Help me choose a 70-200mm Tele Zoom Lens!

[p_ghosh]

<p>Hey everyone, <br>

Thanks for the responses,<br>

I'm going to go for the Canon F4L IS. Bokeh performance is important to me, but just upgrading from Crop to FF and the quality of other lenses will make a big difference.<br>

It seems finding the MKI at 1200-1300 is luck based because ebay has them going anywhere from 1400-1700.<br>

I'm going find a F4L IS for 800-900 which seems reasonable.<br>

My final setup is this:<br>

Canon 5D Mark II<br>

Canon 24-70 f2.8L<br>

Canon 17-40 f4L<br>

Canon 70-200mm f4L IS<br>

Canon 85mm f1.8<br>

Canon 50mm f1.4</p>

<p>Either a 50D or a 1D MarkII depending on how much money I have after some lighting, case and tripod.</p>

[martin-s]

<blockquote>

<p>“Patrick Ferrell won a 2009 Pulitzer prize with 19 images he shot with a Canon G10, a P&S roundly disparaged by almost everybody (though I really like mine).”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually quite a lot of news/documetary photographers are using P&Ss, <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844">Alex Majoli</a> is a good example.</p>

<p>As to Art Wolfe, he’s a seasoned professional and is well aware, that “bigger” doesn’t necessarily translate into “better”.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<blockquote>

<p>Bokeh performance is important to me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've got shots with my f2.8 at f5.6~f8.0 where the backgrounds are still very soft. Not sure when you're referring to "bokeh" if it's truly the differences in bokeh or just going from f2.8 to f4.0. Rest assured, any decent telephoto at the 200mm end is very easy to blur the backgrounds, even stopped down a bit.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Weddings: Canon EF 70-200mm f/<strong>2.8</strong>L <strong>IS</strong> USM at minimum. Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM <strong>preferred</strong>. You are welcome! <em><strong>:p</strong></em></p>

[p_ghosh]

<p>^^ Can I ask you why you think the 2.8L is absolutely necessary? I tried one out and it was HEAVY. The F4L IS was much easier to hand hold, and I probably won't ever need to put it on a tri-pod.</p>

<p>I know I'll eventually have to upgrade to the 2.8L but It's quite a bit more, and I was going to use the extra cash on a 580EX flash.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>All this talk about weight, why? If you are a hobbiest out for a stroll, if you are a mountaineer etc then weight is a concern, if you are a professional photographer you get the tool that does the job and accept the weight, don't like the weight of a 70-200 f2.8? Don't think about sports photography, 400 f2.8's are 15lbs. I have spend three days straight 12 hours a day hand holding my 300 f2.8, that is the job.</p>

<p>Weight should not be a consideration for a pro wedding photographer. Get the tools to enable you to take the kinds of photos you shoot. If that is a rangefinder and a 35mm prime great if it is a DSLR and 70-200 f4 then get that, but not because it weighs less than an f2.8!</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>Can I ask you why you think the 2.8L is absolutely necessary? I tried one out and it was HEAVY.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When it comes to spending cash on lenses, buy once only. Don't make the same mistake like me. Now, I must sell my Canon EOS 70-200mm f/4L IS USM at a loss because it is not the best <strong>tool</strong> for a wedding job. I should have listened to the recommendation of seasoned photographers on this forum and elsewhere a few years ago. Banish the thought about the heaviness of the faster lenses. One photographer told me to "suck it up buttercup" and to accept the trade offs of using the f/2.8 version. It's up to you PGhosh. </p>

[philip_wilson]

Scott. It weightbdepends on what you shoot. While I no longer consider myself a professional I still sell photos and

thus I have an F2.8 for when I need F2.8. As I do not shoot weddings anymore I use mine for sports and thus do not

need IS. However, when out in the mountains (they are big where I live) I later added the F4IS as I got sick of lugging

the extra weight uphill - 4500 feet of ascent with all the other things plus a bag of lenses is a killer - these days I often

just carry a rangefinder and live with a 90mm maximum FL. I will also use m4/3 but the dynamic range can be an

issue for sunrises and sunsets in the mountains - even with ND grads.

 

For weddings I agree F2.8 IS for sports (especially indoor) you also need the F2.8 but the luxury of having an F2.8

and an F4 is something my back appreciates. By the way the F2.8 non IS and the F4 IS combined are About the

same price as the F2.8 IS Mk II

[joe_ethridge]

<p>P Ghosh,</p>

<p><em>"So Question is: Canon 70-200mm f4L IS USM or Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 OS HSM?"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I've found the 70-200 f/4 IS to work very well for weddings and will upgrade to the 2.8 IS someday (as you mentioned that you plan to do). The 70-200 f/4 IS is super sharp wide open! It is a trade off (less bokeh but more DOF at f/4) less weight, less money, but still very worthy for weddings. The IS is a must in low light (ceremonies) and slow shutter speeds work well when subjects don't move that much.</p>

<p>As for any 3rd party fast lens, I stick with Canon. The reason is always due to the auto-focus advantage. Some will disagree with me, but I've owned a couple and borrowed a couple and in EVERY review that I've ever seen, the 3rd party lenses measure up in every way EXCEPT auto-focus. The reviewers often mention that this only matters to a few photographers. Really?</p>

<p>I love the super fast, super quiet, super accurate auto-focus that the USM lenses deliver when coupled with Canon's auto-focus SLRs. I'm sure that Nikon can make the same claim when using their lenses.</p>

<p>If I were shooting landscapes and not people, I'd not be as concerned with super fast, super accurate auto focus. With people (especially weddings) this is THE top priority for me. Therefore, I'd forego the Sigma (no offense to Sigma owners) and take full advantage of the 70-200 L IS USM and 5D MKII (f/2.8 or f/4).</p>

<p>Being a split second behind "the moment" or totally missing the shot due to higher than usual percentage (Canon USM standards) is totally unacceptable for my style of photography when photographing people, especially weddings.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>