Any wedding photographers who use a EF70-200 f4L and wished they got the 2.8 version?

[valentinik]

Hi dudes,
I'm seriously caught in the middle of the Canon EF70-200 f4L IS and the f2.8 IS version. Anyone "regrets" getting the f4? I know the IQ is better but for the very purpose of Wedding photography (not in studio), I'm not sure it the lens is capable enough for low light and portraits.

Hope you guys can give me some guidance and direction...

[kcuf2]

well if u get the 2.8is in the 1st place, u can save urself the trouble of worrying if u will regret getting the 4i

[valentinik]

Originally Posted by kcuf2 well if u get the 2.8is in the 1st place, u can save urself the trouble of worrying if u will regret getting the 4i

Duh,
But so ex, is it really worth it?
If i get the 2.8, i wont be able to eat for months. . . . Hehe

[Headshotzx]

Originally Posted by valentinik Duh, But so ex, is it really worth it? If i get the 2.8, i wont be able to eat for months. . . . Hehe

Maybe you should rent it for one wedding and see if it's worth it to you =)

[n0d3]

You can easily rent and try for yourself and save yourself the trouble.

And if you happen to regret buying that particular lens a few months down the road, you can always sell it. At most you lose a $100-200.

And if you're in the photography business (professionally), you can easily recoup your loses.

[fireblaster_lyz]

Originally Posted by valentinik Duh, But so ex, is it really worth it? If i get the 2.8, i wont be able to eat for months. . . . Hehe

Seriously, then the lens isn't really for you.
Reconsider your options.

Originally Posted by Headshotzx Maybe you should rent it for one wedding and see if it's worth it to you =)

Follow Headshotzx's advice or the cheaper way is to increase ISO. :/
You already got a 18-200mm.

[Headshotzx]

For low-light work, I would always choose the widest aperture available to me. f/4 just won't cut it for most of the weddings I've gone to (as a guest). f/1.8 at ISO800 still didn't cut it without flash. Plus, if you're going at f/4, you'll need a flash. You want to shoot burst? You'll need a battery pack for your flash. Which will also burn out the flash head so yeah.

1 stop wider is worth it to me. I own the 2.8IS.

[Prince]

hmmz... the extra f-stop is useful in freezing motion under low light during most wedding and normally when we use telephoto it may be for getting candid shots - and i prefer it without flash.

But I really feel that 2.8 telephoto is heavy - i personally use a 135 f2 for sniping.

Cheers

[sweat100]

I think for a typical wedding a 70-200 f2.8 is too attention grabbing and big to bring around. I used to have it. In the end, I think a 85L or 85 f1.8 is better choice due to the bigger aperture if your plan is capturing ambient lighting portraits. f2.8 may not be big enough for some situations.

[Anson]

Originally Posted by sweat100 I think for a typical wedding a 70-200 f2.8 is too attention grabbing and big to bring around. I used to have it. In the end, I think a 85L or 85 f1.8 is better choice due to the bigger aperture if your plan is capturing ambient lighting portraits. f2.8 may not be big enough for some situations.

The 85mm is not for the wedding dinner right? Coz it is abit to "tight" zoom to be used... unless you have another wide angle lens..

[valentinik]

Originally Posted by Headshotzx For low-light work, I would always choose the widest aperture available to me. f/4 just won't cut it for most of the weddings I've gone to (as a guest). f/1.8 at ISO800 still didn't cut it without flash. Plus, if you're going at f/4, you'll need a flash. You want to shoot burst? You'll need a battery pack for your flash. Which will also burn out the flash head so yeah. 1 stop wider is worth it to me. I own the 2.8IS.

You mentioned that even f1.8 ISO 800 won't cut it. Do you use your 2.8IS with flash all the time for indoor wedding shots? If you do, then maybe the f4 would suffice. What do u think?

[Stratix]

i'm someone who had regretted getting the 2.8 version.

why? a heavy loaded photog will never be a good photog.

period.

[Anson]

Originally Posted by Stratix i'm someone who had regretted getting the 2.8 version. why? a heavy loaded photog will never be a good photog. period.

Haha... that why my choice for wedding day shot is the Canon 18-200mm lens... Just need to have a control of your flash in a wedding day...

[Headshotzx]

Originally Posted by valentinik You mentioned that even f1.8 ISO 800 won't cut it. Do you use your 2.8IS with flash all the time for indoor wedding shots? If you do, then maybe the f4 would suffice. What do u think?

I mean at f/1.8 and ISO800, it couldn't get a good hand-holdable speed with my 85mm (which was about 1/80 to 1/100); I usually got 1/60 - 1/40. At f/2.8, I would've gotten 1/25 to 1/20. For events, that's not going to cut it, especially if it's a 70-200mm range lens.

So yes, I shoot at 1/60 to 1/125 ISO1600 on my 70-200 2.8IS and 400D with 580EXII. Depending on the distance of the subject in relation to me, the 580EXII in manual mode would be 1/16 to 1/4 (also depending on how fast a shutter speed I'd need). That is with a simple bounce card used.

With an f/4 lens, the correct flash exposure would be 1/8 to 1/2 (half power). You are not going to burst on 1/2 power, are you? Your batts wouldn't recharge so fast, and neither would your flash head be able to take it.

So in dark situations, I would get the 2.8 and IS.

Cheers,
Zexun

[Trapper]

Originally Posted by Anson The 85mm is not for the wedding dinner right? Coz it is abit to "tight" zoom to be used... unless you have another wide angle lens..

TS was asking about the 70-200/2.8. If the 85mm is too tight, what good would a 70-200 be?

[KHC]

Cut it short.

there are few thread generated for comparsion of 70-200 F4 and F2.8.

F2.8 IS: Bokeh,extra a stop. Not need to pump up ISO.
Con:Weight,top up $1K on top of F4 IS.

F2.8 : Bokeh,extra a stop.
Con : weight,top up $0.7-0.8K on top of F4.

If you snap with 70-200mm range in the wedding, it may not be the whole event you carry around the 70-200 ???. it may more for candid snap and few snap from tele-zoom.

[charlesleong]

i think with usable ISO6400/12800, f2.8 lenses aren't needed for the extra stop of light. the bokeh, however, is another matter

[sloth]

I refuse to shoot weddings although I do shoot events, which are similar..

f/4 and good flash technique works very well. If I need speed and/or available light capability I would go with blazing fast primes. 135/2 on a full frame - ALL bokeh, speed, and image quality..

However if you are in situations where you CANNOT use flash and you MUST have a zoom, then go 2.8. I used to know some folks who shot sports with a 70-200 and 300/2.8 and I concede that they NEED the faster aperture.

[spartacus.ret]

Originally Posted by Prince But I really feel that 2.8 telephoto is heavy - i personally use a 135 f2 for sniping.

yes, the 135L is brilliant for sniping candids. and it works well with a 1.4tc too.

[Jupiter]

Normally I shoot ROM/weddings or any events with two bodies and lenses:
5D Mk I + 24-105f/4
5D Mk II + 70-200f/4

The 70-200f/4 is my favourite lens. Imagine you spot a candid moment at the other end of the ballroom, you can instantly captured that moment. ISO 2000 for the 5D Mk II is very clean even when printing 8R photos. The 5D and f/4 couple is the perfect lightweight combination for me!