Is the 70–200mm IS f/2.8 essential?

[studio34]

Hi All,

My brother has shot a pile of weddings and is very good at what he does. He does not use a zoom lens at weddings and does the job by shooting everything in the 35–70 mm range, favouring 40–48 mm.

Most here seem to be glued to their 70–200mm lenses. Why do you find it so essential ... I can only imagine it's about being out of their faces during the ceremony etc.

Thanks ... S

[kevindar]

No.
there is a fundamental difference in using shorter vs longer focal length as to perspective. Perspective has to to with the relative magnification of subjects with different distance from the sensor. The traditional focal length for portraits on a 35mm equivalent sensor is 85-135. This allows for some compression of facial features, so the nose does not look to big for example, and if the head is tilted wrt film plane, it wont distort it nearly as much. In addition, the background is magnified more, and brought closer for the same framing at a longer focal length, so there i much better subject isolation (not to be confused with dof). Both of these, at times, are desirable characteristics. Of course standing far away is another plus, but general speaking, most good photographer, learn to chose the focal length they want based on the perspective they desire, and then adjust their distance to their subject accordingly.
This is a fundamental principal of photography.

[johnaengus]

I wold have to say I find it essential for candids just because I can be further away from the subject - they seem to act more natural that if i was closer. It is truly a beautiful lens. I would never want to be without it!

[bps]

The 70-200 is a great lens for getting tight candid shots. Additionally, there are many ceremonies where you cannot get close, or move from your location, so the extra focal length is necessary to get shots.

Having a longer lens is just another tool in the toolbox.

Bryan

[Karl Johnston]

This lens. Is a freak.

Its the lens you take everywhere and can use for anything and anything it shoots it does a damned good job of.

[magnum703]

^^^ YEP

[bnlearle]

I found it essential at one time, but that's because it was all I had (along with my other 2.8 zooms). Since I've gotten the 135L, I haven't used it for a single wedding (about 6 or 7 weddings now?).

But I know other great photographers use and love the heck out of it!

Bobby

[magnum703]

O ya, I don't think I'll shoot a wedding without it! ha ha

[studio34]

The traditional focal length for portraits on a 35mm equivalent sensor is 85-135. This allows for some compression of facial features, so the nose does not look too big for example, and if the head is tilted wrt film plane, it wont distort it nearly as much. In addition, the background is magnified more, and brought closer for the same framing at a longer focal length, so there i much better subject isolation.

Great explanation. Thanks for that. I'll likely grab one anyway ... I've got a 70-200 f/4 and it's a great all-rounder. I can only imagine the 2.8 IS will be amazing (if not heavy). I've got trip to New York coming up ... a stop at B&H is on the cards!

[Mike]

Yes, I keep my 70-200 2.8 L IS on one body all the time and swap lenses round on the other body. And it's not really that heavy so don't let that put you off. I shot a reception in a fairly dark church hall last weekend and this lens was invaluable. Nailed most of the shots (with the 580ex bounced). Awesome!

[bric-a-brac]

I have the older 80-200mm F/2.8 L (yes! the much acclaimed "magic drainpipe"), and at weddings I only ever actually use it during the ceremony. I don't think I'd miss it at all if I were to replace it with a 135mm F/2 L... and well, I'm looking into doing just that.

[Joelene]

I don't have one. & I don't want one. I do love the look they provide. I just don't want something so big and lunky to carry around. If I could get a 2.8 zoom in a DO I would be all over that.

[Bravotwofive]

I would not leave the house without my 70-200 f2.8L USM.

I have 2 lenses on 2 bodies. A 28-70 f/2.8L USM on a 5D, and a 70-200 f/2.8L USM on a 30D. Both of these I use exclusively since I started getting out of the studio more.

I have a 2X converter, and have found that I really need nothing else. Except maybe a 2mm that is not a fisheye. Know where I can find one?

[gravy graffix]

I dont think it would ever come out of the bag... i did use one once and have NO desire to run out and purchase it.

[studio34]

I dont think it would ever come out of the bag... i did use one once and have NO desire to run out and purchase it.

So you get the portrait job done with the 85mm yeah? What was the problem with the 70-200? Too heavy?

[FZ1]

I found the 24-105 f/4 to be a great tool although there are times when I was wishing it was a 2.8. As for the 70-200 it depends on the locale. The wedding I shot recently was very small and especially at the reception, there was no place to stand back a good distance so that lens would have been too long for the most part.

[gravy graffix]

So you get the portrait job done with the 85mm yeah? What was the problem with the 70-200? Too heavy?

i just dont feel like i am missing anything by not having it... it wasnt to heavy, id like to have one some day. 24L is next on my list.

maybe its my style of shooting but i dont find my-self cringing that i dont have anything past 100 mm that i cant crop in on in post...

most of my shooting is 85-1.2 on a 5D and my wide shot i am using the tammy on the 40d
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v727/xb8slim/weddings/

[Peacefield]

I like the 70-200 when doing an outdoor wedding: close ups of the couple, the crowd, etc. IS helps to keep it usable for indoor ceremonies, but it can be a challenge. And it's heavy. I recently picked up the 85 1.2 so that's my lens of choice for longer shots during indoor ceremonies as well as for portraits. One day, I may pick up the 135, too. Then I can imagine selling my 70-200.

