Wedding lens telezoom?

[cpsico]

I was considering a new telezoom, I am going to use it outdoors,portraits,weddings etc. I have the 70-200 F4IS which is pretty nice but bites in dim lit wedding receptions. Way to slow if ever to focus...Will I have better luck with the new 70-200 2.8IS? Any lens recommendations are welcome for other lens in the telephoto category!!

 

[Don Haines]

I was considering a new telezoom, I am going to use it outdoors,portraits,weddings etc. I have the 70-200 F4IS which is pretty nice but bites in dim lit wedding receptions. Way to slow if ever to focus...Will I have better luck with the new 70-200 2.8IS? Any lens recommendations are welcome for other lens in the telephoto category!!

Interesting.....

I have the same lens and find that the focus is very quick.... What camera body do you have it on and what would the typical ISO/shutter/Fstop values where you notice that it won't focus well? Are you using a polarizing filter?

In the dim lit conditions, instead of duplicating the same lens but only a stop faster, have you considered a faster prime?

 

[cpsico]

I was considering a new telezoom, I am going to use it outdoors,portraits,weddings etc. I have the 70-200 F4IS which is pretty nice but bites in dim lit wedding receptions. Way to slow if ever to focus...Will I have better luck with the new 70-200 2.8IS? Any lens recommendations are welcome for other lens in the telephoto category!!

Interesting.....

I have the same lens and find that the focus is very quick.... What camera body do you have it on and what would the typical ISO/shutter/Fstop values where you notice that it won't focus well? Are you using a polarizing filter?

In the dim lit conditions, instead of duplicating the same lens but only a stop faster, have you considered a faster prime?

In really dim lighting, sorry like you would find at a reception. If you are close enough for the focus grid to assist its better but really dim with no focus assist its a problem. Its a great lens but i think f4 might be to slow for the job. I have used it on 1d bodys and 5d mark II. Its weight is fantastic, but its just seems like low low light is a problem.

 

[bholliman]

I have no wedding experience, but the 70-200 f/2.8 II is supurb in low light. If you need something faster, the 135L is hard to beat, but you lose the flexibility of a zoom

 

[cpsico]

I have no wedding experience, but the 70-200 f/2.8 II is supurb in low light. If you need something faster, the 135L is hard to beat, but you lose the flexibility of a zoom

Thank you for the feed back, I have been looking at both of those lenses. My 24-70 L2.8 seems much faster and more reliable on the same body, same dim conditions as the 70-200 F4. Don't get me wrong i will keep this lens, its light, great IQ, great color, lens flare not so great but it has a place in my bag but after the sun goes down i don't think this is the lens for the job.

 

[Pookie]

I shoot weddings often... in dark situs even the 2.8 will struggle. IS only helps so much. 2.0 isn't much of a leap in the help department. This is where you'll either need a decent strobe or a wide prime. With the primes you'll then run up against too thin a DOF. I use strobes with a modeling light and that helps tremendously.

 

[Don Haines]

I was considering a new telezoom, I am going to use it outdoors,portraits,weddings etc. I have the 70-200 F4IS which is pretty nice but bites in dim lit wedding receptions. Way to slow if ever to focus...Will I have better luck with the new 70-200 2.8IS? Any lens recommendations are welcome for other lens in the telephoto category!!

Interesting.....

I have the same lens and find that the focus is very quick.... What camera body do you have it on and what would the typical ISO/shutter/Fstop values where you notice that it won't focus well? Are you using a polarizing filter?

In the dim lit conditions, instead of duplicating the same lens but only a stop faster, have you considered a faster prime?

In really dim lighting, sorry like you would find at a reception. If you are close enough for the focus grid to assist its better but really dim with no focus assist its a problem. Its a great lens but i think f4 might be to slow for the job. I have used it on 1d bodys and 5d mark II. Its weight is fantastic, but its just seems like low low light is a problem.

The newer bodies focus much better in low light, but yes, f4 is terrible in low light no matter what the camera....

 

[Don Haines]

I shoot weddings often... in dark situs even the 2.8 will struggle. IS only helps so much. 2.0 isn't much of a leap in the help department. This is where you'll either need a decent strobe or a wide prime. With the primes you'll then run up against too thin a DOF. I use strobes with a modeling light and that helps tremendously.

I am not a wedding shooter, but I do shoot musicians in dimly lit venues... F1.4 is your friend Even with it, I find myself going over ISO12,800 when flashes are not allowed. sigh...... the joys of low light photography!

