Weddings 70-200mm 2.8 is vs 4 is

[Rienzphotoz]

The 70-200 zoom will be my next 'need', and I'm still leaning toward the F4 since I'll be able to use it on the 5d3. If I want more bokeh, I do have a 50mm 1.8 in my bag. My bf has been talking about ordering both, trying them side by side and then returning one. I keep telling him he needs his own 70-200, as sometimes we shoot together, sometimes apart. Plus, we've got multiple lenses right now that are redundant. I've got my 17-55 up on CL, but haven't had any luck selling it thus far. Adorama is offering me a price that is fairly close to my asking price, so I'll probably send it in to them. So I guess my final choice is f4 for me, f2.8 ii for him.

In your situation, I'd get the 70-200 f/4 L ... I know a lot of people say f/4 is not good for wedding photography etc but I've seen photos made by some accomplished photographers, even with a "slow" lens like Tamron 28-300 VC ... one example is this: http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/test-driving-new-tamron-28-300mm-vc.html
The 70-200 f/4 L, is on sale right now for $1149 (for IS version) and $674 for non-IS ... this one is light on body and light on your purse.   

[wickidwombat]

[, even with a "slow" lens like Tamron 28-300 VC ... one example is this: http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/test-driving-new-tamron-28-300mm-vc.html

 

Even on that website the images look horribly soft and they are probably reduced in size so should appear sharper!
maybe if that retro clarity reduced soft focus look is what you are chasing
but that is a terrible recomendation
the tamron 24-70 looks to produce decent results when people get good copies
but a tamron superzoom, please.

[Rienzphotoz]

[, even with a "slow" lens like Tamron 28-300 VC ... one example is this: http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/test-driving-new-tamron-28-300mm-vc.html

 

Even on that website the images look horribly soft and they are probably reduced in size so should appear sharper!
maybe if that retro clarity reduced soft focus look is what you are chasing
but that is a terrible recomendation
the tamron 24-70 looks to produce decent results when people get good copies
but a tamron superzoom, please.

I am not recommending 28-300 ... I was trying to make a point in favor of EF 70-200 f/4 L ... however, I believe David when he says: "During my Master Class last week, I actually printed a 24 x 36" print  from this image series and it looked fabulous. So even using the Tamron lens and what many would consider the worst-case F-stop scenario, I am getting beautiful portraits of my bride".
Tamron 28-300mm VC lens at 300mm, F6.3 @ 1/200 second, ISO 200 (below image is from: http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/test-driving-new-tamron-28-300mm-vc.html)

[wickidwombat]

yeah its subjective but I dont rate those images at all
he must like the soft focus look...

I do see your point regarding the 70-200 f4L
and dont disagree at particularly with a 5Dmk3 where if you used iso 6400 instead of iso 3200
you are still going to get a great image and after processing and print it would still be perfectly acceptable
and you probably wouldnt even notice the extra stop of iso

[jabbott]

I shoot with both the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the f/4L IS.  Since moving up to the 5D3 from the T2i, I have hardly used the f/2.8 version at all - the f/4 version is just as sharp.  That said, I primarily shoot outdoors and in decent lighting.  If I were shooting weddings where lighting tends to be challenging, I would still think that having an f/2.8 would be required.  I think your approach on getting one f/2.8, one f/4 and then sharing one with your husband would potentially work.  I also think that the 135 f/2L and 70-200 f/4L IS option would be useful and overall lighter and cheaper.