EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM good for church weddings

[Balliolman]

I supposed the 2.8 IS L is the ultimate for wedding photography in lowly lit churches, and I used one recently, but it is a heavy beast to use.

Does the 70-200mm f4L IS USM get the job done for indoor wedding shoots? What have wedding photographers who have used both lenses over time think?

[form]

There are many occasions when even f/2.8 isn't enough for indoors. I would take f/2.8 over f/4 without a second thought, but sometimes primes are necessary.

[tim]

if you shoot ambient light in dark churches you'll appreciate F2.8. Occasionally I drop back to a fast prime as 2.8 isn't enough.

I would rather keep the money in my pocket than have the F4 IS.

[gore]

70-200 f4 IS is very good lens. But you can have trouble if there is not enough light inside.

Check my simple review of this piece of glass:
http://kacnje.blogspot.com/2008/05/canon-70-200-f4-l-is-review.html

[BlackJagger]

You are limiting yourself with an F4 IS. Not that you can't get sharp shots when compared to the 2.8, because with the IS you will be able to shot at a slow shutter speed and shot in lower light then a 2.8. The limiting factor is most weddings have movement. And though slowing your shutter speed will get you more ambient, the problem will be that most people will be blury from even slight movement at the speed that you would need to surpass the advantage of the 2.8. I often find myself going to a fast prime in really dark churchs and reception halls for those natural light shots as others have posted.

Cheers
Josh

[yuriyo923]

I'd rather take 70-200 f/2.8 than f4.. Just me!

[egordon99]

I managed ok with my 70-200mm f/4 IS. Now granted it wasn't a church, nor were the ceilings particulary high, and there was SOME natural light coming in the side....And I had a 580EXII :)

Now the reception was another story :) It did ok, but I believe I had the ISO up high, and my 40D struggled a bit with autofocus. Pictures came out fine because of the flash. My 85mm f/1.8 autofocused much better :)

[TheHoff]

it is a heavy beast to use.

Why not the prime? The 200 / 2.8 is sharper, and cheaper than any of the zooms, and it is 2.8. It is a few grams heavier than the f/4 zooms.

[form]

The prime doesn't offer IS and is much more limited in real world usefulness, especially for low light environments. That's why I picked the 135 f/2 over the 200 f/2.8 - At least I got one extra stop of light, which makes a significant difference when I don't have IS. I figure that if and when I get a 70-200 f/2.8 IS I will sell the 135 f/2 and whatever I couldn't get with the 135 I can get with the 85 f/1.8 with a little more walking. Plus with kenko extension tubes coming I won't have to be worried about not focusing close enough with the 85.

The faster the lens, the better it is for indoors. The 200 f/2L IS would be an incredibly useful lens for large churches.

[Balliolman]

Thought provoking comments, Guys. Freezing movement at wide apertures was problematical I noticed with the 2.8. I had to bump up the ISO which in low light of course means trading off with noise ...

[BlackJagger]

True, as always you have to worry about balancing noise. Though that is why purchasing a 5D as in your Sig would be beneficial. But I'd rather have noise and get the shot then get away with ISO 400 or 800 and have too much movement blur or having a shot that looks good on a 3” screen but terrible on your computer. Noise can usually be handled and I find that the average person won't notice it useless it’s really out of control, they would rather have the subject of the image sharp.

How often does one really blow up an image above 8 x 10? Most of the time my clients want low res internet pics; 4 x 6 or 5 x 7 for albums or friends and family. I have created some beautiful high ISO shots using either natural or fill lighting and you can never tell at the size they get edited to or printed at. I just took one last weekend at a wedding in Long Island that at I had to take at 1600 with a flash, but it was the only way I could get a shot with ambient light and capturing the B&G in their first dance (Damn dark wineries).

Cheers,
Josh

[moeronn]

I'm going to give my f4 IS a try at a wedding next weekend, but I'll just be shooting for practice and the fun of it as a guest. Most likely I'll put the 85 1.8 on for most of the time.

