Canon zoom lens for weddings

BlueSkyPhotos

Hello,
I'm not sure if this is the right forum to post this topic, but I thought this will get lost in the Accessories forum.

I want to purchase a new Canon zoom lens to upgrade from 70-200 4L. I love this lens, but it doesn't cut in darker churches. I was all set to purchase 70-200 2.8 IS L, but I found out that 70-200 4 IS L might be almost as good if not better.
I've read somewhere that 4 IS L is sharper and with the newer IS system it gains 4 stops as opposed to 3 stops in 2.8 lens. If that's true, why wouldn't I want to go with 4 IS? It is a lighter lens, so my wife could actually handle it, plus it's lighter on pocket. Is the bokeh that much better in 2.8 IS to justify spending additional $500-$600. Does anyone has experience with both of them? Which one do you prefer?
Thanks,

Jacek

Scott_Quier

BlueSkyPhotos wrote:

Hello,
I'm not sure if this is the right forum to post this topic, but I thought this will get lost in the Accessories forum.

I want to purchase a new Canon zoom lens to upgrade from 70-200 4L. I love this lens, but it doesn't cut in darker churches. I was all set to purchase 70-200 2.8 IS L, but I found out that 70-200 4 IS L might be almost as good if not better.
I've read somewhere that 4 IS L is sharper and with the newer IS system it gains 4 stops as opposed to 3 stops in 2.8 lens. If that's true, why wouldn't I want to go with 4 IS? It is a lighter lens, so my wife could actually handle it, plus it's lighter on pocket. Is the bokeh that much better in 2.8 IS to justify spending additional $500-$600. Does anyone has experience with both of them? Which one do you prefer?
Thanks,

Jacek

A lot is driven by the camera. If you get into a light situation where you are up against the limit of your ISO (i.e., any more boost results in unacceptable noise in the image) then the extra stop for the f/2.8 over the f/4 might make the difference between getting the shot and not .... 'cause sometimes you just have to have the shutter speed.

BlueSkyPhotos

Scott_Quier wrote:

A lot is driven by the camera. If you get into a light situation where you are up against the limit of your ISO (i.e., any more boost results in unacceptable noise in the image) then the extra stop for the f/2.8 over the f/4 might make the difference between getting the shot and not .... 'cause sometimes you just have to have the shutter speed.

If I have to I shoot with a max 1600 ISO using Canon 40D. Looking at the specs on Ken Rockwell site's, it looks like I could get pretty consistent 1/8 exposure on both lenses with max aperture. People say that 4 IS at 4.0 is sharper than 2.8 IS at 2.8. That would make me think that the 4 IS lens has advantage there, except the bokeh which might not matter that much if I am shooting from further away.

Blurmore

I'm one of the few people you will find who strongly advocates for the f4 IS. I compared the 2 side by side in the store and for absolute base sharpness at the slowest shutter speed I found the f4 IS to be superior. This is for 2 reasons. The f4 IS is super handholdable, one of if not the best balanced lenses Canon makes. I felt comfortable handholding the NON-IS version of this lens at 1/80th of a second at 200mm (I also went to the National Highpower Rifle Matches in Camp Perry Ohio twice so YMMV). The f4 IS does not benefit in sharpness by stopping down, it is as sharp wide open as it gets. The f2.8 IS is a monster, definitely benefits from stopping down (especially in corner sharpness) and has a second generation IS. I feel comfortable handling down to 1/40th of a sec @200mm with the f4 IS. For me it is was a pretty easy decision, especially when I consider that I may opt for a 300 f4 IS (if they ever update the IS unit) in addition to my kit.

BlueSkyPhotos

Blurmore wrote:

I'm one of the few people you will find who strongly advocates for the f4 IS. I compared the 2 side by side in the store and for absolute base sharpness at the slowest shutter speed I found the f4 IS to be superior. This is for 2 reasons. The f4 IS is super handholdable, one of if not the best balanced lenses Canon makes. I felt comfortable handholding the NON-IS version of this lens at 1/80th of a second at 200mm (I also went to the National Highpower Rifle Matches in Camp Perry Ohio twice so YMMV). The f4 IS does not benefit in sharpness by stopping down, it is as sharp wide open as it gets. The f2.8 IS is a monster, definitely benefits from stopping down (especially in corner sharpness) and has a second generation IS. I feel comfortable handling down to 1/40th of a sec @200mm with the f4 IS. For me it is was a pretty easy decision, especially when I consider that I may opt for a 300 f4 IS (if they ever update the IS unit) in addition to my kit.

