Telephoto for weddings/wildlife

Hi there,
I need some help deciding what to buy. I need a new telephoto lens that I can use for both weddings and wildlife photography. I know it would be ideal to do something like the 70-200 for weddings, 100-400 for wildlife, but I can really only afford one lens right now!

Currently my only telephoto lens is a sigma 70-300 3.5-5.6, it is cheap, slow, optically ok, and the autofocus squeals!

I have rented the 70-200 F4L IS, and loved it. I used it for an outdoor wedding and it was perfect for that. This was my first wedding, and I have two more already booked for next year, so I will definitely need to invest.

I recently was asked to shoot all the pictures (about 35-40) for an upcoming book, consisting mostly of nature and wildlife photos.

If you had to choose one lens what would it be???

Thanks!

how much exactly do you have to spend...i don't know if you'll get away with a one lens solution here...

I'd, tentatively, suggest upgrading to the 70-300L if that focal range is currently working for you. You'd gain better build, better lens materials and much faster (and quieter) AF.

Probably no more than $1300-1400 (I would prefer to spend less of course!)

My ideal would probably be the 70-200 F2.8 L IS, with the 1.4 and 2.0x teleconverters. I really did like the 70-200 F4L, I just keep thinking I would regret not getting the 2.8. I have also looked at the sigma and tamron 70-200 2.8, Tamron doesn't have IS, Sigma does, but Tamron seems to have slightly better IQ and is cheaper.

I probably won't be purchasing for about another 6 months

I also haven't actually seen the 2.8s in real life or held them...is it really too big to be practical??

You're talking about shooting nature, wildlife and weddings with this lens. Honestly, I'd use different lenses for that, for weddings a good combo (to me) is the 24-70 and the 70-200 (both f/2.8). For wildlife you usually want something longer, I personally use the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS and often with 1.4 extender. You could use this lens perfectly for weddings as well, in combination with a wideangle, but the weight might be a bit much.

Weddings pay consistently, wildlife usually don't. So, if it were me, my priorities would be on my paying customers. I'd get the 70-200. It's really not long enough for a lot of wildlife shots, I'm sure you know (tho I have shot a bull elk with a 17-35mm once... I don't recommend it).

However, if the book project also is a potential income source (maybe a less certain one than the weddings?), it's more of a quandry...

Maybe you should once again rent something for the wildlife shots... or add a longer, used lens at some point. Or buy a lens for the project and then sell it when done.

Canon 100-400 IS is about $1600-1700, last time I looked. You might want to check out the Sigma 120-400 OS (around $1000) or 150-500 OS (approx. $1100), or look for one of these used.

Canon 400/5.6 used might be a more affordable option. But it lacks IS, so figure on a tripod or at least a monopod some of the time.

New the Canon 300/4 IS is more expensive than either of the Sigma zooms, but somewhat less if bought used. Combine it with a 1.4X teleconverter to have two very useful focal lengths out of one lens. The Canon 1.4X Mark II or III or the Kenko Pro 300 1.4X DGX are all good options for use with that lens.

Note: 70-200 + a 1.4X might be tempting... but still comes up short for a lot of wildlife. 70-200 + 2X doesn't play together well... no AF with an f4 lens on most Canon bodies, and too much loss of image quality on all but the most expensive combo (70-200/2.8 IS Mark II and 2X Mark III.)

In your situation, I'd probably go with the 70-200 first.... then figure out a way to cover the cost of the wildlife lens later. There isn't a single lens that will do it all.

Snydremark wrote in post #15178726
I'd, tentatively, suggest upgrading to the 70-300L if that focal range is currently working for you. You'd gain better build, better lens materials and much faster (and quieter) AF.

That is definitely an option I hadn't seriously looked into. I will do some research on it.

freddyronny wrote in post #15178737
You're talking about shooting nature, wildlife and weddings with this lens. Honestly, I'd use different lenses for that, for weddings a good combo (to me) is the 24-70 and the 70-200 (both f/2.8). For wildlife you usually want something longer, I personally use the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 OS and often with 1.4 extender. You could use this lens perfectly for weddings as well, in combination with a wideangle, but the weight might be a bit much.

I shoot on a crop camera (40D), so the 120-300 wouldn't be wide enough for me to use regularly at weddings. My other main lens is a Sigma 17-50 2.8OS

I really like my sigma 70-200 2.8 OS. It's fantastic, fast, great colors, great sharpness, great image stabilization. I had the tamron, and my sigma gets me much better results. I would often find myself shooting 1/200 or 1/160 @ 200mm with the tamron and would end up with blur from my own movement, but the OS on the sigma solves that problem for me. Instead of bumping up my ISO to shoot 1/250 I can shoot at 1/60 and save two stops.

davidmtml wrote in post #15178733
Probably no more than $1300-1400 (I would prefer to spend less of course!)

