Help making final decison on an L Series lens

[o._wagner]

I am new to this forum and have realized what a great resource it is.

Photography has been my passion for the past year since I've invested in my

DSLR. My current set up consists of a 20D, Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-6.3, and a

Canon 50mm f/1.8. My experience consists of candid family/child portraiture

and wedding photography. I have experience shooting about a dozen or so

weddings, three of which were entirely on my own. Nothing spectacular, but

your typical "budget" type wedding so I had no problem handling it on my own.

I am starting to get pretty decent, decent enough to know that my primary

Tamron lens sucks. I now have the opportunity to invest in a decent lens and

have been researching them for weeks upon weeks. I have almost decided on the

70-200 2.8 IS. I know this isn't a great carry around lens but it will

probably be the most expensive lens I ever purchase. So my question is, do I

get it now while we have the money to do so, or do I get maybe the 24-70 and

85 f/1.8 and dream about getting this lens down the road?

 

I know it would come in handy during my child sessions so that I can keep my

distance and shoot more photojournalistically. But with weddings, I know the

24-70 would be more practical. I just don't think I'll have this opportunity

to get the more expensive 70-200 if I wait and try to save up for it.

 

What's a girl to do?? I also know that I need to invest in an extra body,

flashes, and possibly some studio lighting, but that's down the road when I

actually start lining up more weddings of my own. Right now I have no use for

those things since I am primarly shooting child sessions outdoors and

assisting at weddings.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

"I know the 24-70 would be more practical."-O

 

Yes, the 24-70 would be much more practical. Make sure you get all your backup gear before buying the expensive, and less used, glass.

[zoltan_fogarasi1]

I owned two copies of 24-70/2.8L. I was not self confident using them at 2.8 and I had mechanical problems with one of them as one of my friends too. Now I am using Sigma 18-50/2.8EX which is much cheaper, smaller, lighter, has better angle for 1,6 crop and I am using it mostly at 2.8 obtaining 7-8 sharp images from 10. Yes it's AF is slover and noisier but all in all I like it better, it's a considerable option for 20D, in my opinion.<div></div>

[EricM]

How about the 17-55? I love this zoom in the Nikon flavour. This and the 70-200 on a second body is pretty much it.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

A 2nd body and either a 18-50 2.8 or 24-70 2.8 from Sigma is a far more sensible option. Even as a 2nd shooter, there is no excuse for not getting the picture when a camera packs up.

 

If you have a backup covered by the primary shooter, then one of the above lenses and the Sigma 70-200 2.8 will be a better buy than the Canon, for similar money.

 

Don't get me wrong, if you can afford all Canon L that's a great choice, but if you're spending 100% of your money on a lens you'll use for 10% of the shots, leaving 90% of your shots on a sub-par lens, that's just unwise.

[edgar]

I too frequently shoot on wedding and social events with a Canon 20D and, after some experiences, I decided to use the following lenses (only):

 

* 24/1.4 for group shoots

 

* 50/1.4 for portraits (sometimes)

 

* 85/1.2 for portraits

 

Consider that I shoot ONLY in available light, as I hate the flash, so for me maximum aperture smaller than f/2.0 are not suitable.

 

Just to start and not destroy your wallet, I suggest to you to buy:

 

* Sigma 20/1.8 (instead of Canon 24/1.4, which is better but costs a lot!!)

 

* Canon 85/1.8 or 100/2 instead of the 85/1.2 (which is astonishing, but extremely expensive)

 

I don't advice you the 70-200/2.8, since it's not the best for low light situation such as weddings. Better save money and for general use buy the 70-200/4 which have really astounding performances and costs 1/3rd.

