From last weekend...

Blurmore

Conservative, but very fun couple in one of Maryland's most beautiful Catholic churches.












My first wedding after trading my 70-200 f4 L in on a 70-200 f4 IS L, my only comment is...It is worth EVERY penny. This church allows NO tripods, NO light stands, and NO monopods. I was getting good results hand holding 200mm at 1/15th of a second no problem.

C&C/questions always welcome.

joshhuntnm

very nice.

more! more!

that building is incredible.

glad you like the new glass!

Shima

Blurmore wrote:

My first wedding after trading my 70-200 f4 L in on a 70-200 f4 IS L, my only comment is...It is worth EVERY penny. This church allows NO tripods, NO light stands, and NO monopods. I was getting good results hand holding 200mm at 1/15th of a second no problem.

That's how I felt after I sold my Sigma 70-200 f4 and got the Canon 70-200 f2.8/L IS... totally worth every penny

Good shots! I like the use of blur in #2... and #3 really shows off the church!! wow!

AspectArts

Beautiful photos- I like your perspectives. Gorgeous cathedral too! Wow!

Scott_Quier

The WA church shot is very nice. The portrait of the bride in the window light - that's got a WOW factor of about 9.5 outta 10! - just love that thing.

The IS is nice - as Shima says, the extra stop offered by the f2.8L IS is worth the upgrade! If you try it, you'll never go back even though it does weigh a ton!

Blurmore

Scott_Quier wrote:

The WA church shot is very nice. The portrait of the bride in the window light - that's got a WOW factor of about 9.5 outta 10! - just love that thing.

The IS is nice - as Shima says, the extra stop offered by the f2.8L IS is worth the upgrade! If you try it, you'll never go back even though it does weigh a ton!

Actually I tested the 2 side by side at my local pro place (service photo). They humor me, deal with me thinking I'm crazy, they are good people. I tested them like this...I squeezed 2 shots at 200mm 1/15th f4 and the results of the f4 were better. At 1/15 the first shot of the 2.8 was meh, the second good. The f4's first was very good and the second excellent. The net loss because of the upgraded IS in the f4 is only one stop, and the f4 IS is the sharpest lens photozone.de has ever tested on a crop body. I use a 85 prime for portraits, so the 70-200 is a ceremony only beast for me. If I shot portraits with it maybe I'd NEED the 2.8 IS, but the sherpa and cost savings is worth it to me for 1 stop and better handholdibility. I'm happy, I doubt I'll ever want a 2.8, unless of course it is a 300mm f2.8 IS


Thanks for the comments all....coming up in 3 weeks I'll have a REALLY cool one for you.

bmoreshooter

Nice work. Beautiful church shot. Your take on the 70-200 is interesting because i am planning on getting one soon. Do both lenses have VR?

Blurmore

bmoreshooter wrote:

Nice work. Beautiful church shot. Your take on the 70-200 is interesting because i am planning on getting one soon. Do both lenses have VR?

Yes. They both have IS (that VR stuff is for teh Nikonians). The 70-200 f4 IS was released last year and isn't a straight IS'ing of the of the 70-200 f4. They actually added/changed some elements, and it was designed from the ground up as a digital lens. The 70-200 f2.8 IS will probably receive the same treatment eventually as sensor resolution reaches ever closer to nyquist nirvana. All I can say is...go test them. I was so accustomed to the form factor of the 70-200 f4 that I felt comfortable hand holding it at 1/80th of a second WITHOUT IS, I tried that with the IS turned off on the 70-200 f2.8 IS and no dice, so I AM more stable with the smaller lens. I think the real beauty of the 70-200 f4 IS (and non IS) is that unlike faster lenses they don't sharpen up much by stopping down, they are about as sharp as they get wide open. As great as the 70-200 f2.8 IS is I think most owners of it would agree that even it benefits some from stopping down a stop or a half stop.

bmoreshooter

Thanks for the info and yes i am one of the dreaded nikonians (nice term) it's hard to break old habits. I've used Nikon equip since 1979.

urbanaries

Lovely series, more more!! there's a 20 image minimum round here for weddings, dontcha know!

Thanks for the info on the 70-200, I've been itching for an IS version of my Sigma but really would rather spend the difference elsewhere (like upgrading to full frame). Very nice to know that option is there and you like the results in those conditions, since I have allergic reactions to tripods.

Blurmore

urbanaries wrote:

Lovely series, more more!! there's a 20 image minimum round here for weddings, dontcha know!

Thanks for the info on the 70-200, I've been itching for an IS version of my Sigma but really would rather spend the difference elsewhere (like upgrading to full frame). Very nice to know that option is there and you like the results in those conditions, since I have allergic reactions to tripods.

The people have asked for more...

BTW I had the end of the 24 hour stomach bug when I shot this job, I called the company I was shooting for and luckily...they sent someone out to cover if I passed out or had to leave the ceremony. After the ceremony the pepto and imodium kicked in and I sent the help home, all was well but I didn't eat much of my dinner. A shame because it looked really good. That has never happened to me before, but I was certainly glad to have the backup.

sherijohnson

very nice work!

Agnieszka

Wow!!! What a church!!! Very nice series! Ohhh, and the table-setting photo is gooorgeous!!! lust

If anything, I would wish that the bride would have more of a "dramatic pose" in #4. I loooove the light though, very nice

divamum

Oh, MAN that church WA shot is magnificent! Beautiful stuff

(Semi OT - was that Service Photo in Smalltimore?)

Blurmore

divamum wrote:

Oh, MAN that church WA shot is magnificent! Beautiful stuff

(Semi OT - was that Service Photo in Smalltimore?)

Thats where I'm from...born and raised in Funky Pasadena, now residing in East Towson (or Parkville) depending on who I'm talking to. :P

heatherfeather

Puuurdy stuff. I love that last shot. It seems ethereal and tack sharp all at the same time. I am just loving your use of light (and lack of it) to give the photos a sense of drama.