Is Autofocus Better on Sony A7II than Nikon D750/D810 for Events?

Looking for opinions from those that may have switched from Nikon to Sony and their general impression on autofocus accuracy for events with fast moving kids, family, weddings etc. I currently own a D810 and a Tamron 70-200G2 (great lens once tuned), Tamron 35, Nikon 50 1.8 and a 24. I have tried a number of other lenses but keep coming up disappointed on autofocus results in fast moving situations. I have come to the conclusion that part of it may be skills, but part of it is the limitations of the Nikon system. I like many elements of the Nikon cameras, and have decided to hold on to what I have, but do not want to invest any more in Nikon and am looking at Sony for an "event camera?". Looking at starting with the A7II and a 24-105 or 24-70. Questions is how much better is the autofocus in situations where you want sharp eye focus on moving kids etc? For static subjects, the Nikon does fine. Cannot justify more than a 2000 total investment at this time. I just got through evaluating a Nikon 24-70 2.8G which still comes up short. Don't get me wrong, I am getting some good shots but the number of poor focus shots in lower light is disappointing. The D750 is not much better. I am sure that the problem is that the focus technology is limited in Nikon. I am not able to buy a D850 or D5 at this time. l back button focus with C mode as a general rule and use mainly center point focus at 2.2- 4.0. As I write this I just saw this post on this Forum that addresses similar concerns: Weak Low Light Autofocus on A7RIII. But I am looking at replies from anyone coming over from Nikon. Also, my shooting issues are in lower light in door situations. I just want to know if this direction is the best for me. Thoughts?

I loved my D750 and as good as it is, the wysiwig from a Sony is very handy compared to the D750.

I extensively shot D800E's/D810's for almost five years. IMHO, for events, Sony's Eye Focus makes those DSLR's nearly obsolete for such shooting.

Two weeks ago a did a portrait-event shoot where I shot about 850 frames using the Sigma 105mm f1.4 on an A7RIII wide-open, using Eye Focus, for most all of the shots. Some of them were in near dark. When culling my shots at 100% on a 27" 5K monitor, perhaps 10 of those shots were not precisely focused on the eye, which, coming from DSLR's, seems miraculous.

To be fair, shooting at f1.4 does not really test a camera's low-light focus ability; however, I have shot several events with the GM 24-70mm f2.8 with no real focusing problems in relatively dark situations. Eye detect may not work reliably in very low light, but when shooting f2.8 to f8, Face Detect is fine. As a note, I shoot almost exclusively in AF-C for events.

Further, during the shoot, I only needed to pay attention to framing the shot - focus was basically automatic. With the added speed of shooting, you can catch many more important moments and expressions.

Technically, the A7III will be even better, in terms of focus. From my experience owning the A7II with contrast detection only focus, the D810 would be significantly better.

--
Jeff
Florida, USA
http://www.gr8photography.com

Great info. Thx. Sounds like I will need a Sony native 2.8 or better lens on an A7III to get the experience I am looking for. I should save for that then while I muddle thru with Nikon which is not bad and maybe the next generation of mirrorless will be better.

Jeff2013 said:

Technically, the A7III will be even better, in terms of focus. From my experience owning the A7II with contrast detection only focus, the D810 would be significantly better.

Click to expand...

I'm a user of the a7M2 with which I'm well satisfied for shooting weddings and events constantly, indoors and outdoors with & without flash. Regarding the AF, I've never experienced any problems with it and according to Sony it, "optimally employs phase-detection or contrast-detection AF depending on the scene".

In choosing a camera today I would nearly always go with the latest version and the Mark III with some incredible enhancements, means I shall buy it when I've got the cash but I shall use it in tandem with the a7M2 - I frequently use two bodies.

I have owned D750 and a7ii but not D820. IMO if you need to shot instantly or fast moving targets the D750 absolutely smokes the a7ii .. If you are shooting static targets with plenty of time to get your shot then there are pluses for the a7ii. The a7ii is a very slow camera in operation compared to a good DSLR.

You would need to get an a7iii, a7riii (not owned) or a9 (not owned to get close to the speed of use.

wingster999 said:

Looking for opinions from those that may have switched from Nikon to Sony and their general impression on autofocus accuracy for events with fast moving kids, family, weddings etc. I currently own a D810 and a Tamron 70-200G2 (great lens once tuned), Tamron 35, Nikon 50 1.8 and a 24. I have tried a number of other lenses but keep coming up disappointed on autofocus results in fast moving situations. I have come to the conclusion that part of it may be skills, but part of it is the limitations of the Nikon system.

