josh_baker Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 My work is wedding photography. My pastime is sports and kids (my own at dance etc). I am looking to get a canon 70-200 and these two are in my prince range. I would like the IS, but worry about the low light focusing of the f4. I have the 24-70 f2.8 and love the results I get with it, but I worry that if I get the non IS f2.8 70-200 I'll have trouble getting usable shots without a monopod. So the real question is: Does the 70-200 f4 IS have the ability to focus in low light (I don't mean candle light, but normal church/hall lighting)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 I think the real problem with using the f/4 lens in a gloomy church is that you will end up with slow shutter speeds that will render the building sharper than the bride and groom, because the building is static and the subjects are hopefully not comatose. I think you will also prefer to have the benefit of the faster aperture for using a shallower depth of field to give the image more "pop". And finally, with a wider aperture you have more flexibility in balancing flash and ambient light (and your flash will have greater reach). Having said that, IS is certainly very useful for a wedding photographer - so I think you really ought to save up for the proper tool and be done with it - get the f/2.8 IS when you can afford it. One other tip: if you are buying a second hand one, make sure its date of manufacture is mid 2005 or later, so it has the newer, more reliable IS unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve.elliott Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 I agree with Mark, it's tempting to save money (and weight) by going for the 70-200 alternatives. But the wide aperture and image stabilising features make the 70-200 f2.8 L IS a better bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philliplapeyre Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 I would goto the big stores such as adorama and bhphoto and just read all the reviews... that is the best way to decide. After reading, researching, and more reading, I came to the conclusion that primes were better for me... but that was FOR ME. Just read, thats all you can do... while you read, you save :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 The 70-200 IS falls into the must have for weddings and/or other situations where low light and fast framing of a variety of subjects is required. It will pay for itself with ONE wedding so, not a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 70-200 f/2.8L IS, that is...NOT the slower version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 I think the one big advantage of a long 2.8 lens is that its much more versatile ( portraits etc ) I have the 70-200 2.8 ( non IS ) and its truly amazing. I don't do weddings but I know many who do and most all use the 2.8 version IS or not. I think in your case the 2.8 is a no brainer. If you need to shoot your kids performing you can always use a small tripod and now you got the extra stop and a stable lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_j2 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 "So the real question is: Does the 70-200 f4 IS have the ability to focus in low light (I don't mean candle light, but normal church/hall lighting)?" Yes. My version has not problems. But, if I had to buy again today, I would sell my f/4 IS and get the f/2.8 IS version for weddings for the reasons stated by others above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_bellenis Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Josh, for your stated use I agree with everyone else here and think you are considering the wrong two lenses. The best, most versatile option for your work would be the 70-200 f2.8L IS. It's a bit more expensive initially, but will last forever and the price difference, amortized over the life of the lens, is peanuts. This way you get both the extra stop of speed AND the IS abilities. I added the 70-200 f4 (non IS) for a smaller, lighter alternative (and to provide some redundancy) and oddly enough I use this lens more than the f2.8 as I shoot mostly in good light, or on a tripod. But when you NEED the extra stop, you NEED it, and if you are only buying one version, the f2.8 IS is the one to have. As a bonus it gives you a very usable 100-280mm f4 lens with a 1.4x converter, still with decent AF.- Something not possible obviously with the f4 versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorne_hampel1 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Here is a slight spin on all of this. Is 2.8 fast enough? Granted it is one stop faster than the 4IS but finding that elusive light where one stop will make all the difference is rare. I generally find that churches are lighted or dead dark. Lighted, 4 will do. Black and 2.8 will not help. I have a 4 is L and two 1.4 primes. If it is dark. I suffer with using the primes to get leverage of 3 stops over the 4 and 2 stops over the 2.8. Hopefully I have not added to the confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve.elliott Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 The f2.8 IS is 4 stops faster than the straight f4 version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthias_meixner2 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 He was comparing the f2.8 non-IS against the f4 with IS.In this case the f4 version is 3 stops faster than the f2.8 version. However this is only true for static subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lorne_hampel1 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Looks like I did create a bit of confusion. let's see if I can straighten it out. An IS lens is not "faster" than its largest aperture. It will allow you to shake the camera a bit and thereby simulate a faster lens by allowing you to use a slower shutter. As Matthias points out this only works for static subjects since a slower shutter will allow for more motion blur. I never count on static subjects in any of my calculations of lens speed requirement. Way too risky especially in the wedding business. I need to know I can freeze the action adequately to obtain professional results. Hence to me the difference between 4 and 2.8 is ALWAYS 1 stop irrespective of IS. To be honest, after many years of practising to minimize camera shake and the frequent use of my monopod, I am more concerned about my subject moving. I find that single blurry face or hand in the photo to be less than adequate.in a professional shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digimage Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 it is funny