Do you get enough use of the Canon Lens EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM?

<p>Hello everyone, after a long time drooling after the Canon Lens EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM I am seriously thinking of buying it because in just one lens it gives you the convenience of a long-range zoom, great optics and fantastic aperture to cope with low lights and achieve shallow DOF.<br>

I just wanted to know how much the people out there who own it use it in indoor situations such as studio shoots and wedding cerimonies. I was doing a wedding yesterday and the longest lens I used (on my 20d so not full frame) was my fixed 85mm.<br>

So before I part with over £1,000 I just wanted to know how much this lens gets used by portrait and wedding photographers.</p>

<p>Many thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Here's my list of lenses in order of use...</p>

<p>24-105 F4 IS USM - this is my "walk around" lens - probably 65% of my pics are with this lens</p>

<p>16-35 F2.8 USM - I use this for landscapes, interiors, etc - about 20% of my pics are with this lens</p>

<p>70-200 F2.8 IS USM - Outdoors - wildlife,etc - about 10% - however when you need that reach, you need it, and it's a very sharp lens. Downside is the weight - it's a heavy bugger - get a good walk around case</p>

<p>100mm Macro - 5% - specific shots of plants / flowers, etc</p>

<p>Thanks Tudor. I'm thinking that it's a great lens for portraits but am worried the focal lenght is too long for indoor portraits...</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I shot a outdoor wedding in a bigish garden in may, and i used:<br>

- 28-80/2.8 L on a 5DmkII<br>

- 70-200/2.8 L IS USM on a 40d<br>

I think i shot 40% with the 70-200.<br>

I originally bought it for concert photography. It's a great lens.<br>

Jan.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Jan. I found an online shop selling it for just over £1,000 + VAT so I'm seriously thinking of going for it!</p>

<p>Why would you buy something that you think you might not use? Why not wait until you find yourself saying, "Man, if I just had something in the 70-200mm range, I could get all those shots," before you spend the money?</p>

<p>I use one with both full frame and crop frame. My experience has been like Tutor's - I don't use the lens a lot - but when I need it, I really need it, and nothing else will do. I use it primarily indoors in low light.</p>

<p>It's a heavy lens. When I'm working in a fixed position, I use it with a monopod or tripod. But I can manage the weight handheld if I need to move around a lot.</p>

<p>No but when I need it, I have the old non IS, it can not be beat.</p>

<p>If your main need is a lens for indoor portraits, you can perhaps get what you want - and get larger apertures, lower weight, and possibly lower cost - but getting a few primes.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I use the 70-200/2.8 a lot for outdoor photography, but for indoor stuff you could probably do better with the 85, especially if you can steady it with a monopod and still maintain maneuverability. You know the old saying--zoom with your feet.</p>

<p>I have the non-IS and use it extensively - BUT MAINLY FOR SPORTS. I shoot full frame and will use the 70-200 for outdoor portraits, candids etc... Indoors it is rarely used and for more formal portraits it is rarely used. For portrait and indoor use I would suggest the 85mm F1.8 it is a very good lens, cheap and smaller / less obvious than the zoom. The much cheaper 85mm F1.8 also has better image quality than the zoom. For indoor and outdoor sports this is a great versitile lens and after the 300 F2.8 one of the best around.</p>

<p>In terms of portrait work anything in the range of 70 to 135mm (equivalent) is going to be great. So the 70-200mm lens fits nicely in there.<br>

However - I would be also concerned with depth of field - I can't swear to this, but it seems to me that zoom lenses have a much narrower DOF than a prime lens. Others can probably weigh in with more specifics that I can.</p>

<p>Almost every time I take photos, I'll ue the 70-200/2.8 IS. In two days this weekend, I used it for 1 portrait shoot and two polo tournaments.</p>

<p>In the weddings I've done this year, I've used a 5d with 24-105L and 40d with 70-200L 2.8 IS and loved the combination. IMO, it's definitely worth the $$ and mine lives on the 40d. It's great for ceremony shots where you can't use a flash or be intrusive to the event. The only downside is that it is big and heavy. Will wear you down if you have to use it all day.</p>

<p>I've used mine for Portraiture (but it would not be my 1st choice), all types of outdoor sports, some indoor sports and of course, weddings.</p>

<p>Have a wonder "whatever" and a happy "you know what".</p>

<p>M. Scott Clay</p>

<p>As a mostly casual photographer its a commitment when I decide to lug mine ( non IS version ) along. It's a spectacular lens and if I was shooting weddings I would certainly have one. I use it mostly for portraits on a full frame body and once in a while for travel or sports.</p>

<p >This is a very sharp lens but I always bring this lens with me in a wrong time.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Every times when I bring along this lens, I find that it is not adequate for me – wildlife, air show, I found that this lens was too short for me (I use FF body). But last time when I attended an end of school activity for my son in his school’s chapel, I just brought along my 24-105 F4 IS USM lens and then I regretted for not bringing alone the 70-200mm one especially that I sat far away from my son!</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >In summary, if you shoot in door just in a normal house or room, you do not need it. But if you are in an in door hall like those in chapel or gym, etc., this will be an essential lens!</p>