Click to expand...

I haven't "switched," but I own both Nikons (now D750, D850, previously D810) and a third gen Sony A7 (A7R.3). I spent two years owning a second gen Sony A7 (A7R.2).

For moving subjects, Nikon D810 and D750 cameras can shoot circles around a second-gen Sony A7. The comparison isn't even close, and it's downright embarrassing for the second gen A7 body in low light. (The second gen Sony A7 bodies offer many advantages and favorable points, but, compared to industry leading DSLRs, autofocus for moving subjects just isn't one of them.)

The third gen Sony A7 bodies improve autofocus tracking performance vastly over the second gen. However, speaking as a loving Sony A7R.3 owner, I still think the D750 (can beat it with moving subjects, particularly in low light, particularly with longer telephoto lenses.

My opinion isn't radical or controversial. Need respected corroboration? Have a talk with noted Nature / Sports / Generalist photographer Thom Hogan.

So, I'm curious about your Nikon autofocus setup and overall practices. Because the Nikon 51-point array is fantastic for subjects in erratic, quick motion. After all, as it appears in the D810 (and D750), Nikon lifted it more-or-less directly from the top-flight D4s sports camera, which of course has been a mainstay at NFL / MLB / NHL / NBA sidelines, used extensively at three recent Olympic Games, and in wild photojournalism the world over. "Limitations of the Nikon system?" No.

So: how are you using your D810? Back-button AF-C, yes? Dynamic Area (AF-C 9, AF-C 21) if you're frame-following a subject, right? 3d Tracking if you're letting a subject dodge-weave within your array, yes? Group Area mode for subjects that can "fill" the ganged-point area, yes?

The Tamron 70-200 G2 and 35 SP, particularly, are quick enough to work wonderfully for the purposes you describe.

Nope. Any of those Nikons kill the A7II. Different story with A7III, A7RIII or A9.

MiraShootsNikon said:

wingster999 said:

Looking for opinions from those that may have switched from Nikon to Sony and their general impression on autofocus accuracy for events with fast moving kids, family, weddings etc. I currently own a D810 and a Tamron 70-200G2 (great lens once tuned), Tamron 35, Nikon 50 1.8 and a 24. I have tried a number of other lenses but keep coming up disappointed on autofocus results in fast moving situations. I have come to the conclusion that part of it may be skills, but part of it is the limitations of the Nikon system.

Click to expand...

I haven't "switched," but I own both Nikons (now D750, D850, previously D810) and a third gen Sony A7 (A7R.3). I spent two years owning a second gen Sony A7 (A7R.2).

For moving subjects, Nikon D810 and D750 cameras can shoot circles around a second-gen Sony A7. The comparison isn't even close, and it's downright embarrassing for the second gen A7 body in low light. (The second gen Sony A7 bodies offer many advantages and favorable points, but, compared to industry leading DSLRs, autofocus for moving subjects just isn't one of them.)

The third gen Sony A7 bodies improve autofocus tracking performance vastly over the second gen. However, speaking as a loving Sony A7R.3 owner, I still think the D750 (can beat it with moving subjects, particularly in low light, particularly with longer telephoto lenses.

My opinion isn't radical or controversial. Need respected corroboration? Have a talk with noted Nature / Sports / Generalist photographer Thom Hogan.

So, I'm curious about your Nikon autofocus setup and overall practices. Because the Nikon 51-point array is fantastic for subjects in erratic, quick motion. After all, as it appears in the D810 (and D750), Nikon lifted it more-or-less directly from the top-flight D4s sports camera, which of course has been a mainstay at NFL / MLB / NHL / NBA sidelines, used extensively at three recent Olympic Games, and in wild photojournalism the world over. "Limitations of the Nikon system?" No.

So: how are you using your D810? Back-button AF-C, yes? Dynamic Area (AF-C 9, AF-C 21) if you're frame-following a subject, right? 3d Tracking if you're letting a subject dodge-weave within your array, yes? Group Area mode for subjects that can "fill" the ganged-point area, yes?

The Tamron 70-200 G2 and 35 SP, particularly, are quick enough to work wonderfully for the purposes you describe.

