Image Stabilization for weddings?

[imhotep]

Shooting weddings in Florida year-round means that I'm oustide for almost every ceremony/reception. Most of my lens choices have reflected this trend, but coming up next fiscal year I've got a long stretch of exclusivley indoor weddings to shoot. I need to invest in a long fast lens. My choices are:

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM - $1699
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM - $1140

If some of you are currently shooting weddings or other indoor events with either of these lenses I'd love to get your input on whether IS is worth the extra $560. Part of me feels like it is and that if my clients were equally informed about optics, they'd want me to have IS at their indoor ceremony. Please tell me differently if your experiences with or without IS disagree with my gut feeling.

I'm also interested in overall perceptions of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM.

Thanks!

[cosworth]

I realized that I shot most of my indoor stuff at f/4 for usable DOF. The F4 IS that I used to own was a gem.

That being said, I have the 2.8 IS now and it is silly not not have the IS as a wedding shooter.

The IS can make or break a critical shot. You might need f/4 or say 6.3 and an iso of 1600 or 3200 and there is no flash allowed....

Keep your arsenal well stocked.

[DigiRebelXTI]

I recently just got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and it is an incredible lens...

it was the first IS lens i had used and the first time i used it was at a shoot in a dark bar room of a band...

I can honestly say that if i did not have IS i would not have as many good photos as i did.

I would suggest spending the extra cash and getting it, you will not be disappointed...

i also plan on doing weddings myself in the near future and this lens would certainly come in handy!

Good Luck!

[canoflan]

Another vote for 70-200 2.8L IS.

Pat

[imhotep]

The IS can make or break a critical shot. You might need f/4 or say 6.3 and an iso of 1600 or 3200 and there is no flash allowed....


Thanks Jason. Did the use of IS allow you to tap lower shutterspeeds like 1/30th or lower without introducing camera shake? The reason I ask - at one of the only indoor receptions I've ever had to shoot, I struggled with 1/60th, f/2.8, and ISO 1600. These settings have sort of been my benchmark. Going forward with this next lens purchase, I figured I would need to stay as close to f/2.8 as possible, but I'm not opposed to going down to f/4 if the IS can pick up some slack and allow me to use a slower shutterspeed.

[cosworth]

I never drop below 1/60th. If I need more light I crank up the flash.

A grainy image is far better than a blurry one.

[RobKirkwood]

Get the IS - you'll end up getting it anyway, so it's better to do it in one transaction rather than losing money reselling a non-IS.

In order of buying (over 18 months or so) we've owned...
70-200 f4
70-200 f2.8 IS
70-200 f4 IS

...and we've kept both IS versions.

Best way to think about the IS is that it does away with the need for a tripod.

Rob

[imhotep]

Thanks to all for your feedback. I'm not sure I worded my reply to Jason very well so I'll try again. I'd be interested in feedback from all on these specifics.

While shooting a rare indoor reception, I struggled to keep exposures and focus consistent with the following settings - 1/60th, f/2.8, ISO 1600. The vast majority of my final prints were just fine and the client was very pleased. However I personally wasn't comfortable with the feeling that my equipment was "maxed out" during that shoot. DOF wasn't perfect so I appreciate Jason's recommendation to consider going down to f/4. If I do this though, I would need to compensate for what was already a fairly slow shutter speed in the above setting. Granted it was very dark, but this is the kind of environment I will be working in for my next several jobs.

I hope it's a little clearer than mud. Thanks for your help.

[cosworth]

Shoot in M of course - but I'm a flash abuser. Bounce that flash off the ceiling until someone tells you not to. Just a couple lumens can fight of the noise of a darker shot.

If you see the meter tanking, throw some light around. I bounce as I said above but I use the little bounce card as well for catchlights. Asian weddings are key for this too. You gotta keep the eyes "alive". Noise software and camera RAW can save your exposure, but here is no "unblur" option.

[picturecrazy]

I shoot at 1/30 @ 200mm often. It's that good. Go for IS. If you don't, you'll use the non-IS, realize you really need IS, sell the non-IS at a loss and buy the IS version. Waste of money!!! ;)

[EOS_JD]

I shoot at 1/30 @ 200mm often. It's that good. Go for IS. If you don't, you'll use the non-IS, realize you really need IS, sell the non-IS at a loss and buy the IS version. Waste of money!!! ;)

I agree with this one. I've shot in a few dark places at 200mm and 1/30th ISO1600. When flash is not a option, IS is an incredidible tool that really gives many more options possible.

It's a no brainer really.

[danpass]

I just recently shot a wedding with an 70-200 f2.8 Non-IS.

M mode, 1/200, f/2.8, ISO 800
430EX flash at -2/3 exposure

All pics came out fine.