<p>Howdy!</p>

<p>I use it for shooting wedding ceremonies from the balcony or the back of the hall on a cropped frame camera. It's sharpness wide open and fully zoomed is not as good as it's siblings (the non-IS 70-200 f2.8, and the 70-200 f4) but it's versatility in low light situations, and the ability to handhold it if necessary, make it indispensible.</p>

<p>Later,</p>

<p>Paulsky</p>

<p>"Thanks Tudor. I'm thinking that it's a great lens for portraits but am worried the focal lenght is too long for indoor portraits..."<br>

Why should it be too long ? The range is 70 to 200, but you will probably not use the 200mm length unless you are shooting sports, or wildlife. For wildlife it might even be a little too short. This is a great lens, very high quality if you don't mind the weight. It focuses fast and locks quickly, unlike other lenses such as the 24-70mm that does some hunting before it locks(In dim light) Mine came with a carrying case like most L series lenses. </p>

<p>So I was doing this wedding out of doors near the ocean. The bride really wanted pictures of the ceremony. The Minister was dead set against my shooting the ceremony. Incidentally he was really disagreeable. However, he was not paying me. So I pulled my non IS 70-200 2.8 out of my bag and in my suit I crawled into a bush not too far away. I shot eighty or so pictures with an arch and water in the background. No one knew until a couple of the guests saw me crawling out of the bush as the ceremony ended. The bride was delighted. On a more serious note I have had that lens since 1997. It is still working as new and I still use it mainly for indoor swimming meets. I used it at weddings mostly to shoot heads, dancing and toasting etc. I have used it for press work, wildlife, lots of high school sports for the paper, portraits in my studio etc. I defy you to tell the difference between it and other lenses after printing for properly lit portraits. I did a lot with quality Medium fomat lenses but never hesitated to use the 70-200 when I was too lazy to change cameras in my studio. </p>

<p>It's such a personal decision. I don't have the 70-200mm IS, but I have its grandfather, the old 75-300mm IS. Perhaps if it were as sterling as my 24-105mm L lens, I'd use it more. On my various cameras, even when traveling, this was one of the least used lenses I had. When you needed the reach, it was just fine, but I'd be unlikely to invest in an arguably better 70-200mm, especially given the greater mass of the latter.</p>

<p>I do confess a longing for a 100-400mm IS, but that is far less than my longing for the new 16-35mm II, or more particularly, the TS-E 17mm lens. If you don't have a lens in this range, I'd suggest looking at a used 70-300mm IS first, it's lighter and cheaper by a lot, and if you really end up using these focal lengths a lot, it would be easy to sell. Of course, the lower price and good resale value's true of the better lens too if you got a used one.</p>

<p>Have you checked the ratings of this online vendor.<br>

Isn't £1,000 a bit to cheap for a new 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM?<br>

Most prices i have seen in the UK are around £ 1,500</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"The range is 70 to 200, but you will probably not use the 200mm length unless you are shooting sports, or wildlife. "<br>

=======================<br>

Oops ! Sorry, if you have a cropped camera it might be too long for weddings and for portraits you might have to be constantly stepping back, which cuts down the intimacy between you and your client. Some people like to take head shots with this lens because of the Bokeh but I dont know about full length portraits. </p>

<p> </p>

<p >Frederica,</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I own several canon lenses including the 70-200 EF 2.8 L (before the IS came out) and I can say it’s a superb piece of glass although I never use it for indoor portraits. I guess I could but I’d be shooting just head and shoulders. For indoor portraits I use the canon 24-70 2.8 L almost 100% of the time. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Even outdoors, if I’m shooting portraits, the 24-70 is my choice most of the time. That being said I have used the 70-200 on a number of shoots where I couldn’t (choose not to) get too close to the models (think models in water). </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The last wedding I shot (our sons) I used the 24-70 for all shots including the reception. The 70-200 didn’t even cross my mind to use. If you can afford it buy it but don’t count on using it as your main portrait lens. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >D</p>

<p>Just answering the title question: this lens often comes out of my bag and onto my (full-frame) body for a few shots, and then is often relegated back to the bag, replace by 24-70 (or 24-105), or a simple 50mm. It is very good at what it does, delivering sharp candids and wonderfully out-of-focus backgrounds, and at least on full frame it gets "close" to normal focal length, but I just don't use it that often. It's quite a load to pack around, too ;)</p>

<p>BTW, I'm not a weding photographer, but this is my experience with it.</p>

<p>I used to have the 70-200 f2.8IS and I sold it after a year for two reasons...</p>

<p>1. It was a huge beast to keep in your camera bag just in case you may need it. It is a seriously heavy fella and unless you plan on getting a lot of use out of it then it is a real burden to cart around on the off-chance you'll need it.</p>

<p>2. When shooting wide open at f2.8 it was just too soft, disappointingly so.</p>

<p>I sold it and bought the 200mm f2.8 prime which is razor sharp wide open and is much lighter and more compact so I can leave it in my bag at all times.</p>

<p>I must say that when you have a shoot that you <em>know</em> will require 100mm - 200mm local lengths the 70-200 is awesome. Once you stop down to f4.0 and beyond the image quality is stunning and the IS is also very effective. However, for occasional use and for shooting at f2.8 I would avoid it.</p>