A Tale of a Big Wishlist and Little Money - New Lens Purchase - Comments and Regrets

[MrTED]

I want a new lens...!!! I want... I want... I want...

I am a wedding photographer (amongst other things) looking at expanding my lens collection. My aim is to add a lens with a longer focal length than my current longest of 90mm (144mm @ 1.6). Until now I have been borrowing a lens to cover this purpose.

I am seeking any comments, recommendations and regrets that any one has with their own selections, remembering this is for weddings. I am after the most cost effective lens for its specifications. My current thoughts are:

$AU - Lens

$3,589 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
The perfect lens, just too expensive, this one is tugging at my heart strings

$2,409 - EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
One step down from the perfect lens, no IS but fast enough to pull it off, with a more attainable price tag

$1,999 - EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM
One step down from the perfect lens, a slower version with IS to assist, an even more attainable price tag

$1,349 - EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM
Two steps down from the perfect lens, slower and no IS to assist, not sure if I'll regret cutting costs this much

$4,399 - EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
Slow and no IS to compensate, very expensive for lack of inclusions, much wider range though

$869 - EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Not a fast lens, but has IS to compensate, good budget lens, prefer longer as it overlaps my existing range

$449 - EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Slow and no IS to compensate, reasonable budget lens

Regards,

Nathan

[Tragerman]

If you want to hand hold in low light, #1 is the choice. The f/4 with IS still won't go to the depths of the f/2.8 IS. Just face it... you NEED it! ;-)
-Mickey

[morris_jay]

I'm in the same position.

I was originally going to get the 70-200 f/4 IS, but have decided to get the 2.8 IS simply because you would always go "if I only had that extra stop".

I reckon its worth saving up and getting the best, then you can never say "if only".

I shoot as the second photographer for a wedding photographer now and all she uses is the 24-70 and the 70-200.

Those prices are way too high by the way. What are they, the RRP off the canon website or something? The "going rate" for the 2.8 IS is around 2800...

[cwphoto]

Number 1 followed by number 3 if you don't have the coin.

The last three shouldn't even be in consideration - maybe the 28-135 if you didn't have this covered elsewhere, but you weren't seriously considering the 55-200 were you?

[Bigjimmy]

I am in the same boat exactly, I bought a 17-55 f2.8 IS and love it but cant make up my mind between the 70-200 2.8 IS/non IS. It is a big price difference but I think the general feedback is wait and get the IS rather than regret it later.

[tim]

There's LOTS of "recommend me a lens" threads around, a quick search will help. The 70-200 F2.8 IS is what you need if you plan to shoot inside in low light, to be honest if you're a professional and charging fair rates for your work the price is reasonable. It's a killer lens. Otherwise use your 50mm F1.4 and stand closer. For outside shots when you just need more distance the F4 should be fine, and IS probably isn't necessary.

[mizuno]

Dunno where you buy your lenses, but those look very expensive.

I just bought:

70-200 2.8 IS L for approx $2600
17-55 2.8 IS for about $1700

Those two provide pretty good 2.8 (and IS) coverage for weddings.

[linarms]

I've just bought a 2.8 non-IS and am pretty happy with it, but I'm prepared to shoot with a monopod when necessary. If you're not interested in monopod shooting, get the 2.8 IS. f/4 just won't cut it .. wedding shooting = low light and I can't get over how quick the AF on 2.8 lenses is when compared to f/4 lenses (just sold my 24-105/4L IS for 24-70/2.8L).

[agosling]

I'll recommend the 70-200L 2.8 IS, get it from www.qualitycamera.com.au. it's listed at $2844 and Stu is a top bloke to deal with.

[cwphoto]

I'll recommend the 70-200L 2.8 IS, get it from www.qualitycamera.com.au (http://www.qualitycamera.com.au). it's listed at $2844 and Stu is a top bloke to deal with.

He's a bit pricey. Get it here and save AUD200 :p :
http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canoneos20dacc.htm#70-200IS

Even pick it up yourself when next you're in Sydney.

