Is the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM for Wedding Photography?

<p>Right now my longest lens is a 100MM macro. I feel that there are time when more is needed, but how often? I've read this is a great lens, but limited. Will there be enough shot to justify this lens, or better to spend the extra thousand and get the 70-100?</p>

Oh yeah, it's on a 7D, so a cropped sensor.

<p>The 70-200 f2.8L non IS is around $1200-$1400 new, the IS version is around $1800. The 200mm f2.8L prime is a great lens, but I would think you'd be better with the versatility of a zoom.</p>

<p>I'm in the same boat. My problem is I only need a very long reach maybe 1 out of 10 weddings and only for the ceremony. And when I do need to go long, 200mm isn't enough even on a crop because I'm usually way back to the rear of a church, 125-175 feet away. 200mm would help but I'd still be scurrying up the aisle and dropping back. My theory is, if you're going to shoot "out of the way" then get out of the way and stay there - especially if you have no choice.</p>

<p>400mm would be nice but the canon is too pricey and I don't know enough about the 3rd party equivalents. They look too slow. I have a 135L and am considering a 1.4x. Not sure how AF would work or how the IQ would look though. </p>

 

<p>get the F4 model if you want a cheaper model... it is not as fast but these days with the higher iso in the cameras you might stretch its useful area better.....it is no replacement for the 2.8 but it is much cheaper.</p>

<p>Well, if you have the funds then hands down the 70-200 f/2.8 is the way to go. At one time I had both the 70-200 and the 200mm. I loved the 200mm but probably didn't use it too much at weddings where sometimes a quick reaction is needed and I might not have the time to back up with a 200mm lens. I loved it for portraits when I could take the time and had the space to frame the subject(s). Doesn't matter what's in the background @ 200mm! And it was far easier to carry around. But for weddings only, the 70-200 gets my vote.</p>

<p>I shot a wedding ceremony from the back of a medium sized hall over the weekend and the 70-200 2.8 non-is was perfect for getting both full lengths as well as tighter shots. It was the perfect lens for that situation. I bought it used for $975.00. I also used this lens during the toasts from a distance. My primary lenses that day, however, were the 35L 1.4 and the 17-40 4.0. The 85 1.8 also saw some use. In my opinion the 70-200 2.8 is a good lens to have in your kit.</p>

<p>My opinion is that the only time I ever need a 200mm lens is in a dark church, and f/2.8 won't get me shutter speeds adequate to prevent camera shake blur without IS, so the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is the only option I can (and do) make good use out of when I need 200mm. The other possibility is the 200 f/2L IS...which gives the extra stop of light and improved IS over the 70-200...and is $5k.</p>

<p>No lens is "for" wedding photography.</p>

<p>I don't think I would have any use for a 200mm lens that didn't have IS. Your miles may vary.</p>

From the back of a church or a temple, when photo's can only be taken from that location I'm using the 70-200 L IS, or the 100-400 L IS. The 100-400 is pretty slow, but the quality of the images are very good.

 

If I have the room for outside portraits I usually find the 70-200 around F4. It's a really good lens.

 

If you think of it this way, shooting one or two weddings will pay for either of these lenses.

<p>Not if you charge what I do!</p>

<p>You're the only person who can answer your question. If you're going to get a 70-200mm, my opinion is that it should be the IS version. Only you know how much you'd use it and whether the expense is justified. If you shoot a lot of weddings, for sure, you're going to run into a situation with a large, dark church ceremony where you are restricted to the back. How often is a question mark.</p>

<p>I prefer fast aperture primes. A 135mm f2 L with a 1.4x extender gives you a focal length equivalent to a 300mm f2.8 lens (with a cropped sensor camera). RT--have no qualms about quality with the extender. AF would work fine.</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I'm still thinking the 200mm with a 1.4X should be long enough on the 7D body to get about any shot I need, even from the back of the church in a balcony. It would be on a tripod or a mono pod so IS is not that big a deal. I think I'll rent one from lensrentals.com and see how it goes. It's $38 for a week, and well worth the investment to try it out first.</p>

