70-200 question about weddings

[smile93]

We mostly do portraits and wildlife, but we would like to move more into weddings. Upcoming will be our third wedding. I would like to get better equipment so that we can start advertising the pictures and just do a better job for our family. I have been investigating the Sigma's and Canon 70-200 2.8 lens. Of course, I agree that the Canon is better, but it is also much more expensive. I was thinking of possibly buying the Sigma first for the next few weddings, and then using it as a backup later when I get the Canon.

My question is this. How suitable is the Sigma for taking good pictures of a wedding?

Thanks.
Alan (and Gail)

Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 28-135mm, Canon 300mm 1.4, Canon 100-400mm, Kenko 1.4x, 2 Canon 430 flashes, 1 Canon 580 flash

[smile93]

It might help to say that we have a 40D and 50D for cameras.

[Red Tie Photography]

I love it, its great for candids. I dont know anything about the Sigma, but i had the tamron 70-200mm f2.8 before I exchanged it for a canon. It was a nice lens, but not the canon.

[form]

Generally the 70-200 is not a very useful lens for weddings without IS because its main purposes during weddings typically require it to be used at shutter speeds considerably lower than its focal length (making camera shake blur an issue). This applies to all versions and manufacturers of 70-200 lenses. Some may disagree and that's fine, but the photos you get with a non-IS 70-200 can be achieved with any other lens (85mm, 135mm, 200mm) at a lower cost, and with much less weight (and often faster apertures too).

[smile93]

What if you prefer using a monopod?

[Gatorboy]

Generally the 70-200 is not a very useful lens for weddings without IS because its main purposes during weddings typically require it to be used at shutter speeds considerably lower than its focal length (making camera shake blur an issue).

But it's a great lens for the reception when using off-camera lighting!

[form]

But it's a great lens for the reception when using off-camera lighting!

Yes, but again you can use a prime without IS to accomplish exactly the same thing and often at lower ISOs because of wider apertures.

[tim]

What if you prefer using a monopod?

I find monopods a waste of space at weddings. Tripod or IS lenses.

[AlexMoPhotography]

I find that the Canon 70-200 2.8IS does horrible when you take an underexposed shot, compared to my Canon 50 1.4. So, be sure to get your exposure right. I'm thinking of selling mine and investing in a 135L + something else.

[form]

I don't think the lens has anything to do with exposure processing...

[booboo]

I agree on FORM on this one the 70-200 2.8 non-IS is a waste if you cannot have enough shutter speed to compensate on low light situations!!! for instance in a church wedding with no flash allowed and you have to shoot at f2.8 and 3200 ISO to get the shot and still not enough shutter speed to compensate for camera shake!!!

I have used the Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS with flash and it is a very nice candid shot lens but without the flash that day on a Debut party I will be totally putting down the 70-200 or might as well call it a day!!!

[alt4852]

I find that the Canon 70-200 2.8IS does horrible when you take an underexposed shot, compared to my Canon 50 1.4. So, be sure to get your exposure right. I'm thinking of selling mine and investing in a 135L + something else.

if you mean recovering an underexposed shot, that's honestly a function of your camera sensor, not the lens.

if you mean a dark scene that may produce underexposed shots due to insufficient light, then of course a f/1.4 lens would be better suited than a f/2.8 one. you're quadrupling the light.

[Peacefield]

Ask yourself whether you really need 200 which on a crop body will become 320. For weddings, I never use my 70-200 2.8 IS on my 50D and find myself using it on my 5D2 less and less.

Just picked up Canon's new 100 L 2.8 macro and I don't think I'll bring the 70-200 anymore. Put the 100 on a crop and 160 is about as long as I need to get (excepting those very few times I have to shoot from the back of the church in which case I'm using a tripod anyway). For nearly half the price, you keep IS, 2.8, 160mm on a crop, and macro to boot. What's not to like?

[AlexMoPhotography]

if you mean recovering an underexposed shot, that's honestly a function of your camera sensor, not the lens.

if you mean a dark scene that may produce underexposed shots due to insufficient light, then of course a f/1.4 lens would be better suited than a f/2.8 one. you're quadrupling the light.
Hmm.. interesting. I meant to say recovering an underexposed shot. I guess I'll go experiment with it some more...

