAMRON is better? Glad I didn't chose Canon"

Canon's L series of lenses don't always trump the competition. Neither do all of Nikon's best lenses. And if they did this world would be a very boring place. In this case I compared both lenses and could not see any noticeable difference between the two. Except that the Tamron was definitely sharper and maybe the Canon had very slightly better bokeh. Plus the fact that the Canon is nearly 3 times the price. My goal whenever I post in any photography related forum is to help out the original poster in any positive way I can. Not just suggesting the most expensive lens possible for their situation because the internet says its good. In this case the OP was asking opinions on a lens costing only $230...hardly anywhere in the realm of the way pricier Canon 24-70 or Canon 24-105. Hense why I suggested a lens that only costs $449 vs. $1275.

 

[IgsEMT]

It seems like a typical third party lens. Cheaper then the brand and based on specs similar to the brand. My own, and this is a personal feeling, concern w/ 3 party lenses is quality control. I've been burned by Tamron and Sigma glass where I ended up returning it 1-2 days after the purchase. And replacing it w/ another unit - problem was the same - quality. I still used some third party lenses (ultra wide Tamron, fisheye Tokina) but they aren't the primary glass. Colleague of mine swears by hin Tamron 17-50 2.8.
If you have time to get it and testing it out, go for it! If time is limited b/n that wedding and now, rent it.

 

[Dominantly]

I rent (from my local Calumet).

It really just boils down to the fact I can walk in and spend $50 for a (3 day) weekend rental, and walk out with a few thousand dollars worth of top quality lenses, so that I know I am covered.

 

[manaheim]

If you're going to rent, why rent the Sigma? Go for the Canon.

On weddings I shoot I almost exclusively use my Nikkor 24-70 2.8 and occasionally pull out the 70-200 2.8, depending upon circumstances. (like maybe 10% of my shots)

 

[Jeremy Z]

I think you'd be better served by your kit lens and then something that compliments it. Like a 50mm f/1.8 for portraits. Use your flash and the kit lens for the rest; you'll be fine.

Not quite as nice as the pricey f/2.8 zooms folks are recommending here, but your customers will never notice.

Maybe more important is having a back-up body.