best wedding tele lens

[clengster_77]

need your opinions regarding canon 70 - 200 4L or sigma 70 - 200 2.8. i shoot mostly wedding:

1) w/c lens has a better picture color
2) w/c lens works best with my 350d
3) do i really need the 2.8 for low light or i even won't see the difference compared to 4?
4) let's say i'm shooting fast paced subjects, would it be a big difference if you're shooting with a 2.8?
5) do i need to use a monopod / tripod for these lenses
6) how noisy would my image be if i'm shooting ISO 1600 with a 350d and the sigma 70 - 200 2.8

thanks
cleng

[tim]

2) No difference.
3) I shoot the 2.8 IS at ISO3200 at times.
4) Yes.
5) Yes (or get the IS lens).
6) Should be fine, depends on the print size. 6x4 perfect, 8x10 pretty good. Make 'em black and white no problems.

For weddings you can't go cheap, get the Canon 2.8 IS. It costs more than a 20D but it's worth every cent - it's a fantastic lens in every way. It's heavy so you need to either work out or use a monopod, and I find 'pods annoying

[hemuni]

Originally Posted by tim

2) No difference.
3) I shoot the 2.8 IS at ISO3200 at times.
4) Yes.
5) Yes (or get the IS lens).
6) Should be fine, depends on the print size. 6x4 perfect, 8x10 pretty good. Make 'em black and white no problems.

For weddings you can't go cheap, get the Canon 2.8 IS. It costs more than a 20D but it's worth every cent - it's a fantastic lens in every way. It's heavy so you need to either work out or use a monopod, and I find 'pods annoying

Seems something is out of sequence there Tim?

[clengster_77]

Originally Posted by tim

2) No difference.
3) I shoot the 2.8 IS at ISO3200 at times.
4) Yes.
5) Yes (or get the IS lens).
6) Should be fine, depends on the print size. 6x4 perfect, 8x10 pretty good. Make 'em black and white no problems.

For weddings you can't go cheap, get the Canon 2.8 IS. It costs more than a 20D but it's worth every cent - it's a fantastic lens in every way. It's heavy so you need to either work out or use a monopod, and I find 'pods annoying

thanks tim! i really would love the IS but as of now budget won't allow me. so between the 4L and sigma 2.8 you think it'll be better to go with the sigma? what bothers me is the picture quality of the sigma lens particularly in the 2.8 opening. i've read lot's of reviews about being soft at 2.8. i need to have a tele 2 days from now for a backup photographer gig (...and it really adds pressure when it comes to deciding what lens to get ) all your inputs will be highly appreciated

thanks in advance
clen

[tim]

Get the Sigma. The image quality is meant to be very close to the Canon and the extra stop is very handy. Get a monopod. Even better get a gym membership, put the IS on your visa, and then you won't have an excuse - you have the best gear and it's all up to you.

[tim]

http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html

[clengster_77]

Originally Posted by tim

Get the Sigma. The image quality is meant to be very close to the Canon and the extra stop is very handy. Get a monopod. Even better get a gym membership, put the IS on your visa, and then you won't have an excuse - you have the best gear and it's all up to you.

oh well! i hope i could just run onto a bag of $$$ on my way home!!! LOL

thanks a lot
cleng

[tim]

Originally Posted by hemuni

Seems something is out of sequence there Tim?

I shot a wedding today and my head's not quite recovered yet, the 6 bourbon i've had while i'm doing my editing probably didn't help

[clengster_77]

Originally Posted by tim

http://www.slo-foto.net/reviews-56.html

as of this link yo gave me, i think the 4L out performed all the lenses even his big brother

thanks
cleng

[tim]

A stop can be significant. With IS you get 2-3 stops advantage hand held, if you subject is reasonable still.

The best wedding tele is the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS. Anything else is the best value wedding tele, even then the IS lens could win the value title just because its performance is great even if it is expensive.

[clengster_77]

Originally Posted by tim

A stop can be significant. With IS you get 2-3 stops advantage hand held, if you subject is reasonable still.

The best wedding tele is the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS. Anything else is the best value wedding tele, even then the IS lens could win the value title just because its performance is great even if it is expensive.

thanks a lot tim!

more power
cleng

[hemuni]

Originally Posted by tim

I shot a wedding today and my head's not quite recovered yet, the 6 bourbon i've had while i'm doing my editing probably didn't help

I've seen you mention the bourbon before, is this a pp requirement?

[cmM]

you need every stop you can get in my opinion.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Reminds me of a test I did a bit back. Was in a dimly lit restaurant, and took two 20D's. One with a 24-70L, and the other with a 28-135 IS. Now...I had settings on both exactly the same, only both cameras were in AV mode, with the 24-70L at 2.8 and the 28-135 IS at 4. Composed with both from the same spot, to the same spot. The one with the L came up with a shutter speed of 1/200th. The other came up with 1/40 or 1/50....don't quite recall. However, that shows you what one stop can do. Big difference if you ask me, and makes it all worthwhile.

[tim]

One stop down from 1/200th should be 1/100th I would've thought. Wonder why it came out at 1/50th, two stops down.