Lens for wedding

I am looking to buy the 70-200L 2.8 for an upcoming wedding. I know

alot of you on here shoot with this lens. My question is would you

buy the non IS version or not? <P> Elaine Marie

Hi Elaine. I shoot Nikon and I have their non VR (vibration reduction) 80-200mm f/2.8. I think the VR would be a nice feature to have, however I have never been in a situation where I really thought, damn, VR would be nice about now. Even in a the dim light of a courtroom i do fine without the VR. It also saved me $800.00 not buying their VR.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

 

Sean Flanigan

 

http://seanflaniganphotography.com

Elaine I ahve never shot with that lens is or not. I do on the other hand have a couple of 2.8 lenses (a little shorter on the focal length admittedly) and have been ok with the 2.8 on its own. I would however be concerned handholding when you get toward the 200 end w/o a tripod or is.

 

Sean- your site is sickening, Seriously, in a good way.

If you can afford to purchase the IS version and you'll be using it for future weddings, go for it.

 

I have the Nikon version with VR. The Canon and Nikon IS and VR lenses work as advertised, and it has definitely made a difference in my photography work. Could I get by without some form of image stabilization? Sure - did it for years. But it can give you an edge, no doubt about it.

I agree with Chris. I have the non IS version. It is a super sharp lens, I love it for tight portraiture, but in low light it gets put away. Even though I am big guy, this lens and camera (20D) gets heavy, so consider handholding 2+ lbs. If you have the money, go with the IS, you won't regret it.

I'm a Nikon shooter and use the 70-200 VR, basically the same idea as your Canon lens. Considering that at full extension, you'd need to be shooting 1/200 or faster with a non IS lens, how often do you get this much light at a wedding? I can hand hold the VR lens at 1/20 and get a sharp image with the lens fuly racked. Go for the IS lens.

Elaine - I have the IS and it is very useful in lower light situations. Rent it if you get the chance and see what you think. If you can afford IS, I think that it will pay for itself very quickly.

Elaine, I just bought that lens with IS. I would recommend with IS because most weddings are going to be indoors (low light) and IS gives you up to 3 stops. Shell out the dough and get the IS you and your customers will not be dissappointed.

then again, in arizona, "the sky's are not cloudy all day" , and the churches are not the dundgens of back east. and most( over 50 %) weddings are outside. just something to think about. mary ball is big on this lens, ask her when she likes it the most.

Before totally relying on the IS, brush up on long lens shooting techniques. IS is not a magic bullet that will make up for bad technique. The better you can stabilize yourself and the camera the better the chance of the IS giving you a good image. IOW stack the deck as much in your favor as you can.

 

Gary

Gary is very right! You can learn to get pretty consistantly sharp pix with a plain old fashioned lens. Back in Ancient Times on news assignments I often hand held a 180/2.8 at 1/30 second, as did a lot of other photographers. Even 1/15 at times. Rest the lens on the fingers of your left hand, don't grip it with a death grip. Tuck your left elbow into your belly. Practice pushing the release with an arched index finger, only moving the finger tip straight up and down. Learn relaxation techniques and breath slowly. Lean against a wall or post if handy. You'll find yourself doing the same thing with shorter lenses too.

Great answer AL. I do that and have the IS version too. Its just an ADDED benefit to having some thechnique. I find that of all things, the breathing is the most critical learned thechnique.

Get the IS version if it's just a matter of this one or that one which is how I read your question. It's a no-brainer.