Having said that it would have been nice to have the IS and allows for much more flexibility!!



.

[radnmad]

IS IS IS... saving up for mine now.. :)

[Jon Rouston]

I would go for the IS version if you can.

I have a non IS version and a monopod. Works, but doesn't give quite the same degree of freedom.

[imhotep]

Thanks everyone for your feedback. My wallet is going to hurt.....

[SuzyView]

It should. :) I bought the 70-200 f4 first, knowing I'd get the 2.8 IS in about a year. That's what happened. I shoot with the 70-200 2.8 IS at weddings with my 20D or 5D. Dave this weekend shot 20D with 70-200 and 5D with 24-70, just like I do. IS can only help, especially indoors.

[Jimbo24]

The 70-200L f/4 IS is a great lens...

[imhotep]

I'm sold on investing in IS, I just need to determine (in an informed fashion) whether to go with f/2.8 or f/4.

Jason, you mentioned using the f/4 version of this lens in order to obtain "workable DOF". Wouldn't your DOF from say, the back of a room at a wedding ceremony be deep enough for faces and clothing even at f/2.8?

[Rick Rosen]

Go for the IS version. I use that lens all the time and it is awesome.

Rick

[rhys]

I realized that I shot most of my indoor stuff at f/4 for usable DOF. The F4 IS that I used to own was a gem.

That being said, I have the 2.8 IS now and it is silly not not have the IS as a wedding shooter.

The IS can make or break a critical shot. You might need f/4 or say 6.3 and an iso of 1600 or 3200 and there is no flash allowed....

Keep your arsenal well stocked.

I can quite honestly say I agree completely. I have the 17-85 IS and IS rocks. I chose the 17-85 as the DOF was greater than the 17-55 wide open. I didn't see any justification for such narrow DOF at a wedding when everything has to be pin-sharp.

[EOS_JD]

I can quite honestly say I agree completely. I have the 17-85 IS and IS rocks. I chose the 17-85 as the DOF was greater than the 17-55 wide open. I didn't see any justification for such narrow DOF at a wedding when everything has to be pin-sharp.

Rhys, I don't really see your reasoning here. A slow lens like te 17-85 will be fine for static subjects in low light but as soon as the B&G start moving how do you capture them without flash?

The 17-55 f2.8 IS is a far more useful lens. I'm considering swapping my 24-105 f4L IS for one of these because even f4 is too slow.

Also the 17-85 is a very different lens from the 70-200 that Cosworth was talking about. With a wide angle lens (like 17mm on a 20D), even f2.8 will give a reasonable dof (probably around 16' from a subject distance of 10'). Obviously as you go to 55mm the dof drops to about 1' though.

There's no way I could use f5.6 though in a dark room without flash and most ministers or registrars will not allow flash so a fast lens is essential for me.

[rhys]

I have my 420EX and 17-85.

I dislike the narrow DOF one gets from f2.8. I do have a 28-75 f2.8 though but use my 17-85 most.

[EOS_JD]

I have my 420EX and 17-85.

I dislike the narrow DOF one gets from f2.8. I do have a 28-75 f2.8 though but use my 17-85 most.

Ryhs I had a look at the wedding images on your website (picassa site) and it shows in your images. Your use of flash is not doing your images any favours with those harsh shadows thrown behind the subject. They also look pretty dark (underexposed).

The 28-75 is a cracking lens and to be honest you get plenty depth of field unless you are very close - which normally is not the case.

Fast lenses are a must at weddings. IS lenses are a bonus.

[rhys]

Unfortunately there was no real ambient light unless I wanted exposures of 2 seconds at f4.

I will pinch my wife's panty-hose as a diffuser though for my next wedding.

[EOS_JD]

Unfortunately there was no real ambient light unless I wanted exposures of 2 seconds at f4.

I will pinch my wife's panty-hose as a diffuser though for my next wedding.


There's my point Rhys - f4 (never mind a variable aperture lens going to f5.6) is just way too slow for weddings! Also if you can bounce your flash do that. With larger apertures your flash will provide more distance too.

I use a 50mm f1.4 and a 580EX on one camera and a 70-200 f2.8L IS and 580 EX on another when in low lit receptions.

What was your ISO rating? Better ISO1600 and a properly exposed image than ISO400 and under exposed.

[rhys]

It was hard to know how well the flash was performing. I see the 420EX simply was not powerful enough for a candle-lit wedding.

[Jac]

Just go for the IS ver ..

