24-105 f4 or 17-55 f2.8 for weddings

[nvitalephotography]

thanks for all the advice. looks like it unanimous for the 17-55. So I will be looking to buy one.

Hopefully, you're not planning to mount a new 17-55mm on your camera and head off to shoot a wedding

I realize I need multiple lenses and bodies and flashes for this. I just knew I needed one of these two lenses for the majority of the photography but wasn't sure which one I should get.

[lculpin]

And lots of experience


Personally I went with the 24-70 2.8, which I know wasn

[Chris White]

looks like it unanimous for the 17-55

You can not go wrong with the 17-55 on a crop body. Unless you have a prime you are using, it will be your most used indoor lens.

[dsm363]

I

[nvitalephotography]

that 17-55 is only going to work well for wildlife if they are super close to you...I would say just stay with the lens you got for wildlife. unless everything you plan on photographing is within a few feet. But I guess that can be the case with some wildlife there.


As far me, i just ordered my 17-55 today, thanks for everyones opinions

[tkerr]

I'm trying to make this exact decision but for a different purpose. I have a Canon 7D along with the new 70-200 f/2.8 II lens.


I'm going to the Galapagos Islands on a cruise and love taking nature shots of the wildlife (brand new to all of this within the last year but really enjoying it). I'd rather not change lenses in the field so the 24-105 gives the biggest range but I'm worried about the f/4 since a lot of wildlife activity seems to happen in the morning with low light. Any suggestions? I guess I'm leaning towards the 17-55 but it's an EF-S lens and I may upgrade to the 5D mark III if it comes out in a few years. Thanks.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

You might just find that your current 70-200 lens will be more useful when it comes to wildlife. I have a 28-135mm, that I once upon a time was used for wildlife. But, as already mentioned, unless you are really close that is not near enough. I have a 100-400mm that I use for wildlife all the time now, and rarely shoot at less than 400mm, sometimes that doesn't seem like it's enough.
As far as any concern that f/4 might not be large enough aperture. Even at the beginning of happy hour I don't use a wide open aperture. Don't be afraid to use a higher ISO!





A lot of wildlife photographers I know use a 100-400mm zoom or similar, or at least a 400mm prime, and many of them use tel-extenders also.

[nvitalephotography]

I have a 100-400mm that I use for wildlife all the time now, and rarely shoot at less than 400mm, sometimes that doesn't seem like it's enough.

thats what I use for wildlife currently. With wildlife it seems like you can never have to much focal length.