Re: Canon 70-200mm F/4 vs. F/2.8 for Ceremony
 

Does the 24-105 give you smooth focusing? We haven't had a chance to test many lenses, but the STM were always by far the best choice for the 70D. Everything else had focusing noise and was jerky. Again, certainly no "L" lenses in my kit, though.

Re: Canon 70-200mm F/4 vs. F/2.8 for Ceremony
 

Amen to that. I'm certainly on high interest alert for ff with all the features of the 70d.

I was wondering this too. If STM is the recommended lens for smooth auto focus, what about the USM and others?

Problem as I see it is the limitations of choice for a fast stm lens. Or am I not seeing this correctly?

Re: Canon 70-200mm F/4 vs. F/2.8 for Ceremony
 

I did not work on that program but your name sounds familiar to me too.

Steve

Re: Canon 70-200mm F/4 vs. F/2.8 for Ceremony
 

I use a 70D and a C100 with Dual Pixel AF and I've found that the 24-105 works pretty well with the continuous AF features in most situations. During the processional it's quite smooth and when I use the push auto it is extremely fast. I used the Canon 18-135 STM which was a bit smoother but I found the 24-105 to be sharper with nicer bokeh. However, it's quite a bit more expensive than the 18-135.

During reception we use the Canon 28mm F/1.8, 50mm F/1.4, and 85mm F/1.8 with the continuous autofocus on both cameras. These work well but when we shoot at F/2.0 with a very shallow depth of field we have to be careful to stay focused on the subject. For instance, during the first dance we will use continuous AF but if the couple moves too quickly for me to keep up with them, the camera will focus on the guests in the background and the couple will become totally out of focus. I don't think this has to do with STM vs. non-STM as it really just has to do with the very shallow depth of field when shooting around F/2.0. Since the 28mm is wider, it tends to maintain a deeper depth of field so we use that as the safety shot because it's easier to keep the subject in focus the whole time.

So from my experience the non-STM lenses will work very well with continuous AF but you just need to learn how to work with the shallow depth of field which can be tricky. You can toggle the continuous AF on and off with each camera, so by learning how to use this feature you can also allow yourself the freedom to not always have the subject in the exact center of the frame.

Re: Canon 70-200mm F/4 vs. F/2.8 for Ceremony
 

Michael, you should qualify that statement to say that the quality, expensive USM lenses can work well with auto focus, because we tried our cheaper lenses, not great stuff, and got a LOT of jerky motion. A lot. Some of it has made its way into the videos I've shared on here.

Totally agree on being vigilant on the focus tracking, especially when shooting shallow. If they're stationary, like the vows, I'll tap the screen to turn off auto-focus. If its the 1st dance, or some such, I'll keep my finger on their face the whole time to make sure the focus stays there.

Paul, right now we have six STM lenses that cover our range of needs pretty well. The 28-135mm STM, an 18-55mm (not even sure where we got it, maybe when we bought T3i's 4 years ago but we rarely use it), the 55-250mm (two of them, long reach is great for vows when you have the light), and the 40mm and 28mm f/2.8 pancakes. Those f/2.8 do nicely most of the time, but if the reception is really, painfully dark, I still have a 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8. We have a Sigma macro (28-70mm?) that does f/2.8-4 that I like a lot, but will only use with manual focus.

Re: Canon 70-200mm F/4 vs. F/2.8 for Ceremony
 

Robert, that's definitely good information to know that some of the less expensive USM lenses don't play well with the continuous AF. Do you remember which lenses those were? Right now if I'm going to buy a lens I want to make sure that it works at least decently well with the Dual Pixel AF because I use that feature so often.

Re: Canon 70-200mm F/4 vs. F/2.8 for Ceremony
 

I know some of them were super cheap kit lenses, like the USM versions of the 18-55mm and 55-250mm we got with our T3is (our first cameras). The 18-135 USM was also a problem.

I'll have to do some testing with our prime lenses and see how they do. Our 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 being our best, along with that Sigma macro I mentioned, just to give you an idea of how low on the quality scale we are, still.

I'll post a video tomorrow.

Re: Canon 70-200mm F/4 vs. F/2.8 for Ceremony
 

I find the 24-105 very smooth for focusing and the IS works quite well, but is a bit noisy in quiet spaces. I wish those STM lenses were constant aperture, as they are so smooth and quiet that I question if they are even working!
The trick for me was learning when to use which of the three AF modes. Face tracking is often too unpredictable with lots of movement, so I generally use the mode with the three zones, centre, left and right, and then just touch the screen or toggle the wheel to choose on the fly. The closest objects take priority for focus in that large zone, so it works really well for me. Knowing when to 'pause' or bypass autofocus (or lock focus...) is also key, so programming a button for that is really useful.
I really enjoy shooting with the 70d, and after getting used to it, I find it totally suites my style of shooting and feels really natural. I do wish the 24-105 was 2.8, but that new FF Canon that I keep hoping for will also likely be much better in low light, and f4 on a FF will be enough for sharp focus on the fly. My birthday is coming up, Canon...

Re: Canon 70-200mm F/4 vs. F/2.8 for Ceremony
 

Hey Guys,

Since you are discussing Canon lens options I thought I would throw some info to you on a little known Canon lens. In the early nineties when I was a full time sports photographer I converted from Nikon to Canon. This was the first lens I bought. I thought it would be good until I replaced all that focal range with their f2.8 zooms. I did and It was good. In fact it was so good it continued be a work horse to this day.

It is the Canon 35mm-350mm L F3.5- F5.6 USM Super Telephoto Zoom Lens. I would never recommend a super telephoto zoom lens unless it is this one. You can’t make an extreme lens like this unless you put money and quality into the manufacturing. All of the cheep one have problems someplace. This lens is tack sharp at all apertures and all focal lengths. The good news is it is discontinued and not expensive anymore. I think I paid close to $2,000.00 for it back then, now I see them on e-bay everywhere from $600.00 to $1,000.00. For six or seven hundred bucks it would be a great addition to add to your quiver just for its extreme capabilities when you need it. I know it is too slow to be a good wedding lens. These days I use it on my EA50 when I am in the back of a ballroom and I have to shoot a guy on the stage, head and shoulders tight for the I-mag screens. If you have a need for a long reaching lens this could be it and you can zoom all the way from 35mm to 350mm. That is pretty cool.

For video it is obviously a tripod only lens. With that said I am comfortable using it without rails. If you are a DSLR guy you would be using the lens collar it comes with and suspending the body if you do not have rails.

This is heavy, clunky, monster of a lens. You are not going to get a smooth live zoom out of it. However, once you pick your focal length there is a smooth/tight ring on it that can lock the zoom if you want to.

This thing is “L” series sharp and I love having it when I need it. If you can find one in good condition on e-bay it might be worth considering if you have a need for something this extreme.

For the picture of the moon I broke all the rules just to see what it would do. It is an untouched .jpg from my EA50. The lens at 3500m, I extended that with a Canon 2X doubler, and I am pretty sure I used the 2X in camera zoom. It should have turned to mashed potatoes after all that but it is not that bad.

Just an option? The moon picture does NOT represent this lens being sharp. Video looks much better than all the magnification I put that still through.

Steve