70-200 Questions

<p>YOU GUYS HAVE HELPED ME SO MUCH IN MY LAST POST I WANT TO RUN THIS PAST YOU IF I COULD. You have helped me choose the tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a 85 mm F1.8 for the weddings coming up, as ive already got a 50mm f1.8 and uve said to keep my kit lens canon 18-55, im going to sell my new canon 18-200 IS so i can buy one more lense. I wanted the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS but this is way out of my range, so im thinking of either the sigma 70-200 F2.8 or the Tamron version which i belive to be quite noisey? But has anyone used either of these please and what do you think, as if i get one i should have a tidy kit then for this wedding. I have heard that the tamron 17-50 lens which ive been suggested to get struggles a little in low light which is defeating the object a little for the evening shots but????? Im looking forward to your help and thank you once again.<p><b>Moderator: Title changed. Please post using titles that identify the subject, not all caps titles that don't have anything to do with the question.</b></p>

<p>There can be significant cost saving if you go for the Canon 70-200 (Non IS) 2.8 lens.</p>

<p>Geriant -</p>

<p>I've used the Sigma 70-200 for a couple of years now. No complaints. I find it to be a nice lens and it has (at least the 2 copies that I have) have a very smooth / easy zoom.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>I personally would not go with the non IS version of that lens. It's a big lens and can get heavy after 8 hours and the IS is awesome. I rarely carry a tripod or monopod around and with the IS I don't have to worry about having one. If it were me I'd continue using the lenses I had until I could afford the L series. </p>

<p>Geraint--the Tamron 17-50mm struggles in low light 'a little', without flash, but at receptions you have your flash focus assist (One Shot focusing), which is pretty speedy for acquiring focus. Your flash can be set up to use the focus assist beam without firing if that is what you want. Any lens, even the Canons, will struggle in low light. As I said before, my advice is to get the lenses that were suggested, work with them, and then decide about the 70-200mm.</p>

<p>This is for two reasons. By the time you master the other lenses, you will know what your style is and whether this zoom fits into what you want to do. Second, by then you may have more money. To me, if one is going to get a 70-200mm f2.8 lens, it has got to be the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS. Anything else doesn't make any sense unless (like me), you use the long zoom mostly outside in brighter light where the f2.8 and IS don't matter as much.</p>

<p>Before buying that Canon, I'd rent it a couple of times. As someone above said, it is huge and heavy. Personally I also don't see how one could be unobtrusive (especially inside) with a huge white lens.</p>

<p>My suggestion would be to rent each one of them, take notes on the good and bad for each lens and then make your own decision based on your experience. Only then will you know for sure which lens you should get, this is not a decision we can make for you, IMHO.</p>

<p>I personally have the Tamron 70-200 for my Nikons and love it, it is also much lighter then the competition, something very important to me, but maybe not everyone.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>I think the Sigma is better (the later HSM version) than the Tamron. Have you considered (using a crop body) the Tokina 50-135, which is about the same FL as the 70-200 when the crop is taken into account. I ask b/c I have both the Nikon 70-200 and the Tokina, and having both, I rarely choose the Nikon. When I do choose it, its for the VR and extra FL.</p>

<p>Just at thought. Here's a sample from that Tokina lens, (I shot in the rain with it a few days ago) which helps to show why I like it:</p>

 

<p>Sorry Nadine, having some issues with it "ballooning" the uploaded image to +150% or something.</p>

<p>Ok one more try for a 100% view.</p>

<p>Didn't work but you can at least see the 100% of the original by clicking on the link here:</p>

<p>David--is one of your images more than 700 pixels? I'm seeing 748x1000 pixels. Maybe causing problems, so check the size and re-post. I will clean up after.</p>

<p>The 70-200 is usually NOT necessary for weddings unless you absolutely must be very far away from the b&g, which usually occurs during a church ceremony and at no other time. Better to spend on fast primes. I use my 70-200 f/2.8L IS only for very rare cases; most of the time my needed focal range is between 24mm and 85mm, with some occasional need for wider, but almost never longer.</p>