<p>You may think IS is not a big deal, but try shooting without IS using 1/15 sec. shutter speeds at 320mm or longer, tripod or no.</p>

<p>The Canon 70-200mm IS is a tough decision, no doubt about it. I bought mine the first time I booked a Catholic wedding with their strict rules about flash and location for the photographer. Since then, I have found every excuse to use it and never been disappointed. At 200mm and f2.8 you get bokeh out the bootay.<br>

It's great for portraits if you have the room. I recently went to my daughter's school to take pictures during lunch for the yearbook and stood in the back shooting close-up's of every kid in the place.<br>

Here's a few shots with the lens from a recent wedding, both shot at 1/60 handheld. The first is at 70mm and the second is at 200mm.<br>

<img src="http://www.boolog.com/wedding%20photography%20tampa%20bay%204.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /><br>

<img src="http://www.boolog.com/wedding%20photograhy%20tampa%20bay%207.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

<p>Great stuff Booray. I particularly like the 70mm shot. Yeah, I was thinking the 70-200 IS would be a better all around lens. I would think people would be distracted by that lens. Typically see them at sporting events and bird shots. <br>

That $1,800 is a tough nut to crack though. Should be getting about $5K back on my 2009 taxes this year, so I'll put that on my wish list on my Amazon.com account.</p>

<p>Can a 1.4X bet used on the 70-200 @ 200mm? I know the extenders are better with primes, and the longer the lens the better. Anyone ever use a 1.4x on a 70-200?</p>

<p>Think this one through before buying anything. $1,800 for a big 70-200/2.8L IS lens is a serious investment. Only you know how you tend to shoot, so what other people say is about how they shoot, not necessarily you.</p>

<p>Personally my 70-200/2.8 zoom is my least used lens ... I don't even lug it to the receptions ... only into the church, and only if there is a balcony, or we are stuck in the back of a big church. </p>

<p>After I checked my Exif info from a dozen weddings, I discovered that I used this lens from 150mm to 200mm 90% of the time. Based on use, from a business perspective, it is my worst lens investment to date. But that's me ... not you or anyone else.</p>

<p>A bit of clarification ... you will not be hand holding a 200mm mounted on a crop frame camera @ 1/15th shutter speed ... Image Stabilized or not. Besides, 1/15th almost always assures subject movement ... IS stabilizes the lens but not the subject matter.</p>

 

<p>I originally had the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS from nature photography before I started weddings. It's been pressed into service at least once every wedding (about a total of 6 or so now). I've gotten really nice sharp photos with it. Definitely isn't the best choice for indoor photos although at between 300-400mm you have little depth of field at f4.5-5.6. I've really enjoyed it outdoors for the formals. I don't know the words to describe it but it really separated the bride and groom from the background in the 300-400mm range. Probably for all intensive purposes I'd second the 70-200 range. You've got a few lenses to choose from there. Just remember you are going to have little to no depth of field at f2.8 so you might want to save money and get the f4 instead.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have roughly the same experience with the 70-200 as Marc. I would get rid of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS if I could, because I only use it during church ceremonies, and only during the slow parts, and only when I'm not allowed to get close, and only around 150-200mm. However, because it is genuinely necessary for that situation, I have to keep it "just in case."</p>

<p>Manuel -- People don't get distracted by the lens because if it's out I'm far back anyway.</p>

<p>Like many here I rarely use it at a reception but I use it during every ceremony. Another great thing about it is that you can stand off to the side and shoot close-ups of the crying Mom, etc at 2.8. </p>

<p>I take that back, I use it at reception during the toasts alot when I don't want to be up close blocking the view. </p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that i carry two camera's during the ceremony and never change lens. One has an 18-50mm and the other has the 70-200mm. That covers me for anything I need.</p>

