70-200 f/4 IS for weddings?

[diane_stredicke]

<p>Does anyone use the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS for weddings?<br>

I can't afford the 2.8 IS right now and am wondering how the f/4 works since you get 4 stops with the IS.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[kevin_swan1]

<p>I haven't used that lens (I'm a Nikon shooter), but don't make the mistake of thinking that the Image Stabilisation is a direct substitute for a faster aperture. While the IS may indeed allow you to handhold shots that might otherwise have been blurry, your shutter speed will still be slow. That is, you will not be able to freeze the action. Things that are stationary may come out sharp, but the people in your photos will be blurry. Image Stabilisation cannot magically make a sharp photo of a person walking at a shutter speed of 1/30.<br>

Furthermore, the wider aperture of an f/2.8 lens produces much more pleasing out-of-focus background, whereas your f/4 lens will not be able to render the backgrounds as softly. This quality of pro lenses is one of the things that sets pro photographers apart from the Uncle Bobs at the wedding.<br>

I would recommend saving your money until you can afford an f/2.8 lens, rather than buy something that will be a poor substitute.</p>

[diane_stredicke]

<p>Essentially buying a used f/4 IS is the same price as the f/2.8 non-IS. <br>

So based on your suggestion, it would be better to have the 2.8 non-IS even though at 200mm it could be hard to hand hold?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Yes. But I would advise saving your money until you can get the IS f2.8 version, IF you must have the 70-200mm zoom. Otherwise, a 135mm f2. If you do get the f4 or non IS version, all you will do is trade it in for the f2.8 IS version at some point.</p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>I use the 70-200mm at weddings and have gotten great results - however inside you have to use a tripod - push the ISO and they come out very nice - there is some grain but nothing you can't live with - I also use this at my outdoor weddings and it is awesome withou a tripod. 2.8 is a fabulous lens - just too heavy for me to cart around... would not get a lens that heavy and big without IS...</p>

[diane_stredicke]

<p>I know eventually I will trade up to a 70-200 2.8 IS.<br>

I've considered the 135L as it is the least expensive option... and I do love primes. I'm shooting on a 40D though and wonder if sometimes it might just be too much telephoto.</p>

[gertle]

<p>If you consider 135/2 to be too much telephoto you should look at the 85/1.8 for the 40D. It's not an L lens but it is highly regarded by many, and it's less expensive than any of the lenses mentioned so far.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>Check out David Ziser's blog before you disqualify the f4 IS, he's changed the way I think about lens'.</p>

[a._robert]

<p>Personally I shoot the 70-200 2.8 IS for weddings, mostly during the ceremony and wouldn't really want anything else. The zoom obviously allows for different compositions while not shuffling around, whereas with a prime (135mm) you're kind of stuck in one spot if you've got a touchy officiant (like I did this past Saturday) who doesn't want much moving. Plus a lot of the time in churches we're not allowed to use flash and have to shoot wide open. There have been times the 2.8 wasn't wide enough. I say save up if possible. I think you would wish you had the extra stop if you got the f/4. But that's just my opinion.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I just went through the same process and ended up with the 2.8 IS. It's the one to get if you are going to be shooting inside.</p>

[djphoto]

<p>I have owned almost every lens in this range that Canon has made in the past 20 years, starting with the 70-210 f4 through the 80-200 f2.8L (the "Magic Drainpipe"), which was my favorite. It bit the dust and could no longer be repaired by Canon. I then bought the 70-200 f2.8L IS. Even though I'm 6'2", 235 lbs., I absolutely hated the weight of that lens. So I traded down to the 70-200 f2.8L non-IS, which was still too heavy for my taste. I arrived finally at the 70-200 f4L.<br>

The f4L is light, compact, and probably the sharpest lens I own. Used on a 5D at ISO 3200, I have no trouble shooting in churches. I haven't had to use a monopod yet, but if I were in a really dark church, I would.</p>

[diane_stredicke]