My ideal would probably be the 70-200 F2.8 L IS, with the 1.4 and 2.0x teleconverters. I really did like the 70-200 F4L, I just keep thinking I would regret not getting the 2.8. I have also looked at the sigma and tamron 70-200 2.8, Tamron doesn't have IS, Sigma does, but Tamron seems to have slightly better IQ and is cheaper.

I probably won't be purchasing for about another 6 months

I also haven't actually seen the 2.8s in real life or held them...is it really too big to be practical??

i'd go for a sigma 70-200f2.8 OS then...and either rent something longer for the book, or see if you can get away with using a TC...

there is supposedly a new tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC coming sometime down the road though...although the quality, and price are all unknown at this time, but it's been announced.

I have kind of been leaning towards the sigma 70-200 2.8. My real main concern with the 2.8's is just that they are so dang big! (Again I haven't actually held/used one, but I have heard plenty of testimonials that people get tired of lugging them around)

Why can't i just have an affordable 17-800 2.8 that weighs 1 pound

davidmtml wrote in post #15178843
I have kind of been leaning towards the sigma 70-200 2.8. My real main concern with the 2.8's is just that they are so dang big! (Again I haven't actually held/used one, but I have heard plenty of testimonials that people get tired of lugging them around)

Why can't i just have an affordable 17-800 2.8 that weighs 1 pound

It's really, really not that big of a deal. I'm 5'10 185lb and when I shoot weddings I carry two cameras on a dual shoulder rig, usually with the 70-200 on one camera and a prime on the other. If I start shooting getting ready pictures at 10, the wedding is usually at 1 or 2, lasts an hour, then the rehearsal is usually from 4 or 5 until 10 or 11.

That's a 12 hour day, and while it is pretty exhausting, it's exhausting whether I have a 70-200 f2.8 on my camera or a 35mm prime. I never stop and think "oh I wish I would have left this lens at home". Ever. The versatility is completely worth it. We buy DSLRs for that versatility, if I wanted something small and dainty I'd use a point and shoot.

On the other hand, I think that a lot of the people that complain about the weight of a 70-200 2.8 are people that don't shoot events. If you're trying to decide what to take with you on a short day trip, a lot of times the general purpose lens wins out and the 70-200 gets left at home, but for events a 2.8 aperture telephoto zoom is indispensable.

drzenitram wrote in post #15178874
It's really, really not that big of a deal. I'm 5'10 185lb and when I shoot weddings I carry two cameras on a dual shoulder rig, usually with the 70-200 on one camera and a prime on the other. If I start shooting getting ready pictures at 10, the wedding is usually at 1 or 2, lasts an hour, then the rehearsal is usually from 4 or 5 until 10 or 11.

That's a 12 hour day, and while it is pretty exhausting, it's exhausting whether I have a 70-200 f2.8 on my camera or a 35mm prime. I never stop and think "oh I wish I would have left this lens at home". Ever. The versatility is completely worth it. We buy DSLRs for that versatility, if I wanted something small and dainty I'd use a point and shoot.

On the other hand, I think that a lot of the people that complain about the weight of a 70-200 2.8 are people that don't shoot events. If you're trying to decide what to take with you on a short day trip, a lot of times the general purpose lens wins out and the 70-200 gets left at home, but for events a 2.8 aperture telephoto zoom is indispensable.

Thanks, this was exactly the kind of user experience I was looking for. Also, being young and strong this is probably less of an issue!

I bought the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS this summer. I also use the 100-400L. My current cameras area a 60D and an Elan7NE film body. I am 55 with one repaired and one arthritic shoulder and a 20 year old back injury. I don't have any problems carrying one of those lenses on my 60D for a few hours. Oh, I really like the Sigma, too!

For weddings, the f/2.8 will come in handy inside...if you can afford one of those options, you'll get used to the weight pretty quickly. They're *comparatively* heavy, but realistically, can be carried quite long without much trouble; my daily pack contains a 7D, 100-400, 70-200 f/2.8, 24-105, 10-22 and 100mm Macro. Plus flash and all the assorted accouterments And I haul that thing around like Linus does his security blanket.

TSchrief wrote in post #15179090
I bought the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS this summer. I also use the 100-400L. My current cameras area a 60D and an Elan7NE film body. I am 55 with one repaired and one arthritic shoulder and a 20 year old back injury. I don't have any problems carrying one of those lenses on my 60D for a few hours. Oh, I really like the Sigma, too!

Snydremark wrote in post #15179107
For weddings, the f/2.8 will come in handy inside...if you can afford one of those options, you'll get used to the weight pretty quickly. They're *comparatively* heavy, but realistically, can be carried quite long without much trouble; my daily pack contains a 7D, 100-400, 70-200 f/2.8, 24-105, 10-22 and 100mm Macro. Plus flash and all the assorted accouterments And I haul that thing around like Linus does his security blanket.

Thanks, you guys are great. I think my decision will be the sigma 70-200 2.8 unless the new Tamron is better and/or cheaper when it domes out.