Click to expand...

OK, here is what I am shooting for, lower light stills with optimal focus. Here is my challenge. Nikon full frame is the only DLSR i have used. I am of the strong view that if you are going to haul around a DSLR then it ought to be a good one and get good results. Let me first say that I am totally satisfied with regular light shooting with the D810. I like theD750 and its low light IQ is stellar but opted for the better bite of the D810 but I have not completely ruled out holding on to the D750 for this very reason. When I use the Tamron 70-200 at 70 mm I am pretty happy with the results on both cameras and find it to be fairly accurate focus once tuned with a Tap In Console. But I am still not totally happy with the performance of say the 50 1.8G when the subject is beyond a few feet. I think for me the issue here is the ability of a camera/lens to lock on focus and the time to do this. I just lack any experience with the Sony full frame cameras. The local camera shops do not have any demos. I just am somewhhat disappointed in my keeper rate for indoor candids. Its not that the photos are not good, they just lack critical sharpness such as in the eyes even with flash assist in many cases. I know I may be expecting too much.

Below are 2 crops of raw images from the D810. The first is with a 50 1.8G and the second is the Tamron 70-200G2 at 70. Both taken in the same room lighting. I have noticed that on the 50 1.8G I am torn between a 0 and +1 fine tune and have seen good results with both settings. But this is also an issue with the 24-70 2.8G. I have seen some incredibly sharp shots with the 50 1.8G and the 24-70, its just focus consistency that is driving me crazy here.

If you are shooting indoors in lower light and want optimal focus results what camera are you using? I do belive the D750 holds an edge in this area over the D810. What lenses have you used on these cameras in doors in lower light for run and gun situations?

wingster999 said:

MiraShootsNikon said:

So: how are you using your D810? Back-button AF-C, yes? Dynamic Area (AF-C 9, AF-C 21) if you're frame-following a subject, right? 3d Tracking if you're letting a subject dodge-weave within your array, yes? Group Area mode for subjects that can "fill" the ganged-point area, yes?

Click to expand...

OK, here is what I am shooting for, lower light stills with optimal focus. Here is my challenge.

Click to expand...

Hi, wingster,

You need to consider your answers to the questions I asked above, in green. It's not about which camera or lens you're using, because you're already using some of the best photographic equipment money can buy. What's at issue, here, is how you're using it.

(1) Are you shooting with continuous autofocus--"AF-C" rather than single-shot "AF-S" or "let the camera decide for me" "AF-A"? Obviously, using continuous autofocus will help with a moving subject.

(2) Are you using back-button focus actuation, holding the AF-ON button and snapping the shutter while continuing to focus? I ask because the default setup is shutter-button half-press to autofocus, which doesn't allow the camera to continue focus acquisition as you shoot through a moving sequence. Continuing focus as you shoot helps supply the camera with more consistent data. (You're looking for better consistency in your results, no?)

(3) Are you using Dynamic Area autofocus modes (9-point, particularly) when you're positioning your autofocus point yourself and following a subject in frame? Using a Dynamic Area mode allows the camera to shift its acquisition to a point surrounding your chosen point should a subject move erratically--or should you accidentally move the camera a notch. Again, this helps the camera acquire more consistent data.

(4) Are you using Group Area autofocus mode when your focal target is large enough in frame to fill a multi-point area? Group Area mode gangs the readings of 9 autofocus points together, radically improving the quality and quantity of data available. The camera then focuses the lens on the specific point(s) within the group that give the strongest phase read.

(5) Are you using 3D Tracking when your composition allows your subject to move in the frame? 3D tracking tells the camera to identify the subject under your focus point and follow it as it moves within the frame, or as you recompose the frame. Obviously helpful, right?

There are a number of other technical tweaks you can make that will improve your autofocus system's performance for certain scenarios--e.g. you can change the camera's reaction time to movement, which is useful in helping to filter out lens movement when something momentarily obscures your chosen focus target. But I think starting with the above could help you considerably.

Both the D810 and D750 offer all of these autofocus features, and implement them more or less the same way, using the same autofocus array. There's nothing "better" or "worse" about the D750's autofocus--it's literally the same.

