Upgrade from 70-200 f/4 IS to 70-200 f/2.8 II L or Buy 135/f2

Some really good answers with many respondents leaning towards the 70200 f/2.8II.

As I said in a previous posting, if you look at my original post (where I describe my gear) the issue perhaps is "body-related" rather than "lens-related". You see, in a wedding situation I frequently wear my BlackRapid twin strap with 2 bodies hanging off it - my 5DIII which for me offers everything that I could want from a wedding camera, and my crop 50D which is beautifully built, handles just likes a 5D but with the obvious disadvantages of a crop body lacking great low-light capability.

My trust in the Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art and the usefulness of the zoom range in a wedding scenario, means that I shoot large parts of the wedding as follows (use shown in brackets):

5DIII + Sigma 24-105 f/4Art (60%) == Canon 70-200 (25%) == Canon 85mm (15%) 
50D   + Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS (40%) == Canon 85mm (40%) == Sigma 10-20 (20%)

This configuration is not IDEAL by virtue of the fact that I end up using good glass (85mm f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/4L IS) on my crop camera (50D) so perhaps my solution (to improved results) might be a body upgrade (50D to 6D perhaps) instead of a lens upgrade.

Your thoughts?

Alexis

Alexis wrote:

This configuration is not IDEAL by virtue of the fact that I end up using good glass (85mm f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/4L IS) on my crop camera (50D) so perhaps my solution (to improved results) might be a body upgrade (50D to 6D perhaps) instead of a lens upgrade.

Your thoughts?

Honestly, that's what I would do, upgrade your 2nd camera to a 35mm, in fact you could buy a 6D body only refurb and 135 f2 L for roughly the same price as the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

Abu Mahendra wrote:

Look, you are a wedding photographer, right? Well, act and equip yourself like one. It's a business expense, not like us for whom it's a hobby. The lens you need for your business is the 70-200II, possibly backed up by a 135mm (the 135L or the Zeiss 135 APO) for portraits but again the 70-200 can fill it nicely for that, and a Macro lens (100L, Milvus 100) for rings, and small knicknacks like that, etc. Save, put it on credit card and for blow's sake, learn to carry a 1.5kg lens. It's part of the job, part of your business. Your competitors are already doing it.

Agreed! In fact if you are a wedding photographer 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 II and 100L is your bread and butter!

Best,

Alexis wrote:

Some really good answers with many respondents leaning towards the 70200 f/2.8II.

As I said in a previous posting, if you look at my original post (where I describe my gear) the issue perhaps is "body-related" rather than "lens-related". You see, in a wedding situation I frequently wear my BlackRapid twin strap with 2 bodies hanging off it - my 5DIII which for me offers everything that I could want from a wedding camera, and my crop 50D which is beautifully built, handles just likes a 5D but with the obvious disadvantages of a crop body lacking great low-light capability.

My trust in the Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art and the usefulness of the zoom range in a wedding scenario, means that I shoot large parts of the wedding as follows (use shown in brackets):

5DIII + Sigma 24-105 f/4Art (60%) == Canon 70-200 (25%) == Canon 85mm (15%)
50D + Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS (40%) == Canon 85mm (40%) == Sigma 10-20 (20%)

This configuration is not IDEAL by virtue of the fact that I end up using good glass (85mm f/1.8 and the 70-200 f/4L IS) on my crop camera (50D) so perhaps my solution (to improved results) might be a body upgrade (50D to 6D perhaps) instead of a lens upgrade.

Your thoughts?

Alexis --
http://www.alexisimages.com
http://alexis.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/alexis

Alexis.

Years ago I bought the 70-200 f/4 L IS because it was smaller, lighter and was out performing the then 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark Version 1. Used it for a couple of years and then added the newly introduced 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. A tough act to follow as it does not disappoint. The Size and Weight were not and still not an issue today. For a few years the 70-200 f/4 L IS sat in the corner waiting to see the light of day.

As I am now on the other side of 50, I decided to take out my old trusty 70-200 f/4 more and more, when the situation allows. I am sure glad I did not sell the f/4 as it really is a great lens.

When shooting weddings the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II gets top billing. However the f/4 L IS is in the bag ready to go as a more than capable back up.

Go to your local shop and compare the two lenses side by side. There is a real significant weight difference. Since this is a concern, you may end up buying it, but not using it enough because of the factor of weight.

If you feel it is too heavy, I like the idea of adding a second body instead. Since you have a 5D Mark III I would add another to your Arsenal as did I. Having both bodies with same features and button layout is very important in the workflow of a wedding.

Thanks Nick - getting another FF body makes sense but another 5D3 is not within my reach - I'll either go for a new or near new 6D or an older 5D2 I think...

BR

Alexis

fishy wishy wrote:

I find 70-200 2.8 so handy that I don't even look at primes that aren't over a stop faster than the zoom. If the 70-200 f2.8 had stabilisation I would tend to look at primes that are even faster. 85 f1.8 sounds nice, but I could often stand off the subject a bit more with a longer focal length, use f2.8 and IS to compensate. 85 f1.4 might be hard to use re depth of field.

Using a little 70-200 f4 on a full frame camera is incongruous and on APS-C the idea is even worse. Do you really want your pics to look technically better than the two-bit amateur trying to break into your field or not? Okay so in practice f2.8 might not be deep enough for gatherings anyway, but that little 50D sensor is a real handicap. I would try some kind of trade-in to a 5D II.

So first you start off saying a stop more than 2.8 isn't worth it and then you finish buy saying a stop less than 2.8 is two-bit amateur.  What happens when that two-bit amateur buys a 135/2 for half the price of your 2.8 zoom and makes your work look like a two-bit amateur's.  Its the same logic.  Maybe what differentiates a good professional from the crowd is more to do with compositional skills than tools.

fishy wishy wrote:

I'm glad you got that off your chest

7D isn't the best tool for that wedding job though.

Well considering the OP doesn't have a 7D, I take it you are talking about my 7D.  Well I don't shoot weddings, but if I did I wouldn't use a 7D.  I would buy something FF.

You got the prices all wrong anyway. You can often get the 70-200 f2.8 for the same as a used 135 f2, you can get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for 60% of that price, and you can definitely get a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS for the price of a 135 f2.

Well the OP is talking about the 70-200/2.8 II and if I were shooting weddings, I wouldn't trust the AF of the Sigma for that.  The 70-200/2.8 non IS is a great lens, but for weddings, I would prefer the IS to help balance lighting.  Although the 135/2 is just so magical that I would give up the IS on that for the posed wedding shots.  It's just not the best lens to use for the documentary type shots of a wedding.

But, I gather the main purpose of your post was to feel superior instead of feeling neurotic about having all those little lenses- sorry.

My 70-200/4 IS and 135/2 cost me as much as a 70-200/2.8 IS II would cost me so I have no reason to feel neurotic about my choice of tools.  The combination works well for what I shoot, which isn't weddings.  The purpose of my post was more to put your condescending 70-200/4 comments in place.  I was at my wife's cousin's wedding this summer and the Pro-photog was using a 70-200/4 IS and the results were amazing.  He was using multiple 5D3s, 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8 II and a few L primes as well so I doubt his choice to use a "little' 70-200/4 IS was financial in nature.  His second shooter also had a similar set up with 2 5D3's.