70-200 2.8 is II or 200 2.8 II prime with canon 1ds mk ii or elinchrom BX 500 Ri

I am trying to decide whether to purchase the new canon 70-200 2.8 is II or the 200 2.8 II prime and with the rest of the money maybe to get a used canon 1Ds mk II as a 2nd body or some elinchrom BX 500 Ri lights. Please help me decide

I am a wedding photographer based in Iasi, Romania. You can see my work here to understand my style of photography.

Currently I own a canon 50D, canon 17-55 2.8 is, canon 85 1.8, canon 580 ex II, nissin Di622, umbrellas, stands and so on. When needed I borrow from a friend a tokina 11-16 2.8 and canon 135 2.0.

If I get the 70-200 2.8 is II, the 85 prime would not be that useful anymore so I would sell it. I like my 85. Also the zoom is quite heavy and attracts to many eyes.

On the other hand if I get the 200 prime I am afraid I would be missing the IS. My hands are not that steady I'm afraid.

Unfortunately in my country I can not rent lenses to see how both of the 2 work.

It would have been be great if a 200 2.8 is prime exist. Please help me decide

Difficult choice. A second body is a must. A 70-200 f2.8 IS II would be a nice way to complete your lineup as well. I wouldn't say the 85 1.8 wouldn't be too useful if you get the 70-200, since it's an f1.8 lens and a very nice portrait lens.

Let me ask you this: when using your 135mm do you find it to "short"? Are you normally shooting in dimly lit venues or do you have plenty of light?

I have the 200/2.8L and it can be a bit long in close quarters on a 50D. Its light, BLACK and 1/3rd the price of the new zoom.

I'd keep the 85/1.8, its lightning fast focus and a stop faster than any of the zooms.

Sometimes I need a little bit more reach and not alway can I borrow the 135.

Usually I am shooting in poor lit churches. Also during the service I am not allowed to walk too much, or at least people give me strange looks (I live and shoot in Romania).

In the first place I was saving up for a canon 5D mk iii. But since the earthquake and the launch date being to far away I decided to invest in the equipment that would give me the best advantage for the buck. So that is why I included in this "equation" the 1Ds mk ii (even if the high ISO performance is not remarkable for what's on the market now). By the way... do you know how the ISO performance of the 1Ds mk ii compare to the 50d? The autofocus should outperform both 50d and 5d mk ii ( i think).

I would just get the 5D2 to be honest with you. Perfectly fine for shooting weddings.

yes, I believe you regarding the 5d2 but it is not yet wise from my perspective. Financially I can not afford to make any mistake. So first I get the lenses then at the right moment switch to full frame. When I get something I want the best possible so I could be happy with it. And I am not happy with the 5d2, but I have faith I'll be with 5dm3. If not I'll switch to nikon or get a 1Ds or 1D

fotografiasi wrote in post #12375532
yes, I believe you regarding the 5d2 but it is not yet wise from my perspective. Financially I can not afford to make any mistake. So first I get the lenses then at the right moment switch to full frame. When I get something I want the best possible so I could be happy with it. And I am not happy with the 5d2, but I have faith I'll be with 5dm3. If not I'll switch to nikon or get a 1Ds or 1D

you are not happy with 5D2? have you shot with it? most wedding photogs do use 5d2 if they shoot with canon. i think its a must have camera for shooting weddings. i also think it will give you better photos in low light and in general with camera like this then with what you are using right now.

5D2 is great and I know that, but I do not have the lenses for it yet. So if I get the 5d2 now what can I do with it without the lens to attach. I have the 85 1.8 that would work, but that is about all. So, I plan to get the 70-200 soon, then latter in the year get a 35 1.4. Then after some time when I have some money put aside I can get the 5D2. But in the meantime a new 5d would come around. If the new 5d would disappoint (not being an enough improvement from the old one) then what is to be done? Get something better from canon or switch. But this is not the topic here...

200 2.8 will give you limited use and way too long on a crop camera for indoor use. Then you will have to spend more cash to buyat least one more lens to cover the missing focal lengths and a big loss having no IS. 70-200 II i think is more sharp and will give you way more focal coverage. I'm in the market of buying one as well (70-200 II). I have rented one and its a phenomenal lens and razer sharp even sharo at wide open. For weddings its one of the best if not the best lens to have. if you have lots of wedding jobs then go for 70-200 you wont regret it.

I would say go with the 70-200 2.8 II, look to replacing the 17-55 with the canon 24-70 2.8 next then the 5d MKII

the 200 2.8 is nice but the Zoom is alot more flexible

I've said on here many times that I'm not a lover of the 70-200 2.8 IS. That was until I bought the II version; for me, I just found it to be that much better. That said, I can imagine being reluctant to put it on my camera if I were restricted to only 200mm. I'd very much miss not being able to zoom from that focal length.

If it wasn't for the II, I would have simply chosen the prime lens. But now that I saw the comparison between the II and the prime it's a different story.

thanks' to all of you for the input so far

I think I am going to sell my 70-200mm f2.8 and get the IS II now.

tolyD wrote in post #12375576
you are not happy with 5D2? have you shot with it? most wedding photogs do use 5d2 if they shoot with canon. i think its a must have camera for shooting weddings. i also think it will give you better photos in low light and in general with camera like this then with what you are using right now.

That what they use b/c they really don't have a choice for FF. It's either that or the 1DsMKIII.

As for the 70-200 MKI vs MKII, yes the MKII is markedly sharper, but the MKI was a workhorse lens before the new version came out. The MKI is stilla a very good option.

So the 70-200 version I isn't an option then? It's like $1000 cheaper than the version II but still an excellent lens. I've tried the version II and I really don't see anything that makes it $1000 better than my version I. Yes it's sharper, but 100% sharpness is a pretty insignificant part in the grand scheme of all things photographic. I'd personally rather save the $1000 and get another fantastic lens to go with it.