Just Looking at your samples, I think you'd get a lot of use out of the "Group Area" mode, which is particularly useful for shooting somewhat far portraits--3/4 body or full body. In that case, you really need a way to make your autofocus point "bigger," to consider more data than just a tiny tiny subset of contrasts. "Group Area" mode does exactly that. Select it, place the enlarged target over your subject's face or mid-body, shoot. Autofocus consistency will ensue.

MiraShootsNikon said:

wingster999 said:

MiraShootsNikon said:

So: how are you using your D810? Back-button AF-C, yes? Dynamic Area (AF-C 9, AF-C 21) if you're frame-following a subject, right? 3d Tracking if you're letting a subject dodge-weave within your array, yes? Group Area mode for subjects that can "fill" the ganged-point area, yes?

Click to expand...

OK, here is what I am shooting for, lower light stills with optimal focus. Here is my challenge.

Click to expand...

Hi, wingster,

You need to consider your answers to the questions I asked above, in green. It's not about which camera or lens you're using, because you're already using some of the best photographic equipment money can buy. What's at issue, here, is how you're using it.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have spelled this out in my previous answer

MiraShootsNikon said:

(1) Are you shooting with continuous autofocus--"AF-C" rather than single-shot "AF-S" or "let the camera decide for me" "AF-A"? Obviously, using continuous autofocus will help with a moving subject.

Click to expand...

Yes, AF-C only

MiraShootsNikon said:

(2) Are you using back-button focus actuation, holding the AF-ON button and snapping the shutter while continuing to focus? I ask because the default setup is shutter-button half-press to autofocus, which doesn't allow the camera to continue focus acquisition as you shoot through a moving sequence. Continuing focus as you shoot helps supply the camera with more consistent data. (You're looking for better consistency in your results, no?)

Click to expand...

Yes, back button focus

MiraShootsNikon said:

(3) Are you using Dynamic Area autofocus modes (9-point, particularly) when you're positioning your autofocus point yourself and following a subject in frame? Using a Dynamic Area mode allows the camera to shift its acquisition to a point surrounding your chosen point should a subject move erratically--or should you accidentally move the camera a notch. Again, this helps the camera acquire more consistent data.

Click to expand...

Been using single focus point mostly. Will experiment more with 9 point

MiraShootsNikon said:

(4) Are you using Group Area autofocus mode when your focal target is large enough in frame to fill a multi-point area? Group Area mode gangs the readings of 9 autofocus points together, radically improving the quality and quantity of data available. The camera then focuses the lens on the specific point(s) within the group that give the strongest phase read.

(5) Are you using 3D Tracking when your composition allows your subject to move in the frame? 3D tracking tells the camera to identify the subject under your focus point and follow it as it moves within the frame, or as you recompose the frame. Obviously helpful, right?

There are a number of other technical tweaks you can make that will improve your autofocus system's performance for certain scenarios--e.g. you can change the camera's reaction time to movement, which is useful in helping to filter out lens movement when something momentarily obscures your chosen focus target. But I think starting with the above could help you considerably.

Both the D810 and D750 offer all of these autofocus features, and implement them more or less the same way, using the same autofocus array. There's nothing "better" or "worse" about the D750's autofocus--it's literally the same.

Just Looking at your samples, I think you'd get a lot of use out of the "Group Area" mode, which is particularly useful for shooting somewhat far portraits--3/4 body or full body. In that case, you really need a way to make your autofocus point "bigger," to consider more data than just a tiny tiny subset of contrasts. "Group Area" mode does exactly that. Select it, place the enlarged target over your subject's face or mid-body, shoot. Autofocus consistency will ensue.

Click to expand...

Thx for this, I will do some more experimenting with this. I may have gotten locked into a single point focus mode and have failed to take advantage of this. You have answered one question which is jumping to Sony may not be my answer. I will do some more study on this.

Update: I confirmed that Group Area is better in this situation and your point about contrast in one point for these situations not being enough is dead on.

One of the things about this is how the 2 lenses above focused although they were only 20mm apart. First at 2.8 aperture, the Tamron is very good and the Nikon 50 1.8G is fair in low light. But the 50 performs better as I move closer to the subject for focus suggesting that there is a minimum amount of contrast that the sensor must have to focus properly and that the Group or even 3D functions should be used when shooting from a distance in low light. I am running some tests to determine where that cutoff is. I suspected some of my issue was skills related meaning knowing when to switch modes when dealing with challenging conditions.