[Wedding Shooter]

One that you haven't put in there is the Sigma 70-200 2.8. I owned this and found it to be excellent. However, I decided I needed to have the IS and so bought the Canon.

You can pick it up for about $2600 in Australia if you shop around (as already mentioned). You will always wish you had bought the IS version.

I would vote for the 70-200 4 IS over the 70-200 2.8 non IS. What ever you do don't get the 28-300 - it is too slow and too heavy for wedding work. Plus you never really need the 300 end at a wedding.

[tim]

A friend of mine has the 28-300, it's definitely too slow for weddings. He uses it occasionally for outdoor weddings, but I think he's getting the 70-200 F2.8 IS to replace it.

[linarms]

He's a bit pricey. Get it here and save AUD200 :p :
http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au/canoneos20dacc.htm#70-200IS

Even pick it up yourself when next you're in Sydney.

I've bought off d-d-photographics too but I have to say, if you can afford the extra, go with qualitycamera. He sends you loaners if your stuff breaks and he's a very nice guy.

[debiharry]

I have the 1st one also. It is definately worth the extra. I did have #3 but I sold it to fund #1, no regrets. The IS pays for itself.

[stewart bradshaw]

I use a sigma 70-200 2.8. its tack sharp wide open, focus is fast and colours are great. In my opinion it's well worth considering. In the uk it retails at around the same price as canons f4 non is version. IS is a very handy thing but your lens holding technique is much more important. I have handheld this lens in a church at 200mm 1/30th f2.8 and got sharp results. If you can afford the canon is version then buy it, but at a third of the price in my opinion its a very good lens.

My tuppence worth.

Stewart.....:lol:

[RobKirkwood]

Part of the answer to this depends on how much you expect to use the longer lens? We could easily do a wedding without going beyond 105mm - but I appreciate that things are different in different countries due to the way wedding ceremonies & receptions are carried out.

Up until the 70-200 f4 IS was announced we were absolutely determined our next lens purchase was going to be the 70-200 f2.8 IS. But now we're going to wait until we get chance to try out one of the new f4 IS's.

Why? Well we're perfectly happy with our 24-105 f4 IS for low-light use at weddings, which goes against what many will say about f4 being too slow. Our existing 70-200 f4 is exceptionally sharp now it's been fixed by Canon. The new 70-200 f4 IS seems to be rated at 4 stops of IS, not 3 ...and it's a brand new lens, so I'd like to think it might have improved optics overall compared to similar lenses.

I appreciate that f2.8 will always seem to have an advantage over f4 - but we're talking 1 stop here, it's not like we're comparing f1.2 with f4 ...and if the f2.8 lens is soft at f2.8, yet the f4 is useable right from f4, where is the real advantage in your images?

I also understand the concern that the 20D/30D switch to a better AF mode with f2.8 lenses - but in our own testing I don't notice any difference in practice ...our 24-105 f4 IS reliably locks focus in very dark locations (1 second f4 at ISO 1600 for instance).

I think there's a reasonable chance the new 70-200 f4 IS could outperform the 70-200 f2.8 IS in real life. So we're VERY interested in getting hold of one, but will wait for the initial buying frenzy to die down before taking a look (i.e. wait for prices to drop!).

Rob

[QF-347]

May aswell order from BH :) , for its around $ 1,699.95 US which is then shipping takes it up to like 2,283.33 AUS with shipping :)

[cwphoto]

May aswell order from BH :) , for its around $ 1,699.95 US which is then shipping takes it up to like 2,283.33 AUS with shipping :)

Plus GST and sundries and your back up around AUD2,600.

[cwphoto]

I've bought off d-d-photographics too but I have to say, if you can afford the extra, go with qualitycamera. He sends you loaners if your stuff breaks and he's a very nice guy.

Even if he is a nice guy, for AUD200 take the risk - this stuff never breaks.

[MrTED]

Thank you everyone for your comments. The prices mentioned are straight off the Canon Aust. website, I would not pay this price. I do have some questions though on some of your comments...