<p>I am not saying to exclude the 70-200 from your want list, but I would put much higher priority on establishing a good set of fast primes first, at least 1 or 2 with f/1.4 or better.</p>

<p>For full-frame cameras, my ideal setup would include a 16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L and 200 f/2L, plus a good fisheye.</p>

<p>For crop-sensor cameras, my ideal setup would include a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 200 f/2L IS, plus fisheye. Most important in that setup for me would be 11-16, 17-55, 24L and 50L or 85L.</p>

<p>What I have actually been able to buy thus far: Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Canon 24-70L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 35L, 85L, 135L. If I could do it over again I'd buy the 24L instead of 35L, and buy another fast prime instead of the 70-200 - possibly the 50L.</p>

<p>To put my last post into perspective for budget-oriented considerations, I would sooner invest in a Sigma 30 f/1.4 or 50 f/1.4 than in a 70-200 variant. Honestly shorter focal lengths get lots more use during most weddings.</p>

<p>I'll echo what most people above had said. Frankly, unless you're going to use a tripod, any 70-200 without image stabilisation is of limited use.</p>

<p>If I turn IS off on mine I get very few hand held shots below 1/125 that are usable. When I turn it on, I get hand held shots as low as 1/20 that I can use easily. The difference is astonishing.</p>

<p>You may want to rent, borrow or get a dealer demo of the IS version. Once you've tried it you'll know exactly why it costs more, and you'll be very unlikely to want the cheaper version.</p>

<p>If the IS version is out of budget, I'd suggest spending your money on a set of decent primes instead.</p>

<p>My 70-200 lens is my work horse. I have it on me the entire wedding and use it most of the day. <br>

What you will use will depend on how you shoot of course. :)</p>

Thank you very much for Ur advice, and I will follow it.

<p>I wonder how people ever managed with the 70-200 L non IS??? It is so heavy one will need a tripod, well maybe a monopod. For people normally 1/60 is the lowest normally recommended because of movement, 1/125 being the lowest I like to go because of movement. With many of the new cameras one can up the ISO to make up for the non-is, heck people did it before IS was available. I often see this little woman about 5'0" lugging a 500mm for bird shooting hand holds when I go out to Brazos Bend State Park. My 24-70L (950g) non IS is almost as heavy as my 70-200L non IS (1310g). If one can afford the non IS then one should not hesitate in buying it.</p>

<p>To answer your question, Manuel, I do.</p>

<p>But my personal purchase of the EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM was quite purposeful, and I it takes into account that I did not use that particular lens very much for Weddings, at all, preferring to use either my 85F/1.8 or the 135F/2L or occasionally the 100F/2.8 M - and if I need longer I would usually use the 135L + x1.4MkII.</p>

<p>I do not find the 70 to 200 + camera, heavy.<br>

I use Battery Grips on my DSLR cameras.<br>

But I do use a monopod sometimes, even for Weddings.<br>

On a really good day I can consistently pull around 1/160s at 200mm on a 5D hand held, but I really don't ever play that game at a Wedding.</p>

<p>A few years ago I renovated a large W&P studio for Digital and initially we had three DSLR kits - and there was only one 70 to 200 shared between those three kits – and that lens WAS the <strong><em>Image Stabilized</em></strong> version.</p>

<p>If one decides that the 70 to 200 is a necessary purchase – one should almost always get the IS version – especially if it is to be used mainly for Weddings or especially if one “does Weddings” as an adjunct to general Photography. There are vey few niches, where the decision to buy the NON IS version applies, IMO.</p>

<p>I agree with Colleen that the use (or not) of a 70 to 200 depends upon how each of us “sees” things, and in no small part also it depends upon what camera format one uses.</p>

<p>I think it is very important when asking general opinions about the 70 to 200 we should seek to find out on what cameras, Wedding Photographers make (exclusive) use of this particular lens.</p>