Thanks Jason for your response. I am currently leaning towards 4 IS (so is my wife) and your analysis push me that direction even further.

rwells

Scott_Quier wrote:

A lot is driven by the camera. If you get into a light situation where you are up against the limit of your ISO (i.e., any more boost results in unacceptable noise in the image) then the extra stop for the f/2.8 over the f/4 might make the difference between getting the shot and not .... 'cause sometimes you just have to have the shutter speed.

I agree with Scott, and also remember that f/2.8 allows more light in for focusing and will allow the use of the most sensitive focus types (depends on body). Doesn't matter how sharp a lens is, nor how well you can hand-hold it if it's so dark where your shooting that a f/4 won't lock focus consistently.

If your happy with f/4, I'd also throw the 24-105L IS into the consideration. It's a wonderful lens! ~ Alas, only f/4 though...

YMMV

tenoverthenose

I've only tried one f4 lens for weddings, the 24-105. Great image quality, I could handhold it for long exposures and it had a great range. Unfortunately I had a difficult time getting it to focus properly once it got dark and I need to move fast. I really wanted to like that lens, but it did me more harm than good.

I've never used the 70-200 f4, but I've had the 2.8IS for a few years and love it. It's a workhorse of a lens and I really can't imagine choosing the f4 version over it. First, shutter speed is not everything when it comes to low light. When you have a bit of movement, there is a HUGE difference between 1/60 and 1/30 of a second. The IS may stabilize the camera, but if you subject moves it might not work anyway. Second the focusing at f2.8 is better than f4 in low light, it just is. Finally 200mm at f2.8 looks different than 200mm at f4 giving me another creative tool (and also makes me want to get the 200/2).

At the end of the day, I have the 70-200 2.8 IS and a 85 1.2. If I'm in a really dark church, I reach for the 85 or another prime and leave the zooms in the bag. While f2.8 is fast, sometimes it still isn't fast enough. Maybe keep your lens and look at the 85 1.8 and the 135 2.0.

mmmatt

As stated already, IS only helps you so much and does nothing for subject movement. So I'm with Ten on this one. I went from the f4 non IS to the f2,8 IS, and didn't like it. I felt the f4 was sharper and the IS wasn't that big of a thrill for me. Couple of times it saved my butt shooting it AP and I let shutter speed get too low, but that is the only time I appreciated the IS. The 2.8 is a tank, and 2.8 isn't all that fast.

My choice was to then sell the 2.8IS and buy a f4 non-IS + and 85 1,8 + a 100 2.8 macro for roughly the same money. I already own the 135 f2. difference between 2.8 and 4 is only 1 stop (like 1/60th vs 1/125th), and the difference between f2 and f4 is 2 full stops, go to 1.8 and it is 2 1/3 stops. I tend to end up in a lot of dark shooting situations and I HATE waiting for the lens to focus. I was missing so many shots that way! This really kills you shooting dark skin or dark objects. The f2 is far faster. that all being said, if I could afford the f4 IS while still having all my other glass I would probably get it since I do sometimes let my shutter speed drop a little low when shooting AP outdoors, but that is about $500 more than the non IS.



In dark situations I wear a ThinkTank Wideload, and carry the 135 f2L, 85 f1.8, and my 24-70 f2.8L. After awhile you get used to zooming with your feet, quickly changing glass, and almost never knock old ladies over.:D So, when you really need low light, primes are the best and when you don't, f4 is fine IMHO.

Matt

BlueSkyPhotos

Thanks everyone for input and for a great discussion. For now, I decided to purchase 85 mm 1.8 and wait to see what will the new 70-200 2.8 IS Mark II have to offer.

Merry Christmas to you all!

Jacek

jeffreaux2

BlueSkyPhotos wrote:

Thanks everyone for input and for a great discussion. For now, I decided to purchase 85 mm 1.8 and wait to see what will the new 70-200 2.8 IS Mark II have to offer.

Merry Christmas to you all!

Jacek

I hope it's Black....:D

I based my decision to get 2.8 over 4.0 not only on the great points already made here, but also because I feared that if I had the 4.0 Id always "wonder" whether Id be better of at 2.8. No worries now.