The prime doesn't offer IS and is much more limited in real world usefulness, especially for low light environments. That's why I picked the 135 f/2 over the 200 f/2.8 - At least I got one extra stop of light, which makes a significant difference when I don't have IS. I figure that if and when I get a 70-200 f/2.8 IS I will sell the 135 f/2 and whatever I couldn't get with the 135 I can get with the 85 f/1.8 with a little more walking. Plus with kenko extension tubes coming I won't have to be worried about not focusing close enough with the 85.

The faster the lens, the better it is for indoors. The 200 f/2L IS would be an incredibly useful lens for large churches.FYI - when using the extention tubes on the 85 (and most lenses) you will have VERY limited working focus range. On the 85, you will max out at less than 2 feet. The tubes will be great for macro shots, but not for portraits.

[tim]

True, as always you have to worry about balancing noise. Though that is why purchasing a 5D as in your Sig would be beneficial. But I'd rather have noise and get the shot then get away with ISO 400 or 800 and have too much movement blur or having a shot that looks good on a 3” screen but terrible on your computer.

ISO1600 and 3200 is quite often necessary at wedding receptions here, if you're shooting jump ambient light. Even then you're often at F2.8 and 1/50th or so. That's why I light the reception rooms now, I wasn't liking the photos I was getting. I put three flashes on stands, two near the head table and one somewhere else in the room. If it's a white ceiling i'll bounce the light, if it's not i'll usually just use two flashes pointed directly at the head table and use on-camera flash for anything else in the room.

[digitalh3lix]

i'd go 135 F2 that lens is a lot lighter and faster and a huge chunk of glass.

[maswu]

moeronn...so did you get to try out the 70-200 f4 IS at the wedding? if yes, how did it turned out?

cheers :)

[Papa Carlo]

I supposed the 2.8 IS L is the ultimate for wedding photography in lowly lit churches, and I used one recently, but it is a heavy beast to use.

Does the 70-200mm f4L IS USM get the job done for indoor wedding shoots? What have wedding photographers who have used both lenses over time think?
No,
2.8 is on the very edge of being useful. 4 version needs twice more light.
And bigger apperture is more useful than IS in this case.

[poloman]

You can rent a lens from lensrentals.com.
Great company.

[shaggymatt]

This was shot in a relatively poorly lit church with my 2.8. I don't think that I would've stood a chance with the 4.0. I had this lens on my 20D w/o flash.

Shot mostly at 800 inside, IIRC. At work, so I don't have all the exif data handy.

[tim]

F2.8 @ ISO800 = F4 @ ISO 1600, which is still fine, so I don't think this example helps. I'm sometimes at ISO3200 F2.8 1/30th in a dark church, that's when it becomes an issue. I just wish my 1.4 primes had IS.

[xunxun]

I'm using 50D,the IQ of iso 1600 is fine and iso 3200 acceptable，that's why I choose f4 which is lighter. I don't want to carry the heavy 2.8 glass for a whole day.
In the dark church, I use my 50/1.4 or 85/1.8,where f4 can't handle,f2.8 either.
290g(50/1.4)+425g(85/1.8)+760g(f4 is)=1475g<1570g(f2.8 is)

[Bkolowski111]

I'm using 50D,the IQ of iso 1600 is fine and iso 3200 acceptable，that's why I choose f4 which is lighter. I don't want to carry the heavy 2.8 glass for a whole day.
In the dark church, I use my 50/1.4 or 85/1.8,where f4 can't handle,f2.8 either.
290g(50/1.4)+425g(85/1.8)+760g(f4 is)=1475g<1570g(f2.8 is)

If carrying a heavy lens around all day really bothers you then maybe you shouldn't be in the wedding photography business. Using a potentially inferior lens simply because it's lighter seems odd for someone who is trying to make a living at this. A professional should use the best tools at their disposal, regardless of weight. If the heavier 2.8 lens can help you get better pictures then I would think it is in the best interest of your business to get that lens.