F/Stops for Wedding photographers

[MVers]

Not the rule for Hasselblad Zeiss Lenses. All Hasselblad Zeiss lenses perform outstanding wide open in my opinion.


Regards, mzemljic
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

They also cost a lot more, all are MF and some don't even have auto aperture. So while they may be sharper wide open, their performance on Canon bodies are completely hindered. If you shoot still lifes and landscape--sure, but for PJ and event work you would either have to be naive or extremely skilled to use manual glass--specifically when shooting in poor lighting. As for the Sony/Zeiss 24-70/2.8, while its extremely sharp the bokeh quality is horrid, as are most Zeiss lenses IMO. The 24-70 isn't perfect but it is very usable wide open and it's bokeh quality is as good or better than any comparable lens. Another thing to keep in mind is sample variation, which there seems to be a lot of concerning this specific lens--some great, some not so much. I know this may be speculation but I've got a gut feeling Canon has a 24-70II (with IS, possibly) in the works and if its improved at all it will be extremely attractive.


As to the OP, your lens selection is a good one...you may also want to consider the 35L, 70-200/2.8IS and a second body (5D) as well.

[mzemljic]

Hi MVers


I agree with You... for manual focus lenses.Yes 24-70 is better then Sigma, but I pay for "L" not Sigma, Tamron or else.I tested 3 copies of 24-70 f 2,8 L 's from my colleges before I bought my.I tested it on 1Ds Mk II and two different 5D's. Results were always very similar.All my lenses perform well on my 5D from 15 fisheye, 16-35f2,8 L II, 50f1,4, 85f1,2 L II, 70-200f2,8 L IS but...24-70 is another story.So, if it is not true, why is Canon considering Mk II ?I would realy like to test an improved 24-70 MkII with or without "IS" ?!


Kind Regards

[MVers]

Hi MVers


I agree with You... for manual focus lenses.Yes 24-70 is better then Sigma, but I pay for "L" not Sigma, Tamron or else.I tested 3 copies of 24-70 f 2,8 L 's from my colleges before I bought my.I tested it on 1Ds Mk II and two different 5D's. Results were always very similar.All my lenses perform well on my 5D from 15 fisheye, 16-35f2,8 L II, 50f1,4, 85f1,2 L II, 70-200f2,8 L IS but...24-70 is another story.So, if it is not true, why is Canon considering Mk II ?I would realy like to test an improved 24-70 MkII with or without "IS" ?!


Kind Regards
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I don't want to go off track with this but first: I have no idea what Canon is considering. Second: the 24-70 could use an update, specifically when looking at what Nikon, Sony/Ziess and Sigma (New HSM) did with their versions. All are smaller and lighter than the L and the Nikkor and Sony/Ziess certainly have some attractive features (sharpness). But as far as color/contrast, bokeh, versatility and good sharpness wide open the current 24-70 is still very much worth it. You say you're not happy with your copy, have you MA'd it or sent it in for calibration?