[tim]

I don't think F2.8 is necessary, I think it's helpful. You can't always shoot at F2.8 as there's not enough DOF. Rhys, I think you need some lighting education, how do you think your wifes panty-hose will help? It'll make the light dimmer, sure, but the idea of a diffuser is it increases the effective surface area of the light source. Bounce a flash off the ceiling and the light source is a few meters square, or more. Use an umbrella and it's a meter square. Use a flash with anything on it, direct or not, it's still about 20 cm square. Off camera flash, ideally diffused, is my favorite type of lighting, though it often requires an assistant so you have an extra pair of hands. I'd have your wife wear the panty-hose and come along as your lighting assistant.

[tim]

It was hard to know how well the flash was performing. I see the 420EX simply was not powerful enough for a candle-lit wedding.

580EX is one stop more power. It's not what you've got, it's what you know and how you use your equipment.

[ofdphoto]

I don't have the IS version, and I'm not itching to get it either.

My rationale?

* Good technique can buy you a couple of stops of stability.
* Good photographers did great work before IS was around.
* IS chews through batteries, makes the lens heavier, and has been known to fail (admittedly I haven't heard any such stories about the 70-200's IS, but I've heard about IS failures on other Canon lenses).
* I love my 70-200 2.8 non-IS.

Would I buy the IS version if I was starting again and had the cash sitting there? Probably. But for $1k it's worth thinking twice if you're not loaded and don't want to go into debt.

[cwphoto]

II didn't see any justification for such narrow DOF at a wedding when everything has to be pin-sharp.

Now there's a concept! :rolleyes:

Who said everything has to be pin-sharp? That's a beginner's attitude Rhys.

[cwphoto]

What was your ISO rating? Better ISO1600 and a properly exposed image than ISO400 and under exposed.

It was 100 - he doesn't like noise... :rolleyes:

[ofdphoto]

Now there's a concept! :rolleyes:

Who said everything has to be pin-sharp? That's a beginner's attitude Rhys.

Rhys doesn't seem to understand that lenses don't need to be used wide-open, or that they are usually softer wide open than if they're stopped down. The 17-85 is a particularly soft lens, wide open or not. It will never be "pin-sharp"!! The 28-75/2.8, shot at f/5.6? Now that should be sharp. But it doesn't have IS. Which is what we're meant to be talking about ... :oops:

[highway0691]

I originally had the 70-200 f4 non-IS. Even shooting outdoors in reasonably good light I managed to blur many photos. Now with the 2.8 Is I hardly ever blur photos. The Is is a very effective tool, there's no looking back once you have it.
Cheers
damian

[johnstoy]

Here is an example of a very low light photo from over 60 feet away with the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS... It's at 1/25th of a second, :D hand held, ISO 3200, @200mm... and considerably cropped to isolate the drummer... EXIF is intact...

Note the motion blur of the drum sticks...

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l60/stoy17/Clapton%20Retrospective/IMG_20070623_9999_383.jpg

Since the drummer sits furthest away from stage front, this one opportune pic., saved the day and completed the set...

To get a better idea of the lighting, see all of the pics from this set... LINK:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=342211

[johnstoy]

Here is the actual photo from 70 feet away, before the trim...
http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l60/stoy17/Clapton%20Retrospective/IMG_20070623_9999_383-1.jpg

[tim]

It was 100 - he doesn't like noise... :rolleyes:

I used ISO100 for 5 shots out of 1500 at my last wedding, that was when I was using off camera flash. I took more shots at ISO3200 than 100. Mostly I use 400 and 800 and happily blow them up to 14x10" album pages.

[cwphoto]

I used ISO100 for 5 shots out of 1500 at my last wedding, that was when I was using off camera flash. I took more shots at ISO3200 than 100. Mostly I use 400 and 800 and happily blow them up to 14x10" album pages.

I get it Tim, alas I don't think Rhys ever will.

[imhotep]

First let me again thank everyone for their participation in this discussion. Your perspectives are greatly appreciated.

Several of you have mentioned the 28-75 f/2.8. This is in fact my main lens when shooting weddings and I seem to have a sharp copy as well. While this lens has been a great work-horse for me, my experience at that indoor reception is what has prompted me to consider either a faster lens or one with IS. Just to reiterate, I'm more or less sold on investing in IS, I just need to feel confident in my choice of max aperture. For financial reasons I would prefer to spend $700 less and go with the f/4 version of teh 70-200 IS, but I'm not afraid to spring for the f/2.8 version. Regardless of which choice is made, I need to feel informed in making it.

JD, regarding your previous point:
With a wide angle lens (like 17mm on a 20D), even f2.8 will give a reasonable dof (probably around 16' from a subject distance of 10'). Obviously as you go to 55mm the dof drops to about 1' though.
In your estimation, what would the DOF be from the back of a ceremony at 200m and f/2.8? I'm sure there's an easy online tool to calculate this with, just curious as to your thoughts. I do already have a wide lens and the one I'm trying to learn more about is the 70-200mm.