the answer response to 70-200 2.8 L (NON IS) vs 70-200 f4 IS BUT most the answer said n favor 70-200 2.8 L IS ,so you know that very importan ! beacause you rather buy the right one other why just rented for try . good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekriel Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 In Canada we are fortunte to be able to rent lenses for a weekend. This allows you to try before you buy. Perhaps you can find a similar rental store where you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 How often do you need the longer reach for weddings? Have you considered the 85/1.2 (I know not much longer but wonderful results), or the 135/2 which gives nice reach beyond your current zoom and still quite fast. Either one might suffice for your family photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greglynch Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 If you shoot the f4 version wide open, vs shooting the f2.8 at f4, you'll see a difference around the edges I believe.... There is more than one reason for getting the faster lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 >> The 70-200 IS falls into the must have for weddings and/or other situations where low light and fast framing of a variety of subjects is required. It will pay for itself with ONE wedding so, not a big deal. I completely agree but if you absolutely can't afford it, get the 70-200/2.8 non-IS. >> So the real question is: Does the 70-200 f4 IS have the ability to focus in low light (I don't mean candle light, but normal church/hall lighting)? Yes it can, but in some cases it will be painfully slow. I once tested them on my 1D. Where the f/4 IS averaged at 2-4 sec. the f/2.8 IS averaged at 0.5-1 sec. >> The f2.8 IS is 4 stops faster than the straight f4 version. Absolutely not. It is one stop faster. IS has nothing to do with it. It may enable you to shoot handheld at 4 stops slower speeds but this does NOT make it 4 stops faster. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 I wasn't all that confused until I read this thread, but now.... You're a professional, you need the tools, and you do need both speed and IS, so remember 1) It's a business expense (at least if you have a history of profit). 2) what the heck else can you get for USD 400-500 these days? (actually, ignore point 2, I just thought of a few) In any case, it's only money and life is short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Of course, in the above I refer to the difference in price between the f/2.8 IS and the cheaper ones. I am all too aware that it costs ca $1700. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve torelli Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 I've owned both of them, currently the f/4IS. If I were a wedding shooter I'd go with the 2.8IS for the many reasons previously stated. But for anything else, IMO the f/4IS is a little sharper and has at least as good color and contrast. It's lighter and smaller and for general photography the one stop difference isn't much as I don't consider 2.8 max aperture a low light lens. AFA focusing, even in evening light, I've never found the f/4 lacking. Of course the advantage of the 2.8 in a church is that it will let you get a little more shutter speed. Horses for courses, for weddings I'd go with the faster lens. For every thing else, I can make up that stop on my 5D with an ISO bump with no noticeable increase in noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_sput Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Hello everyone. I might get a bit off-topic but in low light situation isn't nikon better? i've never had nikon gear, all canon. i must say i am not a pro, ratter i prefer to say i'm an advanced amateur so after taking a couple of shots at a friend wedding with my canon 350D using ISO 1600 with lenses at F3,5 i noticed that i could take pictures with a shutter speed of 1/35 and 1/40 but after downloading them into my pc i was dissapointed, the pics were all grained because of the high ISO. i obviously shot raw, but i could't get decent sharp pics no matter how much i tried procesing and photoshoping the pics.Yes, canon 350D isn't a high-end camera , so other canon stuff, much more expensive can be better but i don't know that. So i start reading about how great is Nikon in noise reduction even using a high ISO as 3200 or 6400. I repeat myself that i haven't personaly tested but from reviews this is the way to go. low ligh = must be nikon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 I don't see the necessity of the 70-200/2.8 IS because the 70-200/4 IS is tack-sharp at full aperture. With my 70-200/4 IS I do indoor shots (lower light than in many churches) at f.4 and 1/15 s. Comparing my personal 70-200/4 IS with a 70-200/2.8 IS borrowed from Canon on the EOS 5D/40D the slower version is visibly better. For real low-light shots I prefer fast fix focal lengths like a 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 or 1.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Well, I'm a wedding shooter and I use the 24-70L 2.8, 70-200L f4 non-IS and the 17-40L 4.0 Realistically, the 70-200L F4 is completely useless in any kind of low light situation... As it is, shooting most indoor ceremonies (using the 24-70) i'm hovering around F2.8 @ 1/80 ISO 800 or 1600... passable with a flash and focal lengths < 70mm. However, using the 70-200L F4, i'd be sitting at 1/40 or 1/50 At BEST... which is not nearly good enough for stopping any kind of action, IS or not. Therefore, to be even remotely useful indoors, I would need f2.8 just to stop movement at 1/80 or 1/100, and the IS is essential to make 1/80 usable when shooting at 200mm. All that said, the 24-70L doesn't leave my camera for most indoor work (unless I'm using a prime for something specific), however, i'll often use the 70-200L F4 for some of the outdoor work as it is really a FANTASTIC lens when the light is good. As someone else said on here... when you need f2.8, you NEED it... when dealing with low light, 1 stop is the difference between 1/50 and 1/100... which can easily make or break your wedding photography experience in many situations. So far, i haven't shot an indoor ceremony that was brighter than ISO 800, F2.8, 1/100. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 @ Frank... 1/15 for an indoor wedding? Maybe if I was shooting statues... I get subject movement at 1/60 more often than not... Without adding to much to the argument... I can't imagine recommending a F4 telephoto lens for any kind of indoor human subject work... I don't care how cheap it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now