Lens dilema

[hfd4177]

Question for all the wedding shooters. I just sold my canon 100 400 l lens and plan on replacing it with a 70 200 lens. My dilema is this... I

can't make up my mind as to which lens to get. I am going back and forth between the canon 70-200 2.8 non is the f4 with is and the yet to

be released sigma 70 200 with image stabilization. How important is the image stabilization and which lens would you choose and why. I

can't afford the canon 70 200 with is right now. If I get the sigma that would also allow me to replace my back up camera currenly it's 30d. I

would upgrade to the 40d. My main camera is a 5dii with a canon 24 70 2.8 L. As always thank you.

[picturesque]

<p>I would not even buy a 70-200mm lens, but if I did, I would head straight for the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 with IS. The f4 version doesn't make any sense for a wedding shooter, since we work with dim light all the time. Unless the Sigma turns out to be a superb candidate, which you won't know until time has passed, I would count that out. I don't like being an 'early adopter'/guinea pig.</p>

<p>Also, adding on the camera body purchase to the lens purchase decision making is dangerous. They should be considered separately. If it were me, I'd be saving up my pennies for the Canon IS version.</p>

[rt_jones]

<p>The 70-200 depends on your venues. If you do nothing but beach weddings then the f/4 is fine. f/2.8 gets you indoors BUT... lack of IS requires other methods to shoot a slow shutter speeds.</p>

<p>Against a lot of well intended advice, I finally broke down and got the 70-200 f/2.8 with IS. (Used for $1400 - not the mark II). I just needed the reach and use it a lot. I also feel my kit is now complete. I don't think I couldn't say that about the f/4 or, the f/2.8 without the IS.</p>

<p>And I just don't trust Sigma's lenses - or at least their quality control. It seems people pray they'll get a good copy and then send it in multiple times for calibration when that doesn't happen.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Brian,</p>

<p>There's an incident you can read about elsewhere where a family member shot MY entire wedding with my D90, Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, and a 50mm f/1.8. It came out fine and I'm glad he had the extra reach of the 70-200mm for the ceremony.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[hannah_givas]

<p>LOVE my 70-200 IS I just got. Just a word on buying it, if you buy new, Nurry and buy it as they are selling out the version and not producing anymore to make way for the new MK II version, at $2,500! I got mine new just a month or so ago for $1799, new</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I'll be the one to repeat, "IS does not stop subject motion." Still, it can help, although one can do other things to get a shot with slower shutter speeds, like use a tripod. However, during a ceremony in dim light isn't the only time IS might come in handy. My point is--if you are going to get a 70-200mm, it should be the f2.8, IS version, because if you had these features, you WILL use them to good effect--even a beach-only wedding photographer. It gets dark on the beach too.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>"IS does not stop subject motion"<br>

+1 to Nadine<br>

IS and VR do not stop subject motion...to achieve this you need a fast shutter speed. To achieve a fast shutter speed you need one (or more) of the following: a faster lens (larger aperture), more light, or a higher ISO.</p>

<p>Now that we know what IS doesn't do, lets discuss what is DOES do.<br>

IS <strong><em>is</em></strong> intended to assist hand held shooting at longer focal lengths by countering the motion caused by hand shake. In other words, you can hand hold for a longer shutter speed than you can without IS. </p>

<p>For a wedding ceremony where I'm photographing at 200mm, if I can't shoot faster than 1/200 sec (remember I shoot DX, so I get equivalent to 300mm full frame), I tend to use a tripod.</p>

<p>RS</p>

 

[neilambrose]

<p>How important is image stabilisation? IMHO - absolutely vital on a 70-200.</p>

<p>Except for outside in bright sun, I wouldn't otherwise be comfortable shooting a lens that length and weight without a tripod. But with IS I can shoot comfortably at 1/40, sometimes even at 1/20. It's a complete necessity for weddings.</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong><em>“ plan on replacing [my 100 to 400] with a 70 200 lens. . . between the canon 70-200 2.8 non is the f4 with is and the yet to be released sigma 70 200 with image stabilization. How important is the image stabilization and which lens would you choose and why.”</em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >1. For Wedding work the faster lens wins because when you are at the limit of your camera’s ISO, or you tolerance of ISO acceptability, then Av can make the difference between the shot being possible and impossible. One stop of Av is very large – it can mean 1/15 or 1/30 which can be a keeper (or not) of the B&G standing at the Altar, as one example.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >2. If you (regularly) use a 70 to 200 for wedding work: IS is a function which you have to clearly evaluate and then convincingly argue and then decide that you DO NOT want and will not be disadvantaged by NOT having it. I have not yet heard a convincing argument NOT to have IS.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I am biased against Sigma Lenses, especially biased apropos the 70 to 200/f2.8, where IMO Canon make the best 5 available at this time.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >For full discloser I have the 70 to 200 F/2.8 USM (i.e. not IS) but it was very rarely used ever for Wedding Work – my reasons for buying that lens were different. I fitted out a W&P studio a few years ago, we got the 70 to 200 F/2.8 IS USM for that kit.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I agree with the suggestions to save and buy the Canon F/2.8 IS version. Surely there are few stores who still have the original version for sale? ? ? Here that model is selling at a reasonable price reduction. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong><em>“If I get the sigma that would also allow me to replace my back up camera currenly it's 30d. I would upgrade to the 40d.”</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong><em> </em></strong></p>

