DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> One more lens...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 25, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/09/2007 10:30:45 AM · #1
I use the Canon 24-70 2.8L as my primary lens for weddings on my 30D, but I would also like to add something with more range. You can't always get close enough at a wedding for the 24-70mm to cut it. I am looking at purchasing a 70-200mm and I was looking for opinions on a couple of them.

Canon EF 70-200mm F4.0L IS USM

Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L USM

Thanks in advance,

Dan
07/09/2007 11:16:30 AM · #2
Bump
07/09/2007 11:31:22 AM · #3
Originally posted by daninbc:

I use the Canon 24-70 2.8L as my primary lens for weddings on my 30D, but I would also like to add something with more range. You can't always get close enough at a wedding for the 24-70mm to cut it. I am looking at purchasing a 70-200mm and I was looking for opinions on a couple of them.

Canon EF 70-200mm F4.0L IS USM

Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L USM

Thanks in advance,

Dan


I have the 70-200 2.8 with IS. I absolutely love it. I use it for sports and it is great. For me the IS is very helpful since I don't need to use a tripod when shooting moving targets.

I don't know which choice would be best for weddings. Good luck.

Roxanne
07/09/2007 11:55:06 AM · #4
Originally posted by daninbc:

I use the Canon 24-70 2.8L as my primary lens for weddings on my 30D, but I would also like to add something with more range. You can't always get close enough at a wedding for the 24-70mm to cut it. I am looking at purchasing a 70-200mm and I was looking for opinions on a couple of them.

Canon EF 70-200mm F4.0L IS USM

Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L USM

Thanks in advance,

Dan


Basically both lenses will give you about the same results hand held. Maybe the IS lens will be a little better in lower light but not by much. If you are hand holding the lens all the time, go for the IS lens. If you are planning on using a tripod much, go for the speed and DOF of the f/2.8. Also the f/4 lens is smaller and lighter I believe.

Message edited by author 2007-07-09 11:55:48.
07/09/2007 12:18:13 PM · #5
Is 2.8L without IS still reasonably easy to get good shots without using a tripod? The cost of getting the 2.8L IS vs. the regular 2.8L is huge, and I don't know if it's worth it. I have also heard good things about the 4.0L IS, so I'm having trouble deciding what to buy.
07/09/2007 12:25:50 PM · #6
Originally posted by daninbc:

Is 2.8L without IS still reasonably easy to get good shots without using a tripod? The cost of getting the 2.8L IS vs. the regular 2.8L is huge, and I don't know if it's worth it. I have also heard good things about the 4.0L IS, so I'm having trouble deciding what to buy.

100% go for the 2.8. 2.8 will come in handy in the most needed times
07/09/2007 12:29:37 PM · #7
For weddings, you need all the aperture you can get. F4 will just not cut inside a church. So, my recommendation is the 2.8 IS L.

June
07/09/2007 08:54:57 PM · #8
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/41409/thumb/512092.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/41409/thumb/512092.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Shot with the 70-200mm f/2.8L, I love that lens and would have gotten it if I could afford it. But I had to settle with the f/4L.

Other notes on that shot:
1/500th
ISO800
f/2.8
70mm
07/09/2007 08:57:24 PM · #9
You'll need 2.8 when you in the dark areas or sun is setting.
07/09/2007 09:10:39 PM · #10
Originally posted by daninbc:

Is 2.8L without IS still reasonably easy to get good shots without using a tripod? The cost of getting the 2.8L IS vs. the regular 2.8L is huge, and I don't know if it's worth it. I have also heard good things about the 4.0L IS, so I'm having trouble deciding what to buy.


One way to stay sharp with action is to shoot in TV mode. My fauna and heron shots are nearly all taken with this lens (and sometimes with a 1.4x behind it, too). Have a look and see if they're sharp.

07/09/2007 10:02:42 PM · #11
Originally posted by daninbc:

Is 2.8L without IS still reasonably easy to get good shots without using a tripod?


In bright light where you can send the shutter speed up, yeah. Same as with any lens the 1/(cropped) focal length is a good rule of thumb. So 1/320 shutter speed I guess.
07/09/2007 10:47:07 PM · #12
Keep in mind that the IS on the lens will not help with movement in low light. It helps counter act movement of the lens when you are shooting at slow shutter speeds. But if the subjects are moving you are still going to get blured shots unless you are panning with the movement.

Also, in case it's a factor, another difference between the 2.8 and 4.0 lens... weight and size. The 4.0 is a very small light lens compared to the 2.8 version. In fact the lightness will also help with holding it steady at slow shutter speeds although it won't make up for the 2.8 max appurture... although 4.0 will give you more depth of field than the 2.8 will.

I have both the 70-200 2.8L IS and the 70-200 4.0L lenses (I couldn't give up the 4.0 when I bought the 2.8L IS) and the 4.0L still gets used a lot when the conditions are right and I want something light and small to pack in my bag that is exceedingly sharp and crisp.

Mike
07/11/2007 06:36:57 PM · #13
I've gotten pricing from a store who I trust and have purchased quite a bit of my equipment from in the past. Remember, these prices are in Canadian funds and shipping is free:

Canon f2.8L USM - $1549.00
Canon f2.8L IS USM - $2299.00
Canon f4L IS USM - $1399.00

Is the IS model actually worth the extra $750.00? I know that having IS is better than not having IS, but is it $750 better? I don't shoot a ton of weddings (maybe 3-6 per year) and other than that, most of my photography is done outside.

It's a lot of money to spend and I don't want to make the wrong choice.

