f/4 zooms to compliment my primes? (at weddings)

[wil_reiner]

<p>I've been considering the addition of some Canon f/4 L-series zooms to my wedding bag, specifically the 17-40 f/4 and the 70-200 f/4. I have the 35L and the 135L always mounted on my two 5d cameras, but after shooting a few weddings exclusively with these prime lenses I'm starting to crave a zoom for certain situations where the action is quickly unfolding and foot–zooming becomes inefficient. <br>

I like these zooms because they are relatively small and lightweight compared to their f/2.8 cousins, and I also like that their price is relatively low. I tend to stop down a bit for ultra–wide shots, so the 17-40 f/4 seems like it would work well for me. I also like to stop down to about f/4 when I'm shooting action with a telephoto lens, because it gives me a little wiggle room with regards to achieving the best focus. I always have a speedlight mounted to help with focusing, so I'm thinking that would help when it is too dark for f/4 (or I could switch to a prime lens for low-light pics)<br>

I'd just like to hear some feedback from other wedding photographers about my plan to use the f/4 zooms to compliment my primes at a wedding. I know that the 2.8 versions are extremely popular but I'm wondering if any other wedding photographers have chosen the f/4 versions to go along with a couple of good prime lenses. BTW- I have used the 70-200 2.8 many times and agree that it is very useful, but the large size, weight, and price have always turned me off to this lens. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Only you can answer your question, based on the kind of places you shoot in, and how you shoot==how much flash you want to use, etc. I also have two zooms (not L zooms) and an array of wide aperture primes. My zooms are f2.8 zooms, and sometimes, I am shooting at f2.8, so I personally would not want f4 zooms, although widest aperture isn't the top priority for me in selecting a zoom.</p>

<p>Why don't you rent some and see how they work out?</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>What Nadine said: rent them. Personally, I could see replacing the 35mm with the 17-40. When it comes to this FL for me, shallow DoF isn't as much of an issue; I would rather have the range. The 2nd camera is the tough one. I wouldn't want to give up f/2. As a matter of fact, I usually use something in the f/1.4 range. As to what lens that might be depends on the situation. If I had to go with 70-200 variety for photojournalistic shots, I would want the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. If you don't <em>need</em> it great. But it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it!</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I don't think the f4 lenses would pose any issue for you. The original 5d isn't as good with noise compared to the 5dII, but if you already shoot a lot at smaller apertures, then you know it will work for you. Both you mention are great lenses, but renting one to check it out is not a bad idea. Many rental places will apply the initial rental to the purchase price, check around.</p>

[ricd]

<p>Hi Wil,<br>

You received very good advise. Allow me to inject a bit of humor: Your f/4 zooms will not speak to your primes, in other words it should read "...complement...". Bada-boom :-)</p>

<p>Cordially,<br>

RicD</p>

[savagesax]

I use zooms all of the time. I use L lenses and with the larger zooms I use the IS feature. Sometimes I think photographers worry about zooms VS primes. Craig, my photo partner only uses zooms, with the exception of his 100mm macro lens. Not a single wedding couple has asked him to use a prime!

 

As far as F4 or even higher I'm using the 24-105 L IS f3.5 to f4. For longer lenses such as the 70-200 I often shoot at 2.8 because I like the results of the backgrounds and the ring shots.

[William Michael]

<p>For Weddings, I have used the 35 and the 135 on a 5D also. But mostly I would have a Zoom on one body, and that body was an APS-C body, not a 5D.<br>

Whilst I agree that it is only you, who can answer “for you”, and renting (particularly the 17 to 40) is a good idea - I think that a few other general observations might be useful for you.<br>

Firstly you mention that you crave for the flexibility of a zoom when the action is fast moving . . . in Marc Williams’ article on choices of equipment for Wedding Photography (read it), he suggests analysing usage . . . so, when have you most found this desire of flexibility?<br>

I would guess that it would be more often when you have the 35 to your nose than when you have the 135 ready to shoot . . . but that is a guess, based upon how I work with two cameras and the fact that is usually easier to pull back from 135 to get what would be the FoV of 70mm and 135 to 200 is really nothing a PP crop couldn’t fix.<br>

But, on the other hand, if you are in reasonably tight with a 35 to your nose then I reckon, more often than not, you’d would not be able to move back quickly and effectively to reframe in fast action – like the first dance as one example.<br>

Or maybe you will find that when using the 35, the desire is to get to around 70 quickly and you can’t physically move CLOSER? - but you find that the 135 is too tight?<br>

Also, continuing on the line of analysis – you mention you have used the 70 to 200/2.8 – but at what end, mostly . . . and you mentioned it was “useful” but for what, because mostly you used it at f/2.8 often? <br>

So if you used the 7o to 200 often at the telephoto end and or nearly always at F/2.8 or F/3.2 then I suggest you will not get much advantage out of the 70 to 200/4.<br>

On the other hand if you were using the 70 to 200/2.8 mainly at 70mm - and that is why you found it useful – then I think you might need to RE-think the 35 /135 combination you are using and maybe you can still use only two lenses they being the 35 and the 70 to 200 . . . I suggest this as it might be that your overpowering desire is that you really don’t like CHANGING LENSES on cameras – have you considered that angle?<br>

Also considering: lens changing; weight; and what seems a passion for having fast lenses available to use, maybe the answer is simply another 5D and another Prime lens, not necessarily using both the 35 and 135 . . . E.g: 24/50/135; or: 35/85/135; just as two examples.<br>

I understand the 5D weighs 810gms, the 85/1.8 weighs 425gms; the 50/1.4 is lighter.<br>

The 70-200/2.8L weighs 1310gms the two IS versions, a bit more.</p>

<p>Not sure that I can answer your question, but maybe you’ve got more to think about and a method of thinking it through.</p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

[markonestudios]

My typical wedding kit: 5D2 with 17-40, then my 50mm prime on my crop sensor. I occasionally use my 24-105 on my crop when I'd like a bit more range. So yeah, I use f/4 zooms for about 90% of my needs and my prime complements them for low light or shallow DOF work :)

[steven_crist]

<p><em>"As far as F4 or even higher I'm using the 24-105 L IS f3.5 to f4."</em><br>

Isn't that an f4 lens? How do you shoot at f3.5 or am I missing something? That said, I love the 24-70L on full frame.</p>

[francie_baltazar]

<p>The 17-40 is a great lens - I use it a lot at wedddings and really like it - I shot wide open with it and have no issue... I have used it mostly on a 40d - however, I have just upgraded to two 5d's and the distortion on the edges really show with a FF camera... but all that said, I still love it... 24-70 2.8 is my work horse at receptions - love this lens and think it is a great compliment to prime lenses - if I had to choose between the two I would go with the 24-70.... could not live without these lens in my bag - I use this for all my macro detail shots as well and it's beautiful!</p>