Do I really need a 70-200 f/2.8?

Hey, I wanted to know if the 70-200 f/2.8 is really necessary to shoot weddings? I

am thinking of investing some hard earned cash into the lense but want to make

sure it really necessary to have.

 

I have my nikons (D300 and D80) with the following lenses Sigma 18-50 f/2.8,

nikon 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8

 

If I don't really need the lense then I will put the money towards another D300

Jose,

 

I would say yes. If you have the cash, then go ahead and splurge. Make sure you get the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR. This lens has saved me more then once and I produces some awesome shots.

I think it's a wonderful lens. You won't be sorry buying this. It's worth the price difference between the 70 VR an 80 non VR.

Bodies come and go but our lenses stay. You'll have this lens for 10 + years and glad you made the sacrifice when you did.

That seems to be the concensus. I had the 18-200 VR lens but it wasn't enough in lowlight even with the D300.

This has been discussed many, many times before.

 

Some people like it and use it and others don't. Just from that fact alone it's not too hard to draw the conclusion that the 70-200 VR is not necessary for wedding photography. But that doesn't mean YOU shouldn't get one.

 

Other options in the telephoto range would be primes like 85/1.8, 85/1.4, 105/2, 135/2, 180/2.8 or 3rd party zooms like Sigma 50-150/2.8 (DX), Tokina 50-135/2.8 (DX), Sigma 70-200/2.8.

 

The most common reason to NOT use a 70-200 is no particular order is weight, size, maximum aperture, focal length range and price. What none of the other lenses mentioned above has is VR.

 

Peter

There are no neccesary lenses for wedding photography, only what YOU need. I use this lens most of the time and usually at the long end. The bokeh it produces is fabulous and makes the location (if it isn't ideal) less of an issue for me. I couldn't do without it, but maybe you could.

Just got my 70-200 f2.8L IS yesterday... Besides having to dig out my weights and pump up a little..... There's just no comparison to my other lenses in the speed of the thing... Can't wait for all the weddings coming up with NO FLASH CEREMONIES... of course, compared to a Point & Shoot, my 20D and lens felt like a ton of bricks when I bought it... It just takes getting used to.

I've managed to shoot weddings for the last 10 years without a 70-200 f/2.8, but one will be arriving today. It wasn't absolutely necessary for me, but I'm sure it will be well used and come it quite handy now that I have one.

We have rented the 70-200 f/2.8 lens on several occassions but for our shooting styles it was overkill.

 

I usually shoot about 80% of the wedding with a 17-50 f/2.8 lens. During the ceremony from the middle to the back of the church I use a 105 f/2.8 lens (as well as the few required 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye shots!) My partner uses a Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 lens for about 95% of her shots.

 

We never have felt the need for the longer focal length.

 

Just our experience - YMMV

Howdy!

 

I have the Canon version of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. While you can definitely get by without it if you have some fast telephoto primes, it sure makes life easier.

 

The Canon version is a little soft on the long end. It's possible that you could get equivalent results with a shorter telephoto and a crop. I've never tested that.

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

No. I'd like to repeat what Peter said. I never had the need for a long zoom during the ceremony. I much prefer single focal length, FAST lenses. Whether you can live without one is up to you and how you shoot, not how everyone else shoots. Why do YOU think you need it? If you have to ask, you aren't ready to answer the question. Rent one and find out whether it is 'all that' for you.

 

Also, do a search for the pros and cons. This has been discussed many times and there is no point in repeating it all.

I've come to believe it's less about the lens you "need" or don't need and it's more about "the style" of the photography that you want to define you as a wedding photographer.

 

The long lens offers me a different "look" within each individual set of wedding imags more than anything else.

 

Different "looks", for me, offer the bridal couple a wider gamut of photography (or at least it has the potential to do that, imo).

 

So many times we (includes me too!) start our discussion from hardware instead of from a point of style and what gives the bridal couple a variety of looks during the day of celebration.