Thanks again to everyone for their advice,

Dan

Message edited by author 2007-07-11 18:38:08.
07/11/2007 06:43:53 PM · #14
Seems like a similar decision to the one you no doubt made over whether to get the 24-70 F2.8 L or the 24-105 F4 L IS, and you made the same decision as me on that one, the 24-70.
So here it is again, 2.8 or IS?
I have neither so can't comment on my favourite.
07/11/2007 07:18:38 PM · #15
Originally posted by daninbc:

I don't shoot a ton of weddings (maybe 3-6 per year) and other than that, most of my photography is done outside.


People shoot weddings with the 70-200?
07/11/2007 07:20:20 PM · #16
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by daninbc:

I don't shoot a ton of weddings (maybe 3-6 per year) and other than that, most of my photography is done outside.


People shoot weddings with the 70-200?


I have taken a couple of shots at weddings I did with a 70-200mm
07/11/2007 07:51:13 PM · #17
I love this lens (Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM).

I went trough the same decision and today I'm really glad I went with the IS model.

is it $750 better?: IMO Yes!

I shot these two photos handheld, inside my car (running), using only the driver's door window for support, the first one I parked on the side of the road and the second one waiting for the traffic light to turn green.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/21317/thumb/486992.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/21317/thumb/486992.jpg', '/') + 1) . ' ' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/21317/thumb/486993.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/21317/thumb/486993.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Message edited by author 2007-07-11 19:52:58.
07/11/2007 08:02:44 PM · #18
Be ye warned. It's heavy! or atleast until those muscles you use to hold it develop out!
07/11/2007 08:04:48 PM · #19
That's why I asked about the weddings. Lugging that thing around for that long would be a real back breaker.
07/11/2007 08:23:06 PM · #20
I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L. It is an extremely sharp lens and I love f/2.8. Incidentally, I'm selling it in this thread. I'm more interested in wildlife photography than portraits and wanted the extra reach of the 100-400mm. I think the IS is absolutely necessary on the 100-400mm since it is only f/5.6@400mm, but I got along just fine without it on the 70-200mm. I expect IS will make it easier to get sharp shots hand held, but it isn't strictly necessary in my opinion.
07/11/2007 08:34:59 PM · #21
Originally posted by daninbc:

I've gotten pricing from a store who I trust and have purchased quite a bit of my equipment from in the past. Remember, these prices are in Canadian funds and shipping is free:

Canon f2.8L USM - $1549.00
Canon f2.8L IS USM - $2299.00
Canon f4L IS USM - $1399.00

Is the IS model actually worth the extra $750.00? I know that having IS is better than not having IS, but is it $750 better? I don't shoot a ton of weddings (maybe 3-6 per year) and other than that, most of my photography is done outside.

It's a lot of money to spend and I don't want to make the wrong choice.

Thanks again to everyone for their advice,

Dan

70-200 f/4.0L IS is $984 from adorama... I got mine in the mail last Friday (that's the price after an instant $75 canon rebate that's good until 7/16)

The IS on this lens is the latest generation from Canon, and is good for the equivalent of four stops improvement. It is true that IS will not stop motion, but I feel that in most circumstances that I will be shooting f/4.0 with IS at ISO 200 is far better than f/2.8 without IS at ISO 100. Also, the f/4.0 weighs half as much as the f/2.8.

In a perfect world, I'd get both the f/4.0L IS and f/2.8L IS, but I'd carry the f/4.0L IS around more.
07/11/2007 08:46:17 PM · #22
I don't have the lenses you're talking about, but I have similar Nikon equivalents. My experience with IS (VR in the Nikon world) is that in low light, it allows me to hold the camera steady at ridiculously slow shutter speeds. But, the rest of the world keeps moving, so anything that's moving is blurry. I'm not sure that matters much when shooting weddings, because people aren't moving much during a lot of the shooting.

I'm not familiar with Canon lenses, but I'd assume a 70-200 f/2.8 will be much bigger and heavier than a 70-200 f/4, IS or not. I have an old shoulder injury, so I don't even try to hand hold my 80-200 f/2.8, but a monopod works fine, and allows me to get down to shutter speeds that are similar to what I get hand held with my much lighter 18-200 VR.

Bottom line...I use the 18-200 VR for travel, when I need something light and convenient. I don't do wedding photography, but I know wedding photogs that swear by the 18-200 VR, and other wedding photogs that just swear at them. If I want a stunning picture though, especially in low light, and don't care about the weight, I bring the 80-200 f/2.8 and either a monopod or tripod.
07/11/2007 09:33:11 PM · #23
Originally posted by routerguy666:

Originally posted by daninbc:

I don't shoot a ton of weddings (maybe 3-6 per year) and other than that, most of my photography is done outside.


People shoot weddings with the 70-200?


YES! Although on the 20D it will have quite a range... I was lucky to shoot with this awesome photographer who used it for her detail shots to get sweet bokeh too. Most churches won't let you use flash and some want you to stay behind a certain point.

2.8 fo sho!!! :0) (USM too if you can swing it!)

edit.. ummm IS is what I meant, not USM... very helpful

Message edited by author 2007-07-11 22:05:26.
07/11/2007 09:52:02 PM · #24
If you only do 3-6 weddings a year, you have to ask yourself "what else am I shooting?" Basically, if you are shooting a majority of something else, then get the lens that works the best for that situation. Don't purchase a 1600 dollar lens if you only do 3 weddings a year. It's not worth it.
07/12/2007 06:32:31 PM · #25
I met another photographer who says he uses the 70-200 f2.8L as his main portrait lens. He said being able to move further away from the subject helps the camea shy to forget about the camera and relax. I want that lens so bad I can taste it!! It is currently #4 on my I Want list:

Strobe light (which is on lay away)
Tripod
New body
70-200 f2.8 L lens.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/25/2020 05:24:07 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 10/25/2020 05:24:07 AM EDT.