Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS for weddings

[john_mauser]

I'm looking to purchase a 70-200 zoom for weddings for this year. As

much as I would like to pick up something a little cheaper I think

that the 2.8 IS is by far the best option for weddings with no flash

or tripod. If I were shooting only outside I would get the F4 but I

feel the 2.8 with IS is the only option for dimly lit churches.

Anybody with experience shooting weddings with the F4, F2.8, or F2.8

IS please chime in and give me your opinion. Thanks, John

[kari douma]

I use a nikor 2.8 80-200 ED for weddings. I love it. It is the only way to go in those dark churches. Even with 2.8 sometimes I need a tripod if it is very dark. I usually shoot ISO 800 during the ceremony. 80% of the time I can get by with no tripod. I don't think the F4 would cut it.

Kari

[stacy]

I have a 70-200L 2.8 and I love it for outside and with a tripod- but I'm not so great at holding it with no flash or tripod- it's pretty heavy! If you can afford the IS version it would be even better!<div></div>

[khitrovg]

John,

 

I own 70-200 f4 Lens and I love it, it works very well for weddings, I try to use it outside more often than in. The photos are brilliant with that lens.

 

Greg

[john_mauser]

Greg, do you run into problems with not enough light often when using it indoors. I think the f4 would be great with a flash inside during receptions but I was worried about the ceremonies that don't allow flash. I guess I could always crank up the ISO and put it on a tripod when no flash is allowed. Then once I really start proffiting from weddings I could sell it and go for the 2.8 IS. Anybody else use this lens indoors?

[michael mccarley]

Started with the 75-300 IS Canon consumer lens. It was horribly slow and not sharp. I replaced it with the 70-200 2.8 L IS after a lot of personal debate. I am happy I got the IS version and never considered the 4.0 due to both speed and the added isolation you get at 2.8. In addition, with most lenses, sharpness wide open isn't the best. The L lenses are good but they really shine when stopped down a step. Translation 2.8 at f4 beats the 4.0 at f4.

 

If all you can afford is the 4.0, the 2.8 IS isn't really an option. If you are looking at the 2.8 and thinking about stretching to the IS version, stretch. The added capability IS offers is definitely worth the extra 500 or so.

[john_mauser]

It is a money issue so I guess the question is how long do I want to save up before buying a 70-200.

 

So here's a new question...Can the 70-200 f4L cut it for weddings if you have a tripod for when you can't use flash? I should be able to afford to trade off for a 2.8 IS after a year but I need some longer glass now.

[e.m.]

I always carry the 70-200 2.8 L

 

It's great for shots where you want to stay at a distance and let the people have fun.<div></div>

[e.m.]

And another<div></div>

[WM]

Hi John,

 

Get the IS version, it is worth every cent if you are doing paid shoots and it will get you the kind of shots that would be difficult to pull off when light is low. Plus, the f2.8 will give you a nicer bokeh as well. In fact, the bokeh on the IS version of this lens is very smooth and I love it. The handholdability is just amazing, and it is my favourite working lens. Here is a shot at a wedding.

 

All the best.........you won't regret it. Just make sure you handle the lens a bit first before you buy it because it is quite heavy and takes getting used to (or you will need to pump some iron too !).

 

Merry Christmas.

 

Cheers,

Wee-Ming<div></div>

[WM]

Also invaluable for taking kids shots. Nice bokeh too.<div></div>

[WM]

And a final shot. Low light, no flash, wedding ceremony to capture emotional bride up close at the altar without intruding.<div></div>