Jose,

 

I have the 70-200/2.8vr and it is nice, but I don't use it much at all. I find (recently) that nearly all of that FL use (using the D300's) is now with the Tokina 50-135/2.8 which I love.

 

You have to work the files just a tad for optimum results, but no more that any other lens. It is sharp and contrasty, focuses acceptably well and is light weight yet solid as a tank. Perfect combo with a D300 as the tele end for most weddings.

 

All that said, the 70-200 does have its place when relegated to a distant spot in the back of a large church.

After reading this lens review here http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vr_n15/ my answer would be NO. The trusted reviewer has raised a red flag. I would get a fast prime and wait to see if Nikon will come out with a revision to the 70-200/2.8.

THe Nikon 70-200 VR is a fantastic lens. Yes, the corners get a little soft on a FF sensor. But that probably matters more to landscape photographers. But it has not bearing on how I have used my lens for shooting sports and weddings.

Yes.

The 70-200 VR is one of the best Nikon lenses ever made and I would definately use it for weddings especially if on a DX sensor camera like you are using. Its an excellant portrait lens as well and tack sharp. (if that's what you want) it also has a lovely creamy background in oof areas. I'd go with the opinion that says, bodies lchange but the lens will last you for a long time. This is a money lens.

Its a great lens. But do you NEED it for wedding photography? NO. I shot all my weddings with a 50mm equivalent(which is 80 mm in medium format), and one 300m fixed focus for the long shots.

 

But there is no doubting that I could have used something like that!

I resisted for a long time, and only recently purchased a Canon non IS version. The extra reach is nice, but the weight... not so nice.

 

When I shot Nikon the 135mm f/2 was just about perfect for the back of the church and made a great portrait lens. It was light enough to swap out and carry on my hip with an 85mm.

 

However, I do like the versatility of a telephoto zoom.

 

Depending upon your needs, consider a used 80-200 or a 180mm f/2.8 instead. Much cheaper and equal in quality. Nobody will ever know the difference and you still have money left over for a D300.

I have no comment, specifically, about the Nikon lens: I have not used it.

 

However a lens with that zoom range, for use on with APS-C bodies, would be the last lens I would buy, for Wedding Specific use.

 

It is explained in this recent thread, FYI:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PSYc

 

 

WW

I'd have a heck of a time shooting events without one. The VR has been a lifesaver to me -- lets me use slower shutter speeds with fill flash and let the ambient light have more impact on the shot. This is obviously not a lot of help when the subject is moving a lot, but it helps plenty with posed subjects when you're zoomed to 200mm and using a shutter speed of 1/125th. The 70-200/2.8 VR and the various incarnations of the 80-200/2.8 lenses are sharp with that "pro-lens punch."

I think it depends on how often you really feel the need for a longer reach when you shoot a wedding... I guess your longest lens right now (85mm) might not be enough for certain shots, so how about a 135/2 (202mm with the crop factor)?

 

I think the easiest to find out is rent a 70-200 for the next few weddings and see if you like it/need it/shoot with it often, and if it improves your photos... It's a lot of money to find out afterwards that it doesn't fill your needs

 

so rent it and a 135 and see what you think!

Unless you can bench press 300 pounds, even with the VR, you'll want to spend a few more bucks for a monopod sturdy enough to safely hold this heavy lens. This is especially true if you use the 80-200 f2.8, the non-VR version which is, in my humble opinion, even better glass than the 70-200. And it's about $600 cheaper.

I'd get a 200mm f/2G instead.

Thanks so much. I figured since there are a lot of fans of the 70-200. I have yet to be relegated to the back of a church or ceremony for aesthetics but if ever asked or told to I would love to be prepared. I generally shoot from the front-side of the Church/Ceremony.

 

I know this type of question is usually posted in some other forms but I wanted to know based on what I have already.

 

Thanks for the overwhelming response.