What do you think? Good or not so good.

oakfieldphotography.com

Canon L 70-200 F4 USM lens. Just want to know if anyone here has tried this lens out at any weddings and how did they feel about their results. Keep in mind i will be keeping it on a monopod if the light warrents. Just a first step to add to my Canon L 24-70 F2.8
Kind regards
Patrick.:D

ziggy53

For weddings I "greatly" prefer the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (with or without IS). For the ceremony proper most officiants don't allow flash, and the f2.8 aperture also allows the camera's high-precision center focus AF dot to activate.

My personal choice was for the non-IS f2.8 version. I don't regret this choice at all. For the Canon 5D MKII platform some would argue for the Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L IS USM II, and it is sharper across the entire image frame. I am still very pleased with my older lens and I don't plan to change anytime soon.

I do have the EF 70-200mm, f4L IS USM, but I use it mostly for part of a travel kit and outdoor, daytime events. If I have to choose between, I always choose the f2.8 version.

oakfieldphotography.com

Thanks Ziggy.
It looks like i will have to dig a little deeper. My suspicions were correct. F2.8 will burn a hole in my pocket. Is there any other make that comes close to what you prefer?

Kind regards
Patrick.:D

ziggy53

oakfieldphotography.com wrote: »

Thanks Ziggy.
It looks like i will have to dig a little deeper. My suspicions were correct. F2.8 will burn a hole in my pocket. Is there any other make that comes close to what you prefer?

Kind regards
Patrick.:D

Both Sigma and Tamron make 70-200mm, f2.8 zoom lenses that are less expensive than the Canon. The Sigma, in my testing of 2 copies, is not as sharp at f2.8 and the Tamron is not as fast to focus. The Tamron 70-200mm, f2.8 Di LD (IF) Macro would be my recommendation since AF speed is not as critical for wedding work.

Matthew Saville

I've been shooting weddings full-time for 4-5 years now and still don't own a 70-200 2.8. I rent one from time to time, for the events where the light just totally stinks and I need the reach. But most of the time, I do just fine with an 85mm prime on full-frame, and a Sigma 50-150 2.8 on a crop sensor. Considering the difference in ISO and DOF, a 70-200 f/4 on full-frame would be a step UP from a crop-sensor 50-150 2.8. Anyways, my point is that YES, a 70-200 f/4 is a great lens. Seriously, it's not like f/2.8 is all that anyways. When the light gets really bad, I don't mess around with f/2.8, I go straight to f/1.4. Sometimes I feel a little far from subjects, but as long as I bring my A-game creatively, the photo still rock. Or, alternately, I still don't have a good macro lens so I'm thinking of getting the Sigma 150 2.8 OS. That way, for about $1000 instead of $2400, (the price of the Nikon 70-200 mk2) ...I can hit 150mm f/2.8 with stabilization if I really need it.

Pretty much EVERYBODY else here is going to tell you that you MUST get the 70-200 2.8 IS, so I'm just casting my vote here. I don't own one, and don't plan to... Nikon just filed a patent for an f/4 70-200, so maybe I'll get that. Anyways, I'm just here to say that if YOU feel your style doesn't center around the 70-200, then don't feel like you MUST have it. Many wedding photgraphers opt for primes and/or the 70-200 f/4...

=Matt=

JimKarczewski

70-200 was one of my most used lenses when I did weddings, that and the 50/1.4. I still use the 70-200 a ton (I have the original 70-200/2.8IS) for photojournalism work for the local paper... I rotate primarily now between 2 lenses, that and the 16-35/2.8II

ThatCanonGuy

I have it and it's a great lens. If you have good light, then it's a good buy. The f/2.8 version (non-IS can be found for about $1000 used) gives the camera more light, gives more background blur, and uses the cross-type f/2.8 AF sensor. The f4 version is much lighter. For shooting cars, it's great. For low-light weddings, I'd probably prefer something else.

jhefti

I can't argue with Matt when it comes to shooting weddings, especially since I have never done it (scares me to death to even think about that responsibility). But I do own a 70-200/2.8 and it is probably my most used tele lens. In addition to pro sports (along with a 400/2.8 by its side) I use it for theater, events, some candid portraiture, and many other non-specific tasks. Light is not the only consideration in choosing a 2.8; there's also the DOF/isolation and bokeh to consider as well. Of course, it all depends on your intended uses and your aesthetic sense. I just know that I've gotten far more use from this lens than any of my other tele lenses.