Do without a 70-200?

Do you do weddings without a 70-200?

 

I have a 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 17-40/4.0 I use for side jobs along with

two 10Ds, a 580ex, and a 550ex. I use a consumer 75-300 non IS for my kids

outdoor sports but it is no longer as impressive now that I've seen what

primes can do.

 

Because I usually kill 2 birds with one stone and buy photography equipment I

can use for both my side jobs and for my kids, IF most wedding photographers

live without the extremely HUGE and conspicuous 70-200 (4.0, 2.8, 2.8IS) then

I would probably replace the 75-300 with another prime...100, 135, 200, 300.

(I still need to determine what focal length I use the most.) BUT, if the 70-

200 is a MUST have for weddings, then I'm just going to have to save up and go

for the 70-200 2.8IS. (Can you imagine whipping out this HUGE lens at soccer

for 6 and 7 year olds?)

 

Thanks in advance!

I had the Nikor 80-200 2.8 for the last few years. I just upgraded to the 70-200 2.8 VR. I LOVE it! I use it (or my old version) for my kids sports ALL THE TIME! I use it for soccer games, basketball games, gymnastics, plays, band concerts, ect. In fact, my daughter had a musical today at school. The kids were giggliing at my "big camera". I have gotten used to that! I also use it a lot for outdoor portraits, and expecially the ceremony during weddings. I wouldn't live without it.... but there will be people who tell you different.

No one can tell you that the 70-200mm 2.8 IS is a must have for weddings unless they are talking only about themselves. I shoot weddings without one. I admit there are times I might use one, but not so many that I've gone out and bought the lens. Money is not the issue--size and f stop are the issues.

 

If it were me, I'd get the 135mm f2L. You already have the 85mm for a crop camera. Might consider a 1.4x converter for the sports application. Of course, if you were doing sports professionally, that's another story.

If you can get one get the 70- 200 F 2.8 but make sure it is the IS. I don't use mine often, but it is a lifesaver when I get to a huge church and I am told I have to shoot from the back in low light. I have never been a lover of prime lenses for weddings, I like the availibility of zoom.

Ok, to answer your question...............YOU do NOT need a 70-200 but it is nice to have, besides the kids would love all those nice pictures you could get with it on the soccer field :)

I've never been told that I have to stay in the back of a church, but I know that others on this forum have. I suspect it is a regional thing. People (even ministers) are more relaxed around here I guess. So the bottom line is I don't have much need for a long lens at a wedding. I take a 70-300 USM IS, and have used it, but not often.

 

But if you find yourself relegated to the back pew, you probably ought to get a fast tele. A 100 is too close to the 85 you now have. a 135 or 200 would be a good compliment though. Personally, I prefer to deal with zooms for weddings, so the 70-200 f/2.8 would be the one I'd get.

 

Your 75-300 is fairly sharp up to about 200mm. It's only real problem is the slow aperture, but for the times where you want a long lens, no one's moving around much, so a slow shutter is usable. A tripod is a must with it though.

It's only a "must have" if YOU "must have it". Some people love it, some don't. Get what feels

right for your shooting style.

I thought long and hard about the 70-200. My conclusions was to go with the 200mm f/2.8 prime instead.

 

1) I would likely always have the 85mm f/1.8 mounted on a second body making 70mm redundant.

 

2)The weight is no joke, especially after a full day. My Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AIS wasn't that much larger or heavier and I couldn't imagine carrying it around all day.

 

3) The 200mm is much smaller and cost half as much.

 

In conclusion, I have never said to myself, damn I wish I was at 135mm or 150mm. Though there are times I wish it were 300mm.

Since I have personally never shot a frame at any wedding with a lens longer than 50mm, this is a silly question to me. Ask a million people and you will get a million answers.

It's not that huge. I used the 80-200 2.8 about 6 years ago when I used to shoot horse

shows. I think it's great for sports. I now have the 70-200 2.8IS and it's so great for portraits!

I don't think everyone NEEDS it, but I love mine for weddings and portraits.

I need the speed, but I didn't want a heavy FF 70-200/2.8 lens. So, I went with the DX-sized 50-150/2.8 from Sigma. I have been very happy. I wish Nikon would come out with a 50-150/2.8 VR lens. Sometimes I want for the extra reach, but I just use my feet.

Pentax has introduced a 50-135/2.8 along with a 16-50/2.8. This (+ K10D) is what I would think is ideal for weddings. Note the in-body image stabilization, availability of fast primes at ridiculously low prices. I've briefly tried the camera in low light and found the image quality with a 50/1.7 exceptional.

 

A 50-135/2.8 is of course much smaller and cheaper than the 70-200/2.8.

Thanks Everyone!

 

Based on all responses, I have decided to keep practicing with my consumer 75-300. I spent the day with this lens at 135 or 200. Without the zooming thing to distract me, I found myself concentrating more on focusing. I have gotten some fairly sharp pictures (to use Jim's words.) Yes, there is a large factor of user error here for me. In the handful of weddings I shot, I was able to get close enough that my 85/1.8 should be long enough for now. If not, I will use my feet or creativity to get the shot.

Keep in mind that most autofocus systems only need f5.6 to function.

 

Consider using the non-VR f4 lenses with higher ISO to save money and weight.

 

If you are shooting from the back during the ceremony that is mostly what you get- the back of the bride and groom :-) At best profiles when they are facing each other.

 

How much does this really add to the total coverage, and at what cost to disrupting the most sacred part of the event?

It's a must for me because I shoot unobtrusively and I need the flexibility of the zoom. It's also great for a detailed shot of an inanimate object... the Nikon 70-200VR shots could look as good as primes.

I absolutely adore the 70-200. I haven't bought it yet but have been borrowing it from my mentor for about a month. The size and weight are something to get used to but it's all worth it when I look through the images. For me, it's a must have.

I have nearly the same lens lineup as you. I have the 17-40, 50 1.4, 50 1.8 (for backup), 100 2.0. I use a Canon 5D and 1D (yes the Mark 1). I have also contemplated getting the 70-200, since so many wedding photographers state that this is their must have lens. Both Glen Johnson and Bambi Cantrell use this lens a lot. However, I myself have really not felt the need for a long zoom. When in low light, I always feel that even 2.8 is not fast enough. I use the 5D with 17-40 for group shots with flash, and the 50 1.4 for the majority of my available light work. When I need the reach, I use the 1D with 100 2.0 lens. (I still love this camera. I don't feel that any of the 1.6 dslrs have the same tonal range that the original 1D has. I often shoot at 1600 wide open and have not had any problems. People complain of noise, but properly exposed with good technique I have not had any problem prinitng 8x10 in a wedding album. Also often noise is visible on screen but does not show up in actual print.)

I prefer prime lenses. For longer reach, I am considering the 135 2.0. The 1.4 converter can be used with it also. Problem is I also want the 35 1.4 and 50 1.2. Oh well...

Thanks Greg,

 

I have the book by Glen Johnson and Bambi Cantrell. I love their work! That is part of the reason I have been contemplating the 70-200. It is interesting that you mention that the grain shows on screen but not in print. I have been very disappointed with a lot of my images because of the grain that I can't seem to avoid even at ISO100. I've been wondering if it is my monitors, but then again, I look at everyone else's images on the same monitor and it is tack sharp! I will assume it's my error and keep trying, but in the meantime, I will print more of my images to see the results.