[bric-a-brac]

I just sold my 80-200mm F/2.8 L; payment cleared earlier today. 135mm L, here I come!

seriously, zooms just aren't for everybody. if I need a shorter focal length, I'll use a shorter lens on my other camera. but the drainpipe just CAN'T do F/2, and the 135 can.

[Peacefield]

In thinking about it, I love the flexibility that my 24-70 zoom offers. That flexibility just isn't as necessary on the long end. Put a 135 on and you cover any of the long range you would reasonably need for a weddding (IMO).

[studio34]

You guys have me wondering what to do now. Grab an 85 or 135mm for the long range at weddings and keep the load of the "drainpipe" off (lol). Given I have the 17-55mm already on a crop, the 135mm would be the go. I could hang that off my 20D and not crack a shoulder blade while shooting with the 40D. I'm going to check out the weight of the 135 and price at B&H.

Cheers for all the great input.

[gravy graffix]

i carried my 40d with the 135L on me for 5 days last week and shot 4k shots with it...what a bad ass lens...
if you are wanting a lil reach got with it and save yourself 600 bux or so.

[rweav72]

I think it could depend on the venue. If you are stuck in the back in a church with some depth then the long end of the range can be very helpful. Zoom's give you the flexibility to shoot multiple lengths without changing. Primes can give you wider apertures to handle lower light conditions. Personal preference comes into play here. I like to have both in the arsenal. Looking to add something in the 35ish range for a prime to my gear in the near future. Good luck in your decision.

[jonwhite]

I would hate to shoot weddings without a tele zoom, quite often were not allowed to move around at church weddings so there would be a lot of post process cropping going if all I had in my bag was a 135L

[shaggymatt]

In thinking about it, I love the flexibility that my 24-70 zoom offers. That flexibility just isn't as necessary on the long end. Put a 135 on and you cover any of the long range you would reasonably need for a weddding (IMO).

Funny thing is that I've been thinking the same thing lately. I'd be golden I think with a 35 prime over the 24-70. I really don't like using the 24-70 that much during a wedding. Most recently I've been keeping the 70-200 2.8 IS on the 40D (goes on at beginning and comes off at end) and rotating through primes on the full frame, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and lesser but occasionally the 135/2.0.

After an event, I do a mental debrief on what I shot with, and I find that the 17-55, 24-70 aren't seeing much use.

[gravy graffix]

i was printing 20x30 all last week and some i cropped off 25% maybe a lil more and wow! you REALLY had to leave a greasy nose print on it to see any artifacts.

so that tells me that if i stick with a 85 on a 1.6 body and need to crop... heh oh well.

[awilkins]

Okay, I have to know. Does anyone feel like the 70-200 is going to break off the camera? It just feels so heavy. Plus, I felt really unstable shooting with it. Does it get easier? I felt like if it were up to me to get a sharp shot, I'd be in deep water. I couldn't keep my hands still enough to get what I wanted. HELP!! I really WANT to like the lens. I rented it for 1 wedding, didn't use it, and haven't even tried it since. Does it take some practice? Any pointers?

[TampaFoto]

I posted on another thread on here where I used mine for the first time at an outdoor festival. I loved mine and found I got some great shots all over the place. On Stage as well as back stage. Audience pictues came out really nice. I was Invited to the center of the stage before one of the main groups came out to shoot fotos of the audience. I was not expecting that. Having the 70-200 really came in use at that point being put in the lime light myself. Sure would hate to be trying to change out lenses in the middle of the stage lol ! I did run into trouble with the 70-200 in the trailers where the groups were waiting to go on stage but I did bring along my 18-55 kit lens and still picked up the shots there. I am heading to Medellin , Colombia next for a really hugh festival and my main lens will be my 70-200. This time I will have an over the shoulder gear bag with me . Almost lost my pants when the 70-200 was on my belt. As for the weight of the lens I'm a very very big guy so it's no big deal to me but I could see where some others could run into trouble.

[moogyboobles]

Hi!

I'm hoping to rent one soon for a music festival, I do prefer my primes though and am a bit worried about such a big lens on my little old 450D!

[TampaFoto]

Hi!

I'm hoping to rent one soon for a music festival, I do prefer my primes though and am a bit worried about such a big lens on my little old 450D!

Thats what I shoot with a 450d. I never felt the weight of the lense was an issue for the 450d. A mono would have been very nice. Just finished packing for my trip to Medellin , Colombia for several festivals and my monopod was the first acsessory I packed. Pictures to follow. Good one I sure hope.

[elipkin]

I will chime in together with a "big and heavy" crowd. I actually bought 70-200 2.8 IS and returned it after a week of playing. It was heavy and shooting without a monopod got tiring quickly. Plus carrying it around together with a few more lens ... at the end I decided it is better to have an f4 with me than an f2.8 in the closet. And let me tell you that f4 is an amazingly sharp lens.
I do not own a 135L but took a few shots with my friend's one ... it was an eye opening experience