Weddings 70-200mm 2.8 is vs 4 is

[DCM1024]

I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.

[wickidwombat]

I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.

consider trying out the sigma 85 f1.4
its smaller lighter sharper and faster
since I got this lens I use it alot more than the 70-200 at weddings
the 70-200 is still great but the 85 can do the same or better job
the 70-200 does feel very heavy after a solid 12 hours or so of wedding shooting

[DCM1024]

I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.

consider trying out the sigma 85 f1.4
its smaller lighter sharper and faster
since I got this lens I use it alot more than the 70-200 at weddings
the 70-200 is still great but the 85 can do the same or better job
the 70-200 does feel very heavy after a solid 12 hours or so of wedding shooting

Thanks - I will check that lens out. I have also planned to add an 85mm at some point....

[mbpics]

I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.

consider trying out the sigma 85 f1.4
its smaller lighter sharper and faster
since I got this lens I use it alot more than the 70-200 at weddings
the 70-200 is still great but the 85 can do the same or better job
the 70-200 does feel very heavy after a solid 12 hours or so of wedding shooting

Thanks - I will check that lens out. I have also planned to add an 85mm at some point....

Do you really need 85, 100, and 135...? It seems like you could either choose two primes from that range or carry a single zoom (or a prime + zoom).

[wickidwombat]

i find 2 FF bodies with a 16-35 on one and 85 on the other a very nice light combo that gives excellent coverage

i dont miss the gap between 35 and 85

[Zlatko]

I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.

I agree that it is not an easy decision.  There is no definitive answer, I think.  For the near future, I'm probably going to keep several lenses in this range and keep evaluating what I bring.

With the improved high ISO performance of the 5D3 and the improved high ISO performance of Lightroom 4, I have in the past year been able to substitute the f/4 for the f/2.8 version (both with IS).  It does mean shooting at ISO 6400 and higher sometimes.  Whether the lighter f/4 is an acceptable compromise depends on the lighting where you're shooting and on your own tolerance for high ISO noise.  I think the f/2.8 version was more of a necessity for the 5D2 and earlier models, and with Lightroom 3 and earlier.  It may still be a necessity for some locations with less light.

The f/4 version is a much nicer size & weight.  I was tempted to replace my version I of the 70-200/2.8 with version II, especially with the recent sale pricing, but I am using it less and less, and have always found version I to be very sharp. 

The 100/2.8 IS macro and the 135/2 are certainly good alternatives, both much lighter than the big 70-200/2.8.  The question is whether you want to give up the zoom flexibility for a tele prime.  In theory, a 135/2 should be an ok substitute for the 100-200 range as it is already 70% of the way to 200mm.  And the 70mm end of a 24-70 zoom on another camera should be an ok substitute for the 70-100 range.  So with a 24-70 and a 135, you might skip the 70-200 altogether ... maybe.

[K3nt]

Sunsniper or BlackRapid is all I got to say when it comes to the 70-200mm f/2.8L MkII. Shot three weddings with it and no issue with weight.

[photo212]

The f/2.8L is a great lens, but the f/4L is great as well.
You'll have to decide whether you will use that extra stop or not.
Will you use the shallower depth of field?
To gain a stop in shutter speed?
Do you shoot in low light situation where the extra brightness in the viewfinder will help?
to (auto)focus?
If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, I think you answered you question.
If you answered "no. no. no." you can safely go for the f/4L

[rs]

One thing to consider - if you're planning on carrying around the 70-200/4 IS and the 135L all day, the two together are 20g heavier than the 70-200/2.8 IS II - and I'm sure I'm going to kick up a fuss by saying this, but the 70-200 II is so good that there's little point in buying or using a 135L if that zoom is in your bag.

Having said that, if you tend not to carry around your other lenses while using the camera, that argument doesn't hold up. The 70-200/4 IS is a really good lens, and the high ISO capability of the 5D3 allows you to get away with some quite low light situations with it.

[nurfc]

2.8 all the way with the blackrapid on the lens. I always have it connected.

[pwp]

I find 2 FF bodies with a 16-35 on one and 85 on the other a very nice light combo that gives excellent coverage
I don't miss the gap between 35 and 85

+1. As weight is a real issue for a long days shooting, this is a classy combination. The Sigma 85 is a cracker. Much faster AF than the Canon 85 f/1.2; important for weddings.

-PW

[obach]

One thing to consider - if you're planning on carrying around the 70-200/4 IS and the 135L all day, the two together are 20g heavier than the 70-200/2.8 IS II - and I'm sure I'm going to kick up a fuss by saying this, but the 70-200 II is so good that there's little point in buying or using a 135L if that zoom is in your bag.

Having said that, if you tend not to carry around your other lenses while using the camera, that argument doesn't hold up. The 70-200/4 IS is a really good lens, and the high ISO capability of the 5D3 allows you to get away with some quite low light situations with it.

RS made a very good point. I own the 5D3 and 70-200 f4 IS and no doubt, the lens is very sharp. Then the discussion is back to the weight of the pack. If you ever shoot a pic with f4 or higher with the 2.8 lens, you are walking around with 750 gr. ekstra load on your shoulders. If you need the 2.8 bokeh, you have no choice.
With the 5D3, I would say go for the f4 lens. 750 gr. less to carry, and I will assure you that your customers will never notice the difference.
Good luck with your final selection! :-)

[GMCPhotographics]

I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.

I've used all three, the f4 was the lightest and easiest to use. But it's half as bright as the 2.8 and a lot less than the 135L. During ceremonies, I tend to perfer fast primes because of the light levels. But for receptions I prefer the flexiblity of a zoom and are generally better lit. So I put my 70-200 f2.8 LIS II in a camera bag in my car and after the ceremony I swap over lenses and pop the bag under the wedding cake table....the safest place

[DCM1024]

Thank you everyone for responding. The 135L is a 'want' lens for me after seeing superb photos posted from it by members on this forum, so I can hold off and get it when I have some spare money to burn. 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.

[robbymack]

Weight is a definite concern with the 2.8ii and was probably the main reason I chose the f4IS over it. I just couldnt stand carrying that thing around all day. I'm much happier using the lighter zoom and filling in with fast primes when needed.