Have you done microAF adjustment of your lenses? If not do it. Also check the Nikon Z6 with your lenses, it is at the same level with A7iii and you won't have to buy new lenses, its price is approx. what you are willing to invest. I've seen the hands on review of it from Jared Polin and I am impressed by this cam.

MiraShootsNikon said:

wingster999 said:

MiraShootsNikon said:

So: how are you using your D810? Back-button AF-C, yes? Dynamic Area (AF-C 9, AF-C 21) if you're frame-following a subject, right? 3d Tracking if you're letting a subject dodge-weave within your array, yes? Group Area mode for subjects that can "fill" the ganged-point area, yes?

Click to expand...

OK, here is what I am shooting for, lower light stills with optimal focus. Here is my challenge.

Click to expand...

Hi, wingster,

...

Both the D810 and D750 offer all of these autofocus features, and implement them more or less the same way, using the same autofocus array. There's nothing "better" or "worse" about the D750's autofocus--it's literally the same.

Click to expand...

The AF modes, yes. Not the AF itself. Due to the higher sensitivity the D750 focussed a lot better in low light ( I used them at weddings and the D810 struggled a lot in dim light, the D750 didn't. The AF points are closer increasing the sensitivity to -3ev when I remember right, whereas the D810 has -2ev).

Regarding your assessment to AF in low light: it depends on the aperture. I shoot primes at weddings, usually between f1.4 and f2. None of the pro dslrs used were able to compete with the Sonys I use (A9, A73 and even A7r3), here, esp. if not only the center point is used but also the focus points at the edge. You can't fine tune lenses for all changes in light which leads to front- or backfocus, focus distance, curvature or focal length.

As sensitivity decreases when using slow lenses, dslrs will have an advantage if you use, e.g. a 24-105/4 (which I never would at weddings anyway, but some do). Setting effect to off doesn't help, as the lenses can't open further as f4, here.

HFLM said:

As sensitivity decreases when using slow lenses, dslrs will have an advantage if you use, e.g. a 24-105/4 (which I never would at weddings anyway, but some do).

Click to expand...

You never photograph reception portraits that require more than one set of eyeballs to be in focus?

Five people gather for the hug, you're there to capture the affection, you choose AF-S and f/1.4?

Since you're there with the Sony, alone, I suppose you have to, right? Shooting AF-C at a smaller aperture would stop the focus down; you'd never hit it.

And you could try to bounce flash, add some light; but Sonys can't use the flash gun's IR assist . . . and the moment you clip the flash into the shoe, your viewfinder pops out of WYSIWYG anyway . . . .

I have grown to love my Sony A7R.3 dearly, but trying to make a case for its universal superiority at wedding receptions is a foolhardy business. Sony's approach helps you get some shots (single person, wide-aperture portraits in AF-S using Eye-AF) and really, really gets in the way of others (multiple subjects that need to be in focus under low light, in motion, AF-C, flash . . . . )

You pick some poison, either way. The universal folly of DPReview (much to the delight of camera marketers, everywhere) is the pretense that poison no longer exists, at all, under one approach or another.

MiraShootsNikon said:

HFLM said:

As sensitivity decreases when using slow lenses, dslrs will have an advantage if you use, e.g. a 24-105/4 (which I never would at weddings anyway, but some do).

Click to expand...

You never photograph reception portraits that require more than one set of eyeballs to be in focus?

Five people gather for the hug, you're there to capture the affection, you choose AF-S and f/1.4?

Click to expand...

When you use a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4, you get plenty of DOF at f2, just to give an example. Do you need a link to a DOF calculator?

MiraShootsNikon said:

Since you're there with the Sony, alone, I suppose you have to, right? Shooting AF-C at a smaller aperture would stop the focus down; you'd never hit it.

Click to expand...

I don't have to, I want to. I shot Sony in parallel for quite some time. Used Nikon, Canon. I found that those don't offer anything over Sony for my type of shooting. Hit rate with Sony was clearly better. And, of course I can stop down with AFC. What for?

MiraShootsNikon said:

And you could try to bounce flash, add some light; but Sonys can't use the flash gun's IR assist . . . and the moment you clip the flash into the shoe, your viewfinder pops out of WYSIWYG anyway . . . .

Click to expand...

Wrong. I can use the Godox trigger to provide AF assist light, or Sony's newest flash. Not necessary and required, I always use AFC. In AFC there is no AF-assist light available anyway, nor is for dslrs. So far I never missed an opportunity. Even when stopping down if required. I like the way Sony handles the EVF when putting up a flash.

