wedding photography telephoto lenses???

jackedwards

Okay so im upgrading my equipment. I am torn between the canon 70-200L 2.8 IS the 100-400L 4.5 IS and the 28-300L 3.5 IS i think the 100-400 would be my best bet and would come in handy in other applications. I already have a 16-35L and 24-105L so im covered on that end.

So for those who shoot weddings what do you use? And if you were to upgrade what would you choose? Its been a few years since Ive shot weddings so im a bit out of the loop. Any suggestions would be apperciated.

Cheers
Jack

digismile

I have the 70-200 IS and I can only say that I've never ever wanted more lens when shooting a wedding, just more light. So I think the wider aperture will serve you more than the extra focal length.

Regards,

urbanaries

If you are bent on getting the 100-400 focal length, why not a 70-200 plus a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter? the best of both worlds.

Swartzy

The 70-200 f/2.8
Is by without a doubt the lens you'll want/need for the long end. I'd be surprised if you used this up to the 200mm very often. Anything more than that, you would have to be pretty far away......Maybe if you wanted to get a tight shot of ring exchange from the back of the sanctuary..then, ok, 300mm...but that's about it. Heck, I'm looking for the 17-55 IS 2.8. About the most I use is not much over 100mm throughout the day (have a very sharp copy of the 28-135) but would be nice for a bit faster focusing.

jackedwards

Just what I was looking for. 70-200L 2.8 IS it is now if only my 24-105L stopped down to 2.8 =( Thanks for all the input!

jackedwards

urbanaries wrote:

If you are bent on getting the 100-400 focal length, why not a 70-200 plus a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter? the best of both worlds.

How much clarity will i lose doing this?

digismile

I don't know if you'll really see a difference in quality. What you do see is a one stop loss for the 1.4x (F4 min.) and 2 stop loss for the 2x (F5.6 min.). Both the canon converters are very sharp.

Scott_Quier

No question
The 100-400 is not fast enough in the dark environs you will encounter. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is THE LENS. Get anything else for weddings and you will kick yourself until you do eventually get it.

The 100-400 is a sweet lens, but it's an outdoor lens.

Nikolai

Scott_Quier wrote:

The 100-400 is not fast enough in the dark environs you will encounter. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is THE LENS. Get anything else for weddings and you will kick yourself until you do eventually get it.

The 100-400 is a sweet lens, but it's an outdoor lens.

I agree with Scott. 100-400 is great, I have it and I love it, but unless you have your ceremony on a football field and you're shooting from the bleachers, it's too much and too slow.
70-200/2.8 IS is DA wedding lens.

evoryware

The 400 f2.8 IS would be nice too.

Nikolai

evoryware wrote:

The 400 f2.8 IS would be nice too.

Come on, let's be serious. It's not for sports, it's for wedding. We're talking about several (6? 8? 10? 12?) hours of a straight shooting in a constantly changing environment. It's not like you can park yourself on a sideline and shoot from a monopod. Carrying this hunk of glass at your eye level - your arms will be dead in 30 minutes or less.

urbanaries

Nikolai wrote:

Come on, let's be serious. It's not for sports, it's for wedding.

agreed...How many shots can you realistically get at 400mm? Of 1370 shots at my last wedding, maybe 200 were taken at focal lengths longer than 100mm. The wide-standard (fast) zoom is the real workhorse at a wedding. I could leave my telephoto at home theoretically and still be okay.

jackedwards

urbanaries wrote:

agreed...How many shots can you realistically get at 400mm? Of 1370 shots at my last wedding, maybe 200 were taken at focal lengths longer than 100mm. The wide-standard (fast) zoom is the real workhorse at a wedding. I could leave my telephoto at home theoretically and still be okay.

hmmm well i have my 24-105L IS f4 thinking maybe i should sell it and get the 24-70L IS 2.8 as a replacement.

urbanaries

jackedwards wrote:

hmmm well i have my 24-105L IS f4 thinking maybe i should sell it and get the 24-70L IS 2.8 as a replacement.

is there a 24-70 IS 2.8? WOW! I missed that one. If it's not IS, and you have a 20D or 30D or Rebel XT/XTi, check out the 17-55 2.8 IS. It's not an L, but it really should be.

Nikolai

jackedwards wrote:

hmmm well i have my 24-105L IS f4 thinking maybe i should sell it and get the 24-70L IS 2.8 as a replacement.

If you can afford to keep it - don't. 24-105 is a fantastic lens for the outside events. It's just a bit slow for the indoors, but with the proper lighting and usable hish ISOs it can be your tool for the years to come.

ChatKat

If you can afford it
If you can afford both the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-105 4.0 - they each have their use. I like the 24-70 for low light indoor and the 24-105 for outdoor/walkaround. I have the 5D....my next workhorse might be the 16-35 for some context shots - but I could still use the 24's as well

Scott_Quier

urbanaries wrote:

is there a 24-70 IS 2.8? WOW! I missed that one. If it's not IS, and you have a 20D or 30D or Rebel XT/XTi, check out the 17-55 2.8 IS. It's not an L, but it really should be.

Yep, there sure is. You can find it here

But it's not IS.

jackedwards

ChatKat wrote:

If you can afford both the 24-70 2.8 and the 24-105 4.0 - they each have their use. I like the 24-70 for low light indoor and the 24-105 for outdoor/walkaround. I have the 5D....my next workhorse might be the 16-35 for some context shots - but I could still use the 24's as well

Okay so heres my current setup.

5D
10D (back up)
16-35L 2.8
24-105L4.0
75-300 4.0 IS
50 1.8
28-135 2.8 (back up)
100 macro 2.8

What i would like to add
70-200 2.8L IS
24-70L 2.8
580EX
Sell the 10D and get the 40D as a 2nd shooter mount the 70-200 to it and call it a day.