They are both great glass and both offer excellent image quality, one is just a little faster than the other, and sometimes....that little bit is needed.

marikris

jeffreaux2 wrote:

I hope it's Black....:D

I based my decision to get 2.8 over 4.0 not only on the great points already made here, but also because I feared that if I had the 4.0 Id always "wonder" whether Id be better of at 2.8. No worries now.

They are both great glass and both offer excellent image quality, one is just a little faster than the other, and sometimes....that little bit is needed.

I shot a wedding two day's ago, and afterwards the bride wanted to go to bars (that meant something to the couple) in the French Quarter. I had my 24-70 on, and the principal shooter had the 24-105 f/4 IS. We both had the 5d2. The interior of LaFitte's was lit only by candle light (oldest bar in the world or something, and don't have electric lights inside) and it was very, very dark. All I could see were the shapes of the couple in some places. My f2.8 focused just fine, a lot quicker than I thought it would, while the other photographer couldn't make her f4 focus at all. I was grateful to have that extra stop.

jeffreaux2

marikris wrote:

I shot a wedding two day's ago, and afterwards the bride wanted to go to bars (that meant something to the couple) in the French Quarter. I had my 24-70 on, and the principal shooter had the 24-105 f/4 IS. We both had the 5d2. The interior of LaFitte's was lit only by candle light (oldest bar in the world or something, and don't have electric lights inside) and it was very, very dark. All I could see were the shapes of the couple in some places. My f2.8 focused just fine, a lot quicker than I thought it would, while the other photographer couldn't make her f4 focus at all. I was grateful to have that extra stop.

Why do you people insist on visiting New Orleans without letting me know ahead to see if we could possibly...maybe...if time allows...meet.

Anyway....you made a great...sensible....reply to the OP on why to use F2.8...

marikris

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Why do you people insist on visiting New Orleans without letting me know ahead to see if we could possibly...maybe...if time allows...meet.

Anyway....you made a great...sensible....reply to the OP on why to use F2.8...

Oh gosh, I didn't even realize you were from Baton Rouge. We hit rush hour traffic and it took forevvvverrrr (from Houston) and I remember asking Jess, "What's in Baton Rogue?" To which she replied, "I dunno, I'm actually not sure." But now I know. Jeff's in Baton Rouge.

Sigh...I made a great...late...reply to the OP lol.

Shima

I shoot mostly primes, but the two zooms I do own are 16-35 f2.8/L - for the wide shots that I find my 35 just can't do (and I couldn't justify some of the more expensive super wide primes, lol) and my 70-200 f2.8/L IS because it's a beast and works great for ceremonies where I do find I need the versatility more than later when I have the time to swap lenses around.

devonweddingphotographer

We have the 2.8 70-200 L IS and love it, its fantastic for the speech shots where the lighting is normally dimmed so the 2.8 gives us a bit more flexibility and is very quick at focusing to get those split second shots. The bokeh is great and I would definitely say to go for 2.8. Maybe you could try renting the lens for a week to see how you get on?

adbsgicom

Wouldn't the 2.8 also allow for an easier time on your flash? 1/60 at f/4 and 1/125 at f/2.8 is the same ambient, but the strobe has to pump out 2x the amount of light to get into the f/4. Don't know if that matters to you or not.

Matthew Saville

I'm also not a fan of the size, weight or price of the 70-200 2.8. I just don't like lenses that big, I feel they intimidate my subjects, and draw attention to myself in general. Let alone the heft and the price.

I'm totally in love with my Sigma 50-150 2.8, except for the lack of stabilization. (Basically, on full-frame, the 70-200 f/4 IS would equal the Sigma 50-150 2.8)

Also, when the light gets nasty, I don't mess around with the silly difference between f/2.8 or f/4. I go straight to f/1.4, and rock it out. (Or, for you full-frame shooters, the 135 f/2 can probably get the job done...)

It is CRITICAL to scout out the church beforehand and just get ONE test of the light. That way you'll know what you're getting into. If it's just abysmally dark and not even f/1.2 and ISO 6400 can save you, you simply go to the bride & groom and inform them of your situation, and present them with their options. Flash, (not an option during a ceremony, ever, in my opinion) ...or grainy, "artistic" B&W shots... :-)

=Matt=