MiraShootsNikon said:

I have grown to love my Sony A7R.3 dearly, but trying to make a case for its universal superiority at wedding receptions is a foolhardy business. Sony's approach helps you get some shots (single person, wide-aperture portraits in AF-S using Eye-AF) and really, really gets in the way of others (multiple subjects that need to be in focus under low light, in motion, AF-C, flash . . . . )

Click to expand...

Maybe you need more practice? Using flash works fine. Using AFC, too. AFC with eye-AF? Great. Works even on the dance floor. Stopping down if needed is no problem at all, too, since I don't need f8 or f11 in dark interiors. I shot many many weddings and know quite well what to expect. Why would I need to track at f11 in AFC? So what are you doing to have a problem, here?

MiraShootsNikon said:

You pick some poison, either way. The universal folly of DPReview (much to the delight of camera marketers, everywhere) is the pretense that poison no longer exists, at all, under one approach or another.

Click to expand...

You are a dslr and Nikon guy. And it shows.

HFLM said:

Regarding your assessment to AF in low light: it depends on the aperture. I shoot primes at weddings, usually between f1.4 and f2. None of the pro dslrs used were able to compete with the Sonys I use (A9, A73 and even A7r3), here, esp. if not only the center point is used but also the focus points at the edge. You can't fine tune lenses for all changes in light which leads to front- or backfocus, focus distance, curvature or focal length.

As sensitivity decreases when using slow lenses, dslrs will have an advantage if you use, e.g. a 24-105/4 (which I never would at weddings anyway, but some do). Setting effect to off doesn't help, as the lenses can't open further as f4, here.

Click to expand...

Do you think I would get better results with a 24-105?

HFLM said:

You are a dslr and Nikon guy. And it shows.

Click to expand...

Oooooo: "It shows." Like a stain, or a scarlet letter. I love it! Cue the chilling music: BUM BUM.

Welp, thanks for the larf, friend. I actually did need one today--holiday stresses and all.

Meanwhile, before we even get to the "DSLR" part of your chilling accusation . . .

I'm not even a guy.

("Mira" is a woman's name, for your future reference. From the Hebrew, Miriam, the feminine of Meir, meaning "light." I like to think my parents knew what my future career might involve.)

Tx again for chuckles, have a happy New Year

tommiejeep said:

I have owned D750 and a7ii but not D820. IMO if you need to shot instantly or fast moving targets the D750 absolutely smokes the a7ii .. If you are shooting static targets with plenty of time to get your shot then there are pluses for the a7ii. The a7ii is a very slow camera in operation compared to a good DSLR.

You would need to get an a7iii, a7riii (not owned) or a9 (not owned to get close to the speed of use.

Click to expand...

AGREED!

MiraShootsNikon said:

HFLM said:

You are a dslr and Nikon guy. And it shows.

Click to expand...

Oooooo: "It shows." Like a stain, or a scarlet letter. I love it! Cue the chilling music: BUM BUM.

Welp, thanks for the larf, friend. I actually did need one today--holiday stresses and all.

Meanwhile, before we even get to the "DSLR" part of your chilling accusation . . .

I'm not even a guy.

("Mira" is a woman's name, for your future reference. From the Hebrew, Miriam, the feminine of Meir, meaning "light." I like to think my parents knew what my future career might involve.)

Tx again for chuckles, have a happy New Year

Click to expand...

Apologies, not my intention to change your gender. I should have used plural.

Still doesn't make me agree with you.

wingster999 said:

wingster999 said:

Regarding your assessment to AF in low light: it depends on the aperture. I shoot primes at weddings, usually between f1.4 and f2. None of the pro dslrs used were able to compete with the Sonys I use (A9, A73 and even A7r3), here, esp. if not only the center point is used but also the focus points at the edge. You can't fine tune lenses for all changes in light which leads to front- or backfocus, focus distance, curvature or focal length.

As sensitivity decreases when using slow lenses, dslrs will have an advantage if you use, e.g. a 24-105/4 (which I never would at weddings anyway, but some do). Setting effect to off doesn't help, as the lenses can't open further as f4, here.

Click to expand...

Do you think I would get better results with a 24-105?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily in low light. I prefer fast lenses, gives you more flexibility.