[form]

I can't justify a 100mm lens slower than f/1.4 at this point; it would not get used. If I need telephoto, a 100mm lens does not cut it for focal length and its aperture is no faster than the 70-200 - therefore the 70-200 would be used before the 100mm for any such similar purpose. If I genuinely need telephoto, most likely the lens will end up on the 40D instead of the 5D because I WILL need that reach for the church that doesn't allow photographers up close, and that may mean getting pretty long shots.

Even the 135L doesn't get used anymore, for the reason that 1 stop is not enough difference from f/2.8. The 135L is a "I never use it but I keep it because it's such a good lens" item now; I really have no use for it but I can't bring myself to sell it.

I'm finding that middle-road lenses that don't quite fit in a specific category completely (like 35L is not quite as wide as 24L, 135L is not as long as 200mm) seem to be a little dissatisfying to use.

[tim]

I doubt anyone will make a 100mm F1.4 lens, it'd be huge, heavy, and expensive because it'd be sure a rarely purchased item I bet. The depth of field would make it useless in many situations too. When light's that low adding light is usually a better solution - if people want to get married dark places with lighting restrictions then it's their tough luck if they don't get photos.

[form]

A 100mm f/1.4 would probably be only slightly different in size and shape from the 85 f/1.2. However my point is that I think any lens that covers a piece of the 100-200 range without also having about 2 or more stops faster aperture and IS is going to have very limited usefulness if the person also owns a 70-200 f/2.8. The one exception is the 200 f/2L IS, which basically one-ups the 70-200 in aperture but does so at the longest point and also has improved IS, therefore maintaining its usefulness alongside (or even instead of) a 70-200. If the 135L had IS, well then it would probably see some use on occasion too, but not as much because it doesn't cover the extreme long end of a mainstream lens.

[PMCphotography]

I find monopods a waste of space at weddings. Tripod or IS lenses.

I use a 70-200 f/2.8 and a monopod at basically every ceremony i do. I like using a telephoto lens so I don't ave to be so close to the bride and groom during the ceremony, and the monopod saves my shoulder (since I have a bad right shoulder.)

A tripod? way too bulky and too much a hassle carrying it around and setting it up.

[tim]

A 100mm f/1.4 would probably be only slightly different in size and shape from the 85 f/1.2. However my point is that I think any lens that covers a piece of the 100-200 range without also having about 2 or more stops faster aperture and IS is going to have very limited usefulness if the person also owns a 70-200 f/2.8. The one exception is the 200 f/2L IS, which basically one-ups the 70-200 in aperture but does so at the longest point and also has improved IS, therefore maintaining its usefulness alongside (or even instead of) a 70-200. If the 135L had IS, well then it would probably see some use on occasion too, but not as much because it doesn't cover the extreme long end of a mainstream lens.

You have a good point. I rarely use my 100 f2.8 macro, only for macro shots really, and i'd rather have the 60 macro but it's not worth selling.

I use a 70-200 f/2.8 and a monopod at basically every ceremony i do. I like using a telephoto lens so I don't ave to be so close to the bride and groom during the ceremony, and the monopod saves my shoulder (since I have a bad right shoulder.)

A tripod? way too bulky and too much a hassle carrying it around and setting it up.

You don't have the 70-200 F2.8 IS? Then yeah a monopod could be handy.

[PMCphotography]

You don't have the 70-200 F2.8 IS? Then yeah a monopod could be handy.

Nope, just the 2.8. Having IS wasn't worth the extra $500 to me.

[form]

Nope, just the 2.8. Having IS wasn't worth the extra $500 to me.

It was the only thing that made the lens useful to me. Otherwise I'd be better off with the 135L.

[PMCphotography]

Everyone has different priorities when they decide on a lens. The lenses I have that have IS I never really use.

[smile93]

I have noticed that everyone has different priorities even in weddings while reading this thread. Thanks for everyone's comments. I appreciate your input.