Tragerman - You say that "the f/4 with IS still won't go to the depths of the f/2.8 IS". I take it you mean just depth of field?

cwphoto - I was not considering the 55-200 seriously, but I was interested for someone to compare the price versus features if they had both.

linarms - Are you saying the AF on the f/2.8 is significantly faster than the f/4?

Wedding Shooter - This is the sort of comparison I was after. Why would you say "choose the 70-200 f/4 IS over the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS"? I am interested in you opinions, or anyones on this.

Stewart Bradshaw - I had not considered the Sigma or Tamron brands, no real reason. But it is certainly a consideration espcially with the price difference. I must investigate this further.

RobKirkwood - Please explain your comment "the new 70-200 f4 IS seems to be rated at 4 stops of IS, not 3". I eagerly await your tests with the 70-200 f/4 IS, please keep me informed either on this thread, or by PM.

Right now I am leaning towards the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM or the EF 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM, just because of the IS when at the full 200mm. In my opinion, I would call it a balancing act between speed on the lens and IS. By this I mean if you cannot go for a faster lens, get one with IS that will help with the slower shutter speeds. Just my thoughts, any comments?

Nathan

[RobKirkwood]

RobKirkwood - Please explain your comment "the new 70-200 f4 IS seems to be rated at 4 stops of IS, not 3". I eagerly await your tests with the 70-200 f/4 IS, please keep me informed either on this thread, or by PM.According to Canon UK, the IS on this new lens can give a 4-stop advantage, whereas for the 70-200 f2.8 IS and all other recent IS lenses they only claim 3-stops ...if this is a genuine difference, and not just marketing pushing the boundaries, it would mean that both the f2.8 IS and the f4 IS could shoot at the same relative light level (assuming subject is static enough) - and for me choice of which is 'best' would then be down to sharpness throughout the range.

Don't hold your breath on us doing any tests with the f4 IS ...we'll only be buying once the price drops, and that could take a few weeks from when it first becomes available here in the UK.

To be honest, looking at the other lenses you've got, I'd be inclined to buy a 70-200 f4 non-IS for now and put the rest towards a faster lens somewhere in the 17-105 range?

Rob

[linarms]

It's pretty well documented that an extra AF sensor on the centre focus point turns on when a lens f/2.8 or faster is mounted (30D at least). The results are definitely significantly different. As far as I know, the AF actuator on the 24-105 is the same as the 24-70, and though the 24-105 had blindingly fast AF outdoors, it struggled indoors where the 24-70 doesn't. So though I haven't used a 70-200/4, I'd assume the same would be true for this focal length. Slower lens = less light for AF = 1 disabled AF sensor = struggling in low light.

[linarms]

A few other comments:

* I wouldn't use a Sigma as a pro wedding photographer unless starting out. Though they're optically excellent, the AF isn't up to Canon's standard (speed, silence).

* Faster glass vs. IS: in my opinion, faster glass is worth more. But at these focal lengths, IS has value too. For weddings you need fast glass to avoid motion blur in poorly lit venues which don't allow flash. And above 70mm (or so) you might be able to get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze motion but be unable to hold the lens steady enough ... which is where IS pays for itself. But priority-wise -- get fast glass first, IS second. Now that I have f/2.8 glass from 24-200mm, I can't see myself going any slower ...

Cheers.

[sblais]

I read this somewhere in the forum, but can't find (my apologies to the original author!)

If you buy the 70-200mm f/4L, you'll want to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/4L IS.
If you buy the 70-200mm f/4L IS, you'll want to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8L.
If you buy the 70-200mm f/2.8L, you'll want to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.
If you buy the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, you're just an L-lens nut!! ;)

[stewart bradshaw]

[quote=linarms;2177086]A few other comments:

* I wouldn't use a Sigma as a pro wedding photographer unless starting out. Though they're optically excellent, the AF isn't up to Canon's standard (speed, silence).

I use the sigma 70-200 2.8 for shooting sports, quite often cycling and tri-athlon with the athletes coming towards me at high speed. the focus on this lens is silent and even though i use it wide open the focus is spot on 90% of the time. This is on a 30d body using both tracking and normal focus modes.

Stewart...