 

[cpsico]

I shoot weddings often... in dark situs even the 2.8 will struggle. IS only helps so much. 2.0 isn't much of a leap in the help department. This is where you'll either need a decent strobe or a wide prime. With the primes you'll then run up against too thin a DOF. I use strobes with a modeling light and that helps tremendously.

I am not a wedding shooter, but I do shoot musicians in dimly lit venues... F1.4 is your friend Even with it, I find myself going over ISO12,800 when flashes are not allowed. sigh...... the joys of low light photography!

I have one really awesome prime 35 1.4 II, best money i have ever spent. Its simply perfect.

 

[W1ck3D]

I just wanted to say that, as a wedding photographer, my Canon EF mm 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM II is my workhorse. I use it both on my 5D ('classic') as well as my 5D mark III. In dark lit situations I use the combo of the 2.8 with my EX600 flash in manual mode. Never disappointed.

 

[cpsico]

I just wanted to say that, as a wedding photographer, my Canon EF mm 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM II is my workhorse. I use it both on my 5D ('classic') as well as my 5D mark III. In dark lit situations I use the combo of the 2.8 with my EX600 flash in manual mode. Never disappointed.

A workhorse is what I am looking for in a telephoto.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

In low light, even a f/2.8 will struggle. A 135mm f/2 will be better, but you lose zoom capability. So for a telephoto, a 70-200 2.8 or go to a prime and lose the zoom capability.

Unfortunately, with telephoto lenses, a flash is usually not that good either, assuming you are a distance from the subjects. A flash is decent up to 135mm.

 

[Pookie]

I shoot weddings often... in dark situs even the 2.8 will struggle. IS only helps so much. 2.0 isn't much of a leap in the help department. This is where you'll either need a decent strobe or a wide prime. With the primes you'll then run up against too thin a DOF. I use strobes with a modeling light and that helps tremendously.

I am not a wedding shooter, but I do shoot musicians in dimly lit venues... F1.4 is your friend Even with it, I find myself going over ISO12,800 when flashes are not allowed. sigh...... the joys of low light photography!

Joys of LL photography... nice way to put it ;D

 

[Ruined]

Assuming full frame...

recommended full frame:
Camera 1: 50mm f/1.2L (and this one is VERY flattering for people shots, great draw)
Camera 2: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II


alternate full frame:
Camera 1: 35mm f/1.4L II
Camera 2: 85mm f/1.2L II (careful not to use in parts of wedding that require fast autofocus)

***

recommended crop:
Camera 1: 35mm f/1.4L II
Camera 2: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II

alternate crop:
Camera 1: 24mm f/1.4L II (although watch out for erratic autofocus on some copies)
Camera 2: 50mm f/1.2L

Note even with f/2.8 you are going to have to do cleanup in post for noise, etc, as weddings you generally need f/1.2-f/1.4 to cope with the very low lighting... So you should have at least one f/1.2-f/1.4 lens for general use in a wedding, preferably in the 50mm range as this focal length is useful for most situations.

 

[Luds34]

The OP is talking about focus performance. The difference could be that many camera bodies get more sensitive focal points when you move to f/2.8 lenses. And that is possibly why your 24-70 f/2.8 is focusing better then your 70-200 f/4.

 

[cpsico]

Thank you everyone for all the detailed responses, I like to hear real world feed back over fluffed articles with 100 percent crops of brick walls or tree branches. Thanks ruined for the camera set ups and pit falls and pluses of the camera lens combos. One camera will have a 1Ds mark III with a 24-70 2.8 II, I HAVE A 1D MARK III Body I was planing to put the zoom on, I also have a 6d that it could go on as well. I know it has a very good center point and great high iso performance but the 1d Mark III with its crop sensor has a 1/300 flash sync speed.

 

[j-nord]

I dont shoot weddings nor will I ever but my understanding is the 70-200 f2.8 IS ii is considered mandatory by pros. At least for the ceremony.

 

[PeterAlex7]

I dont shoot weddings nor will I ever but my understanding is the 70-200 f2.8 IS ii is considered mandatory by pros. At least for the ceremony.

Yup, this lens is a must for pros. Sorry to say, you had no other choice, cpsico. The 85L II or 70-200 II are the only options, even the 85L focus accurately, it still slow, the probability to miss any moments is pretty big, and you must to worry about it. I prefer to take a dark picture than nothing. I recommend the 70-200 IS II for you.

Don't ever think that both sigma's and tamron's 70-200 will serve you as well as the 70-200 IS II will.