JD, you also mentioned the 50mm f/1.4. This lens is already on my list to be purchased along with my new 70-200, so it was encouraging to read your statement about it:
I use a 50mm f1.4 and a 580EX on one camera and a 70-200 f2.8L IS and 580 EX on another when in low lit receptions.
This is exactly the pairing that I came up with after considering my problems even using f/2.8 at ISO 1600 :)

[imhotep]

John, thanks for that great example of what IS can do. I also will shoot concerts occassionally.

[cosworth]

I originally had the 70-200 f4 non-IS. Even shooting outdoors in reasonably good light I managed to blur many photos. Now with the 2.8 Is I hardly ever blur photos. The Is is a very effective tool, there's no looking back once you have it.
Cheers
damian


Your ISO is adjustable.

[ofdphoto]

Hi Curt,

I didn't realise that maximum aperture was such a factor in your decision.

Short answer: get f/2.8.

Long answer: Even if you don't like the DOF at f/2.8 (I do, personally - a significant number of my photos are taken at f/2.8), you will notice a tangible AF speed & accuracy difference if you go slower than f/2.8. This is because f/2.8 or faster lenses get an extra AF sensor on 30D's and above. There's also the fact that some situations will call for shooting at f/2.8, ISO3200, 1/60 ;-)

I hope that helps.

[imhotep]

I didn't realise that maximum aperture was such a factor in your decision.



No problem, and I hope I haven't made this factor to be larger than necessary. I just shudder to think what I would do in that same lighting environment with f/4 being my widest option :confused:

[EOS_JD]

JD, regarding your previous point:

In your estimation, what would the DOF be from the back of a ceremony at 200m and f/2.8? I'm sure there's an easy online tool to calculate this with, just curious as to your thoughts. I do already have a wide lens and the one I'm trying to learn more about is the 70-200mm.

JD, you also mentioned the 50mm f/1.4. This lens is already on my list to be purchased along with my new 70-200, so it was encouraging to read your statement about it:

This is exactly the pairing that I came up with after considering my problems even using f/2.8 at ISO 1600 :)

Lets estimate you are in a smallish room with the ceremony and B&G in front of you - say a minimum of 30' away.

This shot at 17mm on a 1d MkII gives an idea of the small room I was in last week.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1238/1108791219_c13fa9f84c.jpg?v=0


With the 70-200 @2.8 the depth of field at 70mm is over 6'..

At 200mm though the dof is cut to 0.72' which is pretty narrow. To be fair though it'll still be fine for a profile shot and at longer distances the dof is increased so at the back of a church you'll probably be 45' away or more and then you have 1.5'-2' depth of field. This is fine for those close ups.

[MrTED]

From all reports, if you don't get the IS straight away, you eventually will. I just bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and it is a dream to use. I thought it was better to spend a little more now, than spend more later changing over to it.

Nathan

[Borderfox]

IS for sure.

[Jonny Allen]

Curt,
it hurt my wallet last week and the wife doesn't no yet :).
Even though you will have the IS i would stick to above 1/60th as you still have to think of motion blur. Its a great lens, i had to pay £950.00 off ebay in the shops they are £1,350.00 but thats UK robbery for you.

jonny

[EOS_JD]

Curt,
it hurt my wallet last week and the wife doesn't no yet :).
Even though you will have the IS i would stick to above 1/60th as you still have to think of motion blur. Its a great lens, i had to pay £950.00 off ebay in the shops they are £1,350.00 but thats UK robbery for you.

jonny

Remember even at 1/60th you may still get camera blur too depending on how steady you are at holding. To be fair though I can easily get lower than that down to around 1/20th or so before I start to some motion blur in some images.

[rgs]

Do you really need 200mm at a wedding? I shoot with a Pentax 67 and a 105mm (a normal prime lens for the 6x7 format), and a Canon 35mm with a 28-135mm IS (about $500). I do not change lenses during weddings but I do use tripods for some group portraits and during the ceremony. The 135mm is long enough for my needs and if I was using a cropped frame digital it would be offer even more reach and the optical quality is quite good.

I think I am consistently successful with the IS up to about 1/30th. After that I might risk another stop or two if well braced and could take extra frames for backups. Most likely I would use the tripod unless it really got in my way.

My tripod is a Manfrotto 3021 with a ball head and a quick release. It is not difficult to use and operates quickly.

RGS
www.myrsphoto.com

[tim]

Do you really need 200mm at a wedding?

It's handy. If I didn't have it i'd manage fine, but other times it's very handy. I had the 28-300 L for a while, that was also really, really handy (but heavy and a bit slow).

[EOS_JD]

Do you really need 200mm at a wedding?

I agree with Tim.... very handy and the IS makes it even more so.

[Bobster]

Your ISO is adjustable.

:lol: cracks me up!