Weddings 70-200mm 2.8 is vs 4 is

[Dylan777]

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.

Canon 24-70 f2.8 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS on FF bodies - DONE

 

[AudioGlenn]

So I guess my final choice is f4 for me, f2.8 ii for him.

I think that's the perfect compromise. It would be nice to have the 70-200 f/4 when I'm out shooting during the day and don't need the 2.8. The 2.8 IS II is a pain when I have to carry it for 12 hours.

That said, I've actually started using the spider holster system on my think tank belt. Have you considered a belt carrying system. It beats having anything around your neck or on your shoulder(s). I'd give it a try. I have a Black Rapid strap and even that bugs after a while. I hardly even feel the camera weight (5dmk3, 600ex-rt, and 70-200 2.8 IS II) on my hips/waist.

 

[wickidwombat]

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.

My wife and I shoot together, we bought 2 70-200f2.8L IS II leneses since we figured we didnt want to be fighting over using that lens and having one each was fine until I got the 85mm, she prefers to shoot with zooms I prefer primes, so now for weddings having 2 70-200 lenses is redundant (having 2 is still fine for fashion and runway where this lens is basically without equal and we both use them)

If you are going to get 2 lenses why not get the 70-200 f2.8L IS II and the 85mm f1.4 ?

having 2 shooters taking shots with the same focal length lens is kind of redundant at a wedding. making sure both shooters are using different lenses give more variety.

typically my wife shoots with the 24-70 f2.8L (the 70-200 is heavy for her so she only uses it some of the time)
I will usually use the 16-35 and the 85 although since I have gotten the sigma 35 I'm torn i got it more for low light receptions but it's just so damn good i want to use it for everything now!

tough choices

 

[elflord]

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.

At my wedding, the photographers were two lightly built 20-something women. I think between them they were shooting with a 70-200mm f/2.8, a 16-35mm f/2.8 and a 24-70mm f/2.8. At least for the posed shots, the 70-200mm f/2.8 was on a tripod, so

(a) they were only lugging around 3 lenses between the two of them, (one of which was a 70-200mm f/2.8) and
(b) for the most part, they weren't handholding it (never during the posed shots, though they may have been for the candids)

It meant also that at any given time the two photographers were getting substantially different shots.

So speaking to your situation if you're shooting as a two person team, and you are looking to economise on weight, having two of those bulky 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses (if I read you correctly he already has one) seems like a poor choice (I don't see what having a 70-200mm f/4 would add if he already has the 70-200mm f/2.8 either). So I'd say skip it (maybe get a 135L instead if the two of you need to take tele shots at the same time)

Or were you thinking of a scenario where you're shooting alone ?

 

[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.

At my wedding, the photographers were two lightly built 20-something women. I think between them they were shooting with a 70-200mm f/2.8, a 16-35mm f/2.8 and a 24-70mm f/2.8. At least for the posed shots, the 70-200mm f/2.8 was on a tripod, so

(a) they were only lugging around 3 lenses between the two of them, (one of which was a 70-200mm f/2.8) and
(b) for the most part, they weren't handholding it (never during the posed shots, though they may have been for the candids)

It meant also that at any given time the two photographers were getting substantially different shots.

So speaking to your situation if you're shooting as a two person team, and you are looking to economise on weight, having two of those bulky 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses (if I read you correctly he already has one) seems like a poor choice (I don't see what having a 70-200mm f/4 would add if he already has the 70-200mm f/2.8 either). So I'd say skip it (maybe get a 135L instead if the two of you need to take tele shots at the same time)

Or were you thinking of a scenario where you're shooting alone ?

Right now neither of us have a 70-200. I agree there would be no need for us to have two lenses of the same focal length if we were always shooting as a team, but we don't. Sometimes we shoot as a team, sometimes we are on separate gigs on the same day, both needing that focal range. I did propose us each getting our own 70-200s tonight - one a 4, one a 2.8. That made sense to him.

 

[Shane1.4]

I have the 70-200 f4 IS with a 5d mkiii and it does fine. However I picked up a 135L and now that is all I ever use. The shots just turn out so gorgeous. I don't mind missing a shot here or there if the ones I am getting with the 135L are so much better.

 

[elflord]

Right now neither of us have a 70-200. I agree there would be no need for us to have two lenses of the same focal length if we were always shooting as a team, but we don't. Sometimes we shoot as a team, sometimes we are on separate gigs on the same day, both needing that focal range. I did propose us each getting our own 70-200s tonight - one a 4, one a 2.8. That made sense to him.

What kind of setup do you have when you're on your own ? Do you have two bodies ? (you have a backup, right ? )

Anyway regardless of setup, you can only shoot with one lens at a given moment, so you could always shoot with the standard zoom until a shot calls for whatever tele you have (whether it's the 135L or 70-200mm f/4)

 

[DCM1024]

Right now neither of us have a 70-200. I agree there would be no need for us to have two lenses of the same focal length if we were always shooting as a team, but we don't. Sometimes we shoot as a team, sometimes we are on separate gigs on the same day, both needing that focal range. I did propose us each getting our own 70-200s tonight - one a 4, one a 2.8. That made sense to him.

What kind of setup do you have when you're on your own ? Do you have two bodies ? (you have a backup, right ? )

Anyway regardless of setup, you can only shoot with one lens at a given moment, so you could always shoot with the standard zoom until a shot calls for whatever tele you have (whether it's the 135L or 70-200mm f/4)

I have been using 2 bodies, a 5d and a 7d. 24-105 on the 5d, 55-250is on the 7d. 580ex, various light modifiers. The 70-200 will replace the 55-250. 24-105 replaced the 17-55. I was shooting with a 5d2 last year, but replaced it with a 5d3 in December. I have always wanted a macro, even just for my own fun/hobby, but will also use it for detail shots at weddings. I consider the 70-200 to be a need, but I also really want a 135L. My only other personal lens is a 50mm 1.8. All other gear belongs to my bf, he has 2 5d2, 2 24-105 (another redundancy), 580 ex, plus we have elinchrom strobes.

 

[preppyak]

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.

Yep, this would be my answer too. If you need more light, then the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 probably isn't enough (especially in a dark ceremony or reception) and you'd want something in the f/1's anyway. But, if the room is bright or you are outdoors, f/4 will do the job just fine.

Also, it may not be the biggest factor, but the f/4 IS and the Sigma 85 or 135L combined would be the same if not cheaper than the f/2.8 II. And you can decide based on pre-scouting, etc which you'd need that day

 

[RLPhoto]

24L + 50L + 135L on two 5D3s. It's my preferred setup.

 

[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.