<p>Chris Whitcomb - Ziser's blog... do you know where exactly he talks about the f/4 IS... can't find it.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>Diane - David doesn't specifically talk about the f4 is, but he talks in general about the "fast lens vs. IS/VR" issue. His argument is ceremonies are very static events and if you wait for the stops in the "action" you can use a "slower" lens with IS/VR with just as much success as you can with a faster lens. His lens of choice for the 40d is the <a href="http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2008/10/friday-shifting-gears-gear-review-canon.html">17-85 f4.5-5.6 IS</a> and for the <a href="http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2008/11/gear-bag-friday-my-favorite-full-frame.html">5d 24-105 f4 IS</a> , which just blew me away until I tried it for myself, at which point, I was blown away. When he first posted his views on which <a href="http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2008/07/its-in-bag-why-you-need-these-lenses-on_9889.html">lens' you needed for the wedding day</a> , man did he <a href="http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2008/07/who-poked-lens-hornets-nest-any-way.html">take some heat</a> because he wasn't preaching the gospel according to fast lens'. After trying out his suggestions and thinking about when to take the shot during the ceremony, I too have become less inclined to spend the extra money on those must have 2.8 lens'. In the end, it all depends on how you want to shoot, so give these links a read and see if it suits you. However, I would suggest renting any lens your thinking about buying just to give it a whirl before you plunk down your hard earned cash.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>On a side note, Canon L series lens' hold their value tremendously well, so if all you can afford now is the f4 IS, get it and use it. Start saving for the difference you'll need later on for the f2.8 IS and then sell the f4 IS. That's if you don't fall completely in love with the f4 IS, if so, then you've saved up enough for another lens, some off camera lighting, or a little vacation.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p><a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA702004ISR.html?searchinfo=refurbished&item_no=156">Adorama</a> 70-200 f4 IS Refurbished @ $929 w/ free shipping</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Its not just about the extra stop and IS. If IS is needed due to low light levels, it can work, but the caveat is subject movement. If your subjects are animated at all, you will struggle to make an F4 lens work even with IS. Then there is the DOF question. An f2.8 lens allows better controll of you OOF areas than the F4. All in all, the F4 will do, but not as well for most thing it will likely be used for in a wedding.</p>

<p>When we get cameras that can shoot totally clean at around iso12800, the f4 will be fine for keeping your SS high enough to "feeze" your subjects. However, it still cannot render things the way the 2.8 will for your OOF areas.</p>

[chris_whitcomb1]

<p>I'm not quite sure I've shot a wedding <strong>ceremony</strong> where there has been that much movement. Maybe some of the non-traditional weddings might be but good ol'fashioned American weddings tend to be very static. Most images sold from the ceremony are the ones where they are stopped anyway. Depth of field from the back of a church is pretty much the same when you start to deal with longer lens', however, one can not argue with the BEAUTIFUL bokah from the 2.8L. It really is magical, IMO.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"Does anyone use the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 IS for weddings"</em></strong><br>

No, not me.</p>

<p><strong><em>"I know eventually I will trade up to a 70-200 2.8 IS."</em></strong><br>

Then I advise to save like crazy and buy that one.</p>

<p><strong><em>"I've considered the 135L as it is the least expensive option... and I do love primes. I'm shooting on a 40D though and wonder if sometimes it might just be too much telephoto."</em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

The already mentioned 85/F1.8 is great value for money, IMO.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[photom]

<p>Well it depends on what the lighting is. If you are okay shooting at iso 3200 with a 5d or equiv., and feel the need for 1/125, then you can shoot down to ev 6. No point in arguing about it. If the church is dimmer than that, then you will need slower shutter and might have motion blur. Unfortunately, some church interiors may be at ev 5. I have seen churches with various lighting options (programs). Make sure you plan ahead and the brighest option is being used.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Diane:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I've considered the 135L as it is the least expensive option... and I do love primes. I'm shooting on a 40D though and wonder if sometimes it might just be too much telephoto.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I primarily use full frame at my weddings. I also bring along a 40D for using it with the 135/2 during the ceremony.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[gregory_c]

<p>Hey, F4 is not a issue, I shoot the 17-40 F4 all the time. But to me the 70-200 is, espically on a digital camera, do you have a wider lens to shoot ?</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I've used both, and for handheld work there is no doubt which is better (the f4 IS). With a monopod though, the 2.8 w/o IS is very useable. But if you plan on sticking to handheld work, the 4 IS is a better choice.. I don't know off the top of my head what the specs say, all I know is that the monster weight of the 2.8. makes it very very hard to keep that sucka steady (handheld)</p>

<p>On the other hand, the imagery is better from the 2.8.... and you really need a monopod anyway...</p>