 

Just to give you a flavour of the quality of prime lenses used in available light in a social event, here there is a link to a shoot with the Canon 24/1.4 and the old Canon D60:

 

http://www.photo4u.it/album_page.php?pic_id=28613

 

and here a link to wedding shot with the Canon 85/1.2 @ f/1.2 (!!) with Canon D300 body:

 

http://www.photo4u.it/album_page.php?pic_id=26003

 

Cheers Elio

[picturesque]

I don't know how we can help you. You've pretty much said that if you don't buy the 70-200mm now, which is the lens you really want, you won't be disciplined enough to save for it in the future. If that is really true, I'd say get it now. Then do something drastic to really discipline yourself to save for all the other stuff you need. Just don't try to fool yourself. Sometimes you can have the dessert before the vegetables, but if you allow yourself that luxury, force yourself to follow through when it comes time for the vegetables.

[grant g]

The 70-200IS is an excellent tool for a 2nd shooter at a wedding.

 

But I'd ask you first...which end of the 18-200 'sucks' more in your opinion?

[joeb]

Get a used 80-200 2.8L. It predates the 70-200 2.8L version. Be aware if the af unit fails parts are not available. I have a copy. The cost will be about the same as the F4 version. I use it for events and theater photography.

 

Here's a link to my theater photography

 

http://beecherphoto.com/Deertrees.htm

 

I will attach a wedding image.<div></div>

[o._wagner]

I think I have it figured out. For roughly the same price as the 70-200 IS, I will get the 24-70/2.8 and the 70-200/4. I am getting the great walkaround lens and the L telephoto that I wanted. Sure, I will lust over the 2.8 IS but I think the 4 will be great for less cost and less weight.

 

I don't know if you have ever checked out this site for lenses, but they have great prices on brand new lenses.

 

http://www.expresscameras.com

 

I currently have the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/4 in my cart for a subtotal of $1,598! The 2.8 IS goes for $1,499. That's up to $300 lower than I have seen it other places.

[joeb]

Sounds like a great store - NOT!!!

 

http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1805.html

 

.91 out of 10?

[o._wagner]

WOW! Thanks for the heads up about Express Cameras. I knew it had to be too good to be true. I guess I will order from Amazon. Good thing I hadn't placed my order yet!

[joeb]

Another place to look:

 

http://donwiss.com/pictures/BrooklynStores/h0020.htm

 

Looks like a "state-of-the-art corporate headquarters and distribution centers"

[o._wagner]

I can't believe that my first experience with finally getting an L lens almost resulted in a law suit! How disappointed I would have been if I would have went with them to try to save a buck. I actually found the lens combo that I want cheaper at B&H vs. Amazon, even with shipping. I know B&H is reputable so no worries.

 

Thanks again Joe for showing me the light. All that research on the lenses, but I didn't take the time to research the seller itself.

 

On another note, do you think I'm making a good decision with the 24-70 and 70-200/4 combo? I know they are too great lenses and will cover basic photojournalism needs. I know there will be times where I will be missing the 2.8 IS in a dimly lit church during the wedding vows... but right now it's not worth the extra $1,000 in cost.

[EricM]

"On another note, do you think I'm making a good decision with the 24-70 and 70-200/4 combo?"

 

I don't. I think the 24mm isn't wide enough on 1.6X. I said it further up and perhaps mantion it again, the 17-55 is an event photographers dream come true.

[picturesque]

I also don't think those two lenses are the answer. f4 is too slow, and you don't get IS. I am not a fan of IS either, but if you're going to get a zoom in that range, it would have to be the f2.8 IS version. I have also heard of focusing problems with the f4 version and the 20D. I also don't think the 24-70 is wide enough. But whatever works for you...I just don't believe in compromising on lenses. If it is the 70-200 f2.8 IS you want, get that lens, don't compromise on something else. If you have to wait and save, do it.

[grant g]

I wouldn't use the 70-200/4 for weddings. f/4 is too slow on the long end without IS.

 

Try shooting your Tamron at 200mm indoors at a full ISO stop (or two) over what you consider your maximum acceptable ISO, and see for yourself if that is fast enough to hand hold.

 

Let me put it another way...if a 2nd shooter pulled out a 70-200/4 to use inside a church without flash, I'd probably send the person home.

 

It's not an L, but I'll second the suggestion for the 17-55/2.8IS . It has served me well so far, and it sounds like you'd have enough budget to also add an 85/1.8 to it.