<p >Why? What’s wrong with your 30D?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >It appears from your wording that you carry the 30D for Back-up (as opposed to using equally in a dual format kit).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In this regard I agree 100% with Nadine: it is dangerous to link the (less expensive) lens purchase as a reason for a new Back Up camera.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If however you are thinking of a fully functional Dual Format kit, based upon two zoom lenses, then that is an entirely different kettle of kippers. In this case, as you are buying a 70 to 200, you should be seriously rethinking the 24 to 70 and replacing it with a 16 to 35 (or even the 17 to 40). </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW </p>

<p > </p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>I guess I am going to offer a different view! Why not get the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS? Don't get me wrong, if you can afford the IS, get the IS; if not, I'd get the non-IS version. I shoot Nikon so my choice was the 80-200 or 70-200 VR and there is quite a difference in price. The ONLY time I use the 80-200 is when I need the reach in a church. In which case, I use a tripod and remote release- the best image stabilization you can get! Otherwise, 200mm is a LONG lens for weddings. I much prefer the 85mm or the 105mm for normal shooting. Would I like the 70-200 VR, sure. But the $1200+ difference in price buys me a lot of "other" glass or any number of things that will improve my photography.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I am not sure that your comments are so much different to my view or others' views, John, considering <em >HOW you use your 80 to 200 lens and HOW others use theirs . . .</em> <br>

<br>

***<br>

<br>

John's case is a logical argument, IMO. But note John wrote <em>"The <strong>ONLY</strong> time I use the 80-200 is when I need the reach in a church."</em> Therefore John does not fit into my condition: <em>"If you <strong>(regularly)</strong> use a 70 to 200 for wedding work".</em><br>

On a 5D, I used my 85 tenfold more times than my 135; and my 135 tenfold more times than my 70 to 200, at a Wedding. <br>

I too bought more gear by buying the NON IS version of the 70 to 200F/2.8L . . . BUT: My 70 to 200 is NOT part of my “Wedding Kit”, as such - it was taken out ONLY IF I really needed longer than 200mm at F/4 (with the x1.4MkII) and it was used with appropriate support for the Tv selected: usually a tripod or monopod. <br>

<br>

***<br>

<br>

IMO, it is important, if Brian follows your advice to get a NON IS Canon, then it would be because he would use his 70 to 200 lens the same way as you described - and also as I used my 70 to 200 at Weddings. <br>

<br>

On the other hand, if for example, 40% of the shots are to be taken with the 70 to 200, then Brian's use would likely be similar to how Neil Ambrose uses his 70 to 200; most of the shots, if not all shots, being hand held - and a great % of those taken inside – so therefore IS is mandatory in such conditions, IMO.<br>

<br>

*** <br>

<br>

Brian, it depends a lot on how much you will use the lens - and for what uses. And that has to be thought through and goes to the decision whether to even buy a 70 to 200 - or not. <br>

<br>

The way the question is phrased, the decision to buy has already been made, but that does not mean we can’t rethink things if necessary . . . which brings us to another issue to consider – IMO, there is no point in buying ANY of the three Canon 70 to 200F/2.8 lenses, just to then use it as a 200F/2.8 Prime, at a Wedding.<br>

<br>

If you are going to do that - then often it is a much better choice to buy the 135L and the x1.4MkII for your Wedding Kit.<br>

<br>

WW<br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

[fotografz]

<p><em><strong>"If you are going to do that - then often it is a much better choice to buy the 135L and the x1.4MkII for your Wedding Kit."</strong></em></p>

<p>Totally agree with this comment from William.</p>

<p>While the 70-200/2.8L IS is a terrific optic ... the absolute killer mid-long lens in the Canon system is the 135/2L ... a lens I used a lot at receptions and ceremonies because of it's ability to isolate the subject from the background and the fact that I actually would carry it because it is small and light in comparison to the huge 70-200/2.8L IS. Add the 1.4XMKII and you have a 189mm f/2.8 lens when you need it for the ceremony. </p>

[rt_jones]

<blockquote>

<p>Add the 1.4XMKII and you have a 189mm f/2.8 lens when you need it for the ceremony.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or... just stay in one spot with the 70-200 and don't worry about being confined to a fixed focal length - adjust to suit. I had a 135L and dumped it. Great piece of glass but far too limiting for me.<br>

 

<p >It's all a matter of personal preference and depends on way too many factors to discuss here. No such thing as a killer lens. </p>

<br>

<br /></p>

[savagesax]

For zooms its pretty hard to beat the 70-200 IS. The optics are amazing, maybe the best long lens zoom made in the Canon line up. I shoot a lot of beauty pageants, where you need to be towards the back.

 

It's also a favorite lens for outdoor portraits.

 

I bring his lens to weddings, but it actually gets little use.

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>Lots said about the 70-200 2.8 IS and rightfully so. I got mine some 4 years ago and have not put it down. On a full frame, it's by far the BEST zoom I have ever used. Period. If your a wedding shooter, you know speed is everything. Get the 2.8 IS and don't look back. v/r Buffdr</p>

[david_noceti]

<p>I just went through this same dilemma. In the end I got the 2.8 IS Mk1 used. It's a great lens, as has been noted over and over. But really, what you're looking for is peace of mind in your decision, so why not rent them? Don't bother with the f4, but rent the non IS one week and then the IS the next and see how you feel about it. Personally, when I've got it zoomed all the way in and I half press the shutter I'm amazed at how much steadier I suddenly hold the camera. :o)</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Be careful getting non-canon lenses. All my old canon lenses I had on my film versions still work on my brand new digital canons. The same cannot be said for my sigma lenses. Canon makes sure to reverse engineer their newer cameras to work with their older lenses. Sigma doesn't do that at all, so if you eventually move up to a newer nicer camera, good chance the sigma lens won't work with it. Also if you are into reselling your equipment I dont' think the resale value is very good on Sigmas vs Canon lenses.</p>