<p>For my kit, at Weddings, when the 70 to 200 has been brought out it has mostly (90%) been used on a 5D – and it was used for its <em>zoom capacity</em> – i.e. hand held outside / inside . . . . <em>it was not kept in the kit and dragged out for three shots form the rear of the Church and used merely as a “200mm prime”.</em> If the 70 to 200 is used predominately as a 200mm Prime on a pod - then its purchase is an huge waste of resources.</p>

<p>On the very rare occasion when more FL was required (rear of a Cathedral) I used a 300mm Prime rather than don the 70 to 200 on an APS-C body – but the latter was an alternative – obviously.</p>

<p>I am interested what format camera Colleen uses her 70 to 200 on, mostly?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>David Wegwart's 100 percent view.</p><div></div>

<p>I have zero experience in the 3rd party 70-200 lens' but I can tell you this, my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS is THE sharpest zoom lens I have. I have one glued to my full frame 5d. I use to shoot wide a lot but recently my taste has changed to the more tight shots. One a crop camera it's way too long. But the lens on a full frame is pure magic. v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>I don't do many weddings, maybe 6 in the last 2 years and have never taken my 70-200L, my 24-70L yes, my 24L yes, my 135L yes, my 85 f/1.8 and my 50 f/1.4 I do not understand the need for IS, in fact the 70-200L non is is sharper and overall a better lens but for the IS. I don't mind carrying a monopod often take it every where I go. If IS is so important then some one starting out should go with Sony the IS is built in and they have some great lens. I have a dance organization that I often photograph their events and the 70-200L is the one I take, what is the advantage of the IS when the people are moving fairly quickly. This past weekend I used the 70-200L with my 7D and my monopod for video. I have one IS lens and that is the 24-105L (came with my 5D) and I probably will be selling it. I chose the Sigma 100-300 f/4 over the Canon 100-400 L IS lens for various reasons. I don't do photography for a living as I have a very good paying job but photography is a passion. But the question was based on what some one can afford at the this time. If the IS is out of the question "I wanted the canon 70-200 f2.8 IS but this is way out of my range" what does one do? The Tamron and Sigma do not have vibration compensation and one can find a used 70-200L often for the same price one would pay for the Tamron or Sigma new, later when one can afford to buy an IS lens the Canon L lens will retain it value better. I did use the 24-105 L for one recent wedding, the place had a low white ceiling and I was going to be using flash so I went with it as I was going to stay above f/4 any how.</p>

<p ><strong ><em >"I do not understand the need for IS"</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p >I think in very broad terms the "need" can be interpreted to equalling "more options"</p>

<p > </p>

<p >What I mean is - if we decide that we need 70 to 200 coverage . . . and we want the convenience of a zoom, then <em >with IS there are many more exposure combinations available to us - that is a fact.</em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >Where this comes into play profoundly, is around the region where the Tv is coming to the Photographer’s Limit.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Let's look at 1/250s: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >We might assume that 1/250s is our safe Tv limit for Wedding with 70 to 200 loaded on a 5D, hand held. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But with IS that limit extends to maybe 1/60s . . . that range of Tv now available to us (1/60 to 1/250s) opens up many other opportunities.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >That is why I argue: IF one is decides to invest big bucks into a lens then exploit the use of the lens and have all the possible options available to exploit – so I suggest to get the IS version. </p>

<p ></p>

<p >There are very few applications where having the extra range of Tv is not useful – and Weddings is one application where having that extended range of Tv is certainly useful.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>David, did you wait to take that shot, until the traffic light was green?<br>

WW</p>

 

<p>WW, sort of. While they walked toward me I saw it and asked them to kiss. ;-). Not exactly a wait, more like a grab when seen thing.</p>

<p>Nadine, that crop is showing up in my browser blown up. It looks awful compared to the original 100% link I posted.</p>

<p>David - I reckon that's good enough to get the bonus point. The traffic light in frame won me. Cheers. WW</p>

<p>David--it looks fine in my browser. Anyone else having problems?</p>