Wedding Photography with a 70-200 2.8 non IS

[rcheung07]

Hi all,

I'm just wondering if anyone here do weddings professional that own or owned the 70-200 2.8 non IS and/or upgrade to IS and felt that the non IS version limited your number of keepers in a wedding? I know the IS can help 3 stops and can't stop action but lets be honest, do you think you couldn't have done it without IS? If so, what ISO? And what percentage were simply not good without IS?

[sapearl]

I just started using my 70-200 f/2.8 IS several months ago for wedding work and there's absolutely NO question about it. None at all. I would be hampered without the IS.

It certainly is possible to get some very nice shots with the non IS model, but you will always run into low light conditions that demand the IS feature unless you are using a tripod, or flash. Not having the IS would really cut down on my number of keepers.

[rcheung07]

I'm starting out in wedding photography and I find myself limited sometimes with an f4 so I stopped using it. I now have a 24-70 2.8, so I'm trying to get my equipment settled not sure if the non IS or IS. IS is a big jump and quite expensive considering I recently got my 5D. I see you have a 5D, even with 5Ds high ISO performance you still feel limited if you didn't have IS?

[cdifoto]

I used my non-IS for maybe 20 wedding shots in the entire year I owned it. It's a rather useless lens for weddings, in my experience. Save your pennies and get the IS later. You can do the bulk of your work with the 24-70 in the meantime - and probably will continue to do so even with the 70-200 IS in the bag.

[Banbert]

From what few weddings we have done so far its still possible to see clearly that IS is very useful. When your at 200m, F2.8 and ISO 1600 and still getting 1/30 its nice to know the lens is helping you to get the shot sharp and shake free.

[sapearl]

Well, maybe not so much "limited" as more likely to take advantage of more opportunities ;) .

My first dSLR was the 5D with 24-105L f/4 which gets used 98% with flash. That 2.8 70-200 with IS allows me to cross that line into areas that normally would have been limiting.

You can certainly get by without it - many folks do with wonderful results. I just got hooked on the IS though after that first lens. And for my type of shooting style, I decided to get that feature with the 70-200. Most of my indoor church shots tend to be at ISO 800.

I'm starting out in wedding photography and I find myself limited sometimes with an f4 so I stopped using it. I now have a 24-70 2.8, so I'm trying to get my equipment settled not sure if the non IS or IS. IS is a big jump and quite expensive considering I recently got my 5D. I see you have a 5D, even with 5Ds high ISO performance you still feel limited if you didn't have IS?

[CyberPet]

I've shot with my old 80-200/2.8L two seasons and it did serve me well. But as I live far up north and have to shoot in very old churches (500-600 yrs old) I opted to upgrade to the 70-200/2.8L IS. It is awesome!

[rcheung07]

So I get save and get the best or don't get it at all. Why does it always seem to be that way. sigh... Thanks for all your input so far guys/gals. This forum rocks.

[Tish]

I did the "can't afford the 2.8 IS" routine myself. Don't do it. :) If you can afford the non IS, use that money as the down payment on the IS version. B&H has a 6 months same as cash deal through the end of June.

Here's the math:

Non IS: $1140
IS: $1599 (instant rebate price)

IS version after "down payment": $459
Divide that by 6 payments: $76.50 a month!

Most of us can afford that. :) And that is exactly how I'm doing mine.

I realized after using the IS verson ONCE that I'd been an idiot for not listening to everyone in the first place. There simply is NO comparison to be made for that lens. I was able to get shake free shots that I couldn't even begin to touch with the 85 1.8 I was trying to make do with.

If you're just a hobbyist & not shooting weddings, then other lenses will do. If you're in this to make money, this is an investment you can't afford to miss.

[sumozebra]

I'd say IS would definatly help. I just did a wedding and i only have a 70-200 F4L non IS... if i had IS, i woulda had so many more keepers =( alot of my photos were good, with the exception of the slight shaking due to longer shutter time

[rcheung07]

Thanks to everyone for making me spend more money. I have just purchased the 2.8 IS. Happy index finger, sad wallet.

[Tish]

Sorry. :oops:

Not really. :lol:

You will not regret it, I promise. The first time you see the dramatic increase in the number of keepers, you'll thank us. Welcome to the club!

[nchphoto]

I am in the same boat. got a non IS right now, probably going to sell it after this weekends wedding and get the IS version. I will rent an IS for sat.

[dpurslow]

Its a great upgrade, I have the is and use it for weddings - I use it for the wedding itself and candids at the reception and always SELL a hi % of the images it takes. let us know your comments after using it !

[rcheung07]

I'll keep everyone posted on my experiences with it. 3.5lbs WOW, I don't mind weight though. Anyone use it for traveling as well? especially those wedding photog on the off season.

[dpurslow]

This lens is ALWAYS with me, its one of my favorite lenses. I also LOVE the 100-400 is - another great lens worth thinking about.

[sapearl]

The weight is a BIT substantial so I bought a nice foam Tamrac strap for the 5D that always has that lens. It does a pretty good job of softening and distributing the weight over the course of a wedding day.

I will go on specific "street shoots" or other projects with the 70-200, but most often the 24-105L f/4 is my walkabout for urban or country landscapes. It's far more portable and I make good use of the wide angle end of that lens.

I'll keep everyone posted on my experiences with it. 3.5lbs WOW, I don't mind weight though. Anyone use it for traveling as well? especially those wedding photog on the off season.

[rcheung07]

Got my 70-200 2.8 IS yesterday and WOW, this thing is a tank. A bit on the heavy side and I'm pretty skinny but it shouldn't bother me as long as it's not on the neck, shoulder is ok. I remember first experiencing IS with a 17-85, I miss it so much, IS with 2.8 is amazing. You can totally sit back and pick candids out with this lens. Going to test it out this weekend.

[Scott-LYP]

The 70-200 2.8 IS is fantastic! I would never shoot a wedding without it. That said you do need to take in account how much it weighs! After using it for all day for the wedding and reception, you really feel it the next day.