<p>BTW, my reco would be similar to Nadine's ... The Canon 135/2L is one of, if not the best mid-tele primes they make. An amazing lens actually. </p>

<p>Alone it provides a 216mm field-of-view with a f/2 max aperture on a crop frame Canon ... with the 1.4X it provides about a 300mm field of view with a f/2.8 effective max aperture. The optical quality of the 135L is so good, that even with a 1.4X on it is still stellar. When in dim conditions the f/2 helps provide a faster shutter speed, and on a tripod, where IS is semi useless anyway, a bit faster shutter speed is more useful to avoid subject movement ... plus the viewfinder through f/2 is brighter than through a f/2.8 zoom lens.</p>

<p>I find the 135/2 coupled with proper flash technique to be a very useful focal length... especially at receptions where you can isolate subjects from the crowds and background clutter. My usege rate of the 135mm is way higher than my 70-200/2.8 ... not to mention that it is much smaller and lighter, so I tend to carry it a lot more than I ever would a honkin' big zoom.</p>

<p>As mentioned, it depends on YOUR way of shooting ... not mine, or anyone else's. </p><div></div>

<p>I use the 200F2.8 Mark II prime often and it's an excellent choice to add to your collection. Much easier to hand hold when shooting long, lighter, and one of canon's best glass. As an alternative to the 135 F2, i would also highly recommend the consumer grade 100MM F2.0. This lens focus's extremely fast, very sharp wide open and is one of my most used lense on a 1.6 crop body. It can be had for almost 1/3rd of the cost of the 135 F2.</p><div></div>

<p>100MM F2 @ F2</p><div></div>

<p>I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 IS last year and don't know how I ever survived without it. Incredible lens for wedding photography and I actually end up using it for engagement, family portraits and seniors as well. Fantastic depth of field. For wide angle (absolutely necessary for weddings) I use the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I use the Boda Dry bag to carry and swap lenses and just sling the spare body/flash over my back durign the ceremony. But DEFINITELY an advantage to a variable zoom with constant f/2.8 over a 200mm. Just more versatile.</p>

<p>For a Wedding kit using a 7D I would buy the 135L and the x1.4MkII, before buying the 200MkIIL.</p>

<p>I would also buy the 85F/1.8 before buying the 100F/2, thus making an 85 & 135 pair, rather than any other combination. </p>

<p>That is NOT saying the 100F/2 is a poor lens but merely saying, IMO, those Prime FL (85, 135, 189) are more useful on a 7D, especially when mated with a 17 to 55F/2.8IS. </p>

<p>My 70 to 200F/2.8L was <em >the least used lens for Weddings</em> and when it was used, it was used nearly always on a 5D.</p>

<p>The 135L at it limits and used wide open is here: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=948936">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=948936</a></p>

<p>The 85F1/8 at its limits is here: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=925231">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=925231</a></p>

<p>I haven't yet posted any images made by the 135 + x1.4MkII, but rest assured they are a fine combination . . . <br>

But FWIW and for an extreme - here is the 70 to 200F/2.8L + x2.0MkII: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=944717">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=944717</a></p>

<p>I think the first two images and the enlargements of them, show that the extenders CAN work well if they are used correctly and the light is favourable and or utilized correctly.<br>

<br>

You might be interested in this conversation: <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00VTcy">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00VTcy</a></p>

<p>WW </p>

 

<p>Well we bought the 200 f/2.8. Found one on craigslist that was purchased at JR on 12-24-2009 and the guy sold it to us for $600. It was a gift and he really wants the 85 f/1.2 so he unloaded this quickly and now it's ours.</p>

<p>Took it out for a test run the last couple of days and we just love it. It is surprising easy to hand hold, even in the house under good light. And it IQ is stunning. And that's with a 1.6 cropped sensor! My wife will definitely incorporate this one into her wedding photography business.</p>

<p> </p>