I am a wedding photographer and currently my longest lens is the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I used to have a 5D2 and a 7D and during the ceremony I would put the 70-200 on the 7D which gave me about 320mm. I really never found myself needing much more reach than that. I recently sold both my cameras and bought two 5D3s. I love them but I have a feeling there will be several times this wedding season that I will be wishing I had the additional reach. The big problem I have found as that most telephoto lenses are very expensive being that I won't need it 95% of the time. I would love to have the new version of the 100-400 but who knows when that is going to come out and what it will cost. I was thinking about the 300mm f/4L and maybe getting the 1.4 extender just in case I need the extra reach. Any thoughts on a reasonably prices telephoto with IS that will get me the reach I need?
Advice on Telephoto Lens
- Thread starter jaayres20
- Start date
- Status
L
Loswr
Guest
Nothing short of a several thousand dollar supertele will get you there while maintaining f/2.8. But, the reduced ISO noise with FF should make up for that. Putting a 1.4x TC on your 70-200/2.8 II would get most of your lost 'reach' back, and the IQ hit isn't too bad with the 70-200 II (I find even the 2x produces usable results, rare for a zoom). Althernatively, consider the 70-300L - smaller than your 70-200/2.8, if you can live with two stops higher ISO for f/5.6 you get 300mm and excellent IQ, along with great IS.
Upvote
0
I
IIIHobbs
Guest
I think Nuero offers good advice with both suggestions.
Based on the fact that you are use to the focal length offered by the 70-200 on the 7D, the 1.4 Extender would provide you with a similar point of view and overall similar experience (at the cost of One Stop).
That being said, you may find a better all around experience and improved versatility with the 70-300 as it will provide you with a wider view (70 vs 100) than the 70-200 w/1.4x (at 3x the cost however).
Based on the fact that you are use to the focal length offered by the 70-200 on the 7D, the 1.4 Extender would provide you with a similar point of view and overall similar experience (at the cost of One Stop).
That being said, you may find a better all around experience and improved versatility with the 70-300 as it will provide you with a wider view (70 vs 100) than the 70-200 w/1.4x (at 3x the cost however).
Upvote
0
Not to go against the grain, but I'm thinking that 200mm is already on the long side for wedding photography. If you need more than that, you're too far away from the action. As the wedding photographer, it's your job to be in the right place at the right time, and that right place isn't going to put you farther away than you can comfortably cover with a 135.
I could maybe see an exception for some super-compressed fashion-type staged portraits...which puts you right back to a supertelephoto, if that's the look you're going for.
Cheers,
b&
I could maybe see an exception for some super-compressed fashion-type staged portraits...which puts you right back to a supertelephoto, if that's the look you're going for.
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
TrumpetPower! said:
I would agree, however, there are a lot of big long Catholic churches with very strick rules and a few times a year I find myself stuck at the back of a church with NO option of moving or getting closer. That is maybe 1 out of 15 or 20 weddings but it does happen enough times that I need the extra zoom to get some of the closer shots I want, and am used to in those situations.
Upvote
0
Heck even the 2x mk.iii on the 70-200mk.ii gives me acceptable results, almost as good as the 100-400mm, though the 100-400mm has slighly better contrast, but the 70-200mk.ii + 2x iii combo has better shadow detail. With some PP, one cannot tell one from the other... I think the 2x iii can be fit on the 135, gives you 270mm @f4... opens up a few options. If that is something you want to do; Get the 2x mk.iii which has better IQ than the MK.ii.
Upvote
0
jaayres20 said:
In that case, I'd suggest a $250 "venue restrictions require exotic equipment" surcharge for those clients. Half you'll put into renting a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 for the wedding, and the rest you'll put into your pocket.
Why should you eat the capital expense for expensive non-standard equipment for a small fraction of your clients? That's a special service you're providing, and one you should charge for either way.
...and, incidentally, I suspect you'll find that, when faced with an extra fee, the mothers of the bride will convince the priest to look the other way when you shoot the wedding like 95% of all other weddings get shot.
Cheers,
b&
Upvote
0
- Status
