Important Lens choice

[davidfig]

Hi All,

Well I have to chose between a 70-200L IS and non-IS. The purpose of the lens is for the usual portrait,etc. But one very important use is during wedding ceremonies. I am trying to decide if I am going to need the IS. Since I am older, I do shake slightly, I can see it in the finder. But a monopod can do the trick. I don't need the IS for all my other work, but some wedding ceremonies can be in some really low light. I have tested the next venue and its going to require ISO800 f4 1/125. Seems like I may be ok with the non-IS.

So I'm choosing between
A. 17-40L and Sigma 70-200EX or
B. Canon 70-200L IS and rent 17-40L.

What are your thoughts? One last part to this series of questions. I know its not real important, but does Canon white carry weight with prospective B&G?

[tim]

Get the IS, otherwise you'll sell the non-IS later and lose even more money. Monopods are clumsy. Rent what you need, then get the 17-55 F2.8 IS when you can afford it (mine's being ordered very soon). Tamron 28-75 is great value, though i'm not 100% happy with it.

[Banbert]

17-55 F2.8 IS is a lovely lovely lens and I thank everyone here (tim especially) for pointing me in that direction and convicing me to spalsh the cash on it. At £699 it was a painful purchase as were just starting out but I reckon it will be permanently on one of my camera bodys for a very long time to come.

[Yella Fella]

you guys must invest a lot of money to begin with... i blame my mortgage for this :lol:

[song4themoon]

I would take the IS as well ... still saving up to buy it myself

[Banbert]

you guys must invest a lot of money to begin with... i blame my mortgage for this :lol:

Me and my mate will have spent well over £3,500 in setting up ready for our second wedding I reckon, and that doesnt include stuff we already had like a body and some lenses each, a Mac. some PC's, CS2 and other appsand the stuff were able to do for free due to existing skills and contacts like web design, hosting, flier printing etc

I think if you were setting up from scratch with a decentish wedding kit you would be looking at somewhere between £5,000 and £10,000 .... hopefully our investment will help pay for the mortgage at some point in the future ... least thats what I keep telling the mrs when she questions each new arrival of kit :)

[Yella Fella]

fancy having a 3rd assistant? ;) im only down the road from you in Milton Keynes i think... not sure how far Leamington Spa is...

I have spent enough now... think my next additional kit will be a 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens or equiv... so i can use it for candids and shooting motorsport too. Then either a 30D or 5D for a 2nd cam. Might be tempted to switch to nikon... feel the D200 is right bad boy camera

[davidfig]

Soon after I originally wrote this I thought I might just get the 17-40L and 70-200L non-IS. I mean $600 for IS. It's hard on the budget. Any others, please weight in.

BTW, I plan to go full-frame, so I am making the purchases in light of that. That is why I did not mention the 17-55 2.8.

So you know up to this point I rent the wide and long range as the Sigma 24-70EX is dreamy.

[RobKirkwood]

... hopefully our investment will help pay for the mortgage at some point in the future ... least thats what I keep telling the mrs when she questions each new arrival of kit :)See this is where you're going wrong! ...my wife and I both shoot, and our most recent purchases were just a little 24-105 IS for me ...and a 30D & 17-55 IS for her ;)

Rob

[RobKirkwood]

Soon after I originally wrote this I thought I might just get the 17-40L and 70-200L non-IS. I mean $600 for IS. It's hard on the budget. Any others, please weight in.The Canon 70-200 non-IS f2.8 is discontinued in the UK, so maybe the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 would be a better choice if you later need to sell it on? We were planning on buying the 70-200 f2.8 IS, but we'll hold off now and see what the new f4 IS version is like.

BTW, I plan to go full-frame, so I am making the purchases in light of that. That is why I did not mention the 17-55 2.8.Moving to full-frame was our original intention, but the 17-55 changed all that - we'll still probably get a camera body that cannot take EF-S before too long, but we found the 17-55 is so good that it was worth buying a 30D just to use it with.

In your original message you asked whether B&G were impressed with Canon white - my experience, no ...but they are impressed with big cameras.

Rob

[lime]

I think you should go for the IS. You're lucky that this location has some pretty good lighting, others in the future might not. I don't think you need the 17-40 since you have the 24-70EX. You're next purchase should also be another body.

I only use tripods and monopods under extreme conditions. For example, one catholic wedding where I was free to move around, but had to be behind the last guest during the ceremony. Used the 300 2.8IS on a monopod and the 28-135 on a tripod. My partner was off to the side by the front, but there was a sticker on the floor that he had to stay at. He was using the 70-200IS and 17-40.

[EOS_JD]

The versatility of IS is what makes it worth it, not just the range. IS is worth everything if it allows you to capture that shot.

You can get super sharp shots during the ceremony at pretty slow shutter speeds. The one you are doing may be fine for f4 ISO 800 1/125 but what about the next that allows 4 ISO 800 1/30th or thereabouts?

I can shoot using the IS at 200mm and get sharp images at shutter speeds of 1/25th and lower. Wedding ceremonies are pretty slow and you can still capture nice images with slower shutter speeds. Keep an eye out for motion obviously at these speeds. IS won't compensate for subject movement.

In my view the IS really is worth it. Don't think I'd buy another non-IS zoom!

[picturecrazy]

I would first ask.... are you planning to shoot indoor wedding ceremonies OFTEN? Is this something you are planning to do professionally? Or is this something that you might do just the odd time? I only ask because your gear list doesn't look like a typical pro wedding photographer's kit. You say you do a lot of 'other' work. I would build my kit for the work you do MOST often and get by with the slower lenses if you are found in a wedding situation now and then. Refining flash technique can help overcome slower lenses and no IS.

The 70-200IS is a lot of cash to put into something that you are not using ALL the time! And if you ARE into shooting weddings often, then heck yes, get the 70-200IS, it's invaluable to me during weddings.

As for your second question, unless the couple are photographers themselves, I don't think they'd care that you have a white lens. In fact, I've only been asked twice how many megapixels my cameras are... they just don't seem to care about gear.

[davidfig]

I think you should go for the IS. You're lucky that this location has some pretty good lighting, others in the future might not. I don't think you need the 17-40 since you have the 24-70EX. You're next purchase should also be another body.

True, I currently use a friends D70 as the backup.

[davidfig]

I would first ask.... are you planning to shoot indoor wedding ceremonies OFTEN?

Actually the frequency is increasing. Therefore, if it continues the IS will be a requirement.

[davidfig]

This is my fear, and why I am so interested in the IS
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=209376

See the comment at picture #2