[linarms]

I use the sigma 70-200 2.8 for shooting sports, quite often cycling and tri-athlon with the athletes coming towards me at high speed. the focus on this lens is silent and even though i use it wide open the focus is spot on 90% of the time. This is on a 30d body using both tracking and normal focus modes.

Ok, so maybe the speed is impressive ... but from what I've heard it's still definitely noisier than the Canon 70-200/2.8 ... which makes a bigger difference in wedding ceremonies than it does to sports.

[Wedding Shooter]

Linarms - I have used the Sigma for some time and have had 2 Canon 2.8 IS versions and I would say the Sigma's autofocus is maybe even slightly better than the Canon. It is also silent when focusing.

The main difference being:

1) No IS
2) Colour/contrast is not as nice
3) Bokeh is not as nice

Autofocus and sharpness are almost on par.

That said I would always stick with the Canon because of those three points.

In terms of my comment regarding the f4 IS canon over the f2.8 non IS Canon. When using the 70-200 at the long end the DOF at 2.8 is very narrow and is only one stop faster than f4. In a church with no flash you are going to get good exposure with shutter speeds of less than 1/100th of a second - even at f2.8 (unless it is a very bright church). At 200mm you will struggle to hand hold. Much better to go f4 with IS and shoot at 1/60th of a second with a lighter lens.

Of course - if you want to save for the 2.8 IS you can always sell your f4 IS. It should hold it's value pretty well.

As to the comment (I think from Rob) about the f2.8 Canon IS lens being a little soft at f2.8 - that is just not true. The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS lens is beautiful wide open. It is almost too sharp - bringout every flaw in the face, especially on a 5D.

[linarms]

Fair enough, Wedding Shooter. I'd still never shoot weddings with a Sigma tho :-) Maybe it just comes down to loving my Canon glass too much ...

But good points about the Sigma 70-200 ... I've never heard its AF myself (local camera stores have no stock of anything interesting) but had just heard about it somewhere. Maybe I heard wrong. No offence intended to the good people of Sigma Corporation :-)

[agosling]

I wouldn't bother buying from the US, I bought my 20D from B&H and they were fine but then it got caught in Customs and the agro to get it out, for the few $'s I saved just wasn't worth the effort.

[linarms]

Stuff under $1k is worth it from B&H. Also some gear is very aggressively priced and still worth importing even with duty and GST. (I got my 70-200/2.8 that way.) Admittedly tho it's much more bearable if you can claim GST back ;-)

[MrTED]

I read this somewhere in the forum, but can't find (my apologies to the original author!)

If you buy the 70-200mm f/4L, you'll want to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/4L IS.
If you buy the 70-200mm f/4L IS, you'll want to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8L.
If you buy the 70-200mm f/2.8L, you'll want to upgrade to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.
If you buy the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, you're just an L-lens nut!! ;)

This is exactly what I am trying to avoid. The last thing I want to do is cut corners on cost now to only spend more in the future to upgrade. The above lenses are exactly the ones I am considering, and it is really a balancing act between f/4 and IS.

Thank you everyone for all your help.

[blackshadow]

This is exactly what I am trying to avoid. The last thing I want to do is cut corners on cost now to only spend more in the future to upgrade. The above lenses are exactly the ones I am considering, and it is really a balancing act between f/4 and IS.

Thank you everyone for all your help.

Why not hire the 70-200 2.8IS and charge it out as an expense until you can afford one of your own?

[verty]

MrTed.
im from aust and your prices are very expensive..
if you look at the same lenses on ebay.com.au you will find they are alot cheaper

[MrTED]

MrTed.
im from aust and your prices are very expensive..
if you look at the same lenses on ebay.com.au you will find they are alot cheaper

Yes, I understand this, these prices are just the RRP from the Canon Australia site. I am already looking at eBay and other options.

Why not hire the 70-200 2.8IS and charge it out as an expense until you can afford one of your own?

I do like the idea of hiring, does anyone know where to hire from around Sydney, Central Coast or Newcastle?

[linarms]

I'd try asking this question in the Australian Club (link in sig).