70-200 on crop body too long for weddings?

I plan on starting up my own photography business in about a year and will be primarily shooting weddings, portraiture, and other various events and odd jobs.

I've been doing a lot of research into the 70-200 2.8 and it seems like an excellent lens for full body but I'm wondering if it would be a waste of money and too tight for a crop body.

I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions for lenses that serve somewhat of the same purpose of the 70-200 2.8 (fast, can shoot from far away without people knowing, great for candids, a good ceremony lens, has reach, etc) but is for crop sensor body's as I don't plan on going full frame for quite a while and my camera won't be seeing all of the glass so to me it's a waste of money (a possible waste of $1,600+ if I get a used Canon 2.8 IS II).......

I will be shooting a 60D with a Tamron 17-50 2.8, and I'll have another body on me (more than likely another 60D) and I want a nice lens on it that has some reach but wont be too tight. This lens has to be excellent for portraiture, extra reach when needed at weddings, and be fast.

Does anyone have any experience using the Canon 85 1.8, Canon 100 2.0, or the Sigma 50-150 2.8 on crop body's and can offer some insight? Thanks.

I am purchasing one as we speak, I shot 2 wedding this year and it has been perfect especially with 2.8, matched with a 17-50 is a good combo

Very nice, yea it looks like I might need to save up the $1,500 - $2,000 for the big white haha. I just wish that there was a fast 2.8 telephoto that was built specifically for crop or around the $6-$800 range as $2,000 for the big white brand new is a lot.....The Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS doesn't look too bad, might have to wait to see how the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC performs and it's price when it gets released sometime this month.

Sovern wrote in post #15255104
I just wish that there was a fast 2.8 telephoto that was built specifically for crop or around the $6-$800 range

Well a little over the $800 mark is thr sigma 50-150mm OS at $1000. It is made to give the perspective of a 70-200 on a crop body (comes out to a ff equivalent of about 80-240 on canon APS-C sensors)

Yea I thought about it and I decided that I'm going to go with primes instead of the big white or any of the other expensive constant aperture zooms out there.

I'll get a 85 1.8 which is very fast and excellent for portraits, candids, and getting that extra reach I need on crop body without being too long to use indoors in most situations.

I'll probably get a 135L eventually and skip getting the 70-200 as that lens is just too damn big, cumbersome, and expensive for crop in my opinion for what I'll be using it for.

So 17-50 2.8 on one 60D, 85 1.8 on second 60D, and second shooter with tamron 28-75 2.8 on a T4i should be perfect. From there I'll just get the 135L and swap primes as I feel fit. 135 on 1.6 = 216 which is already longer than 70-200 on FF and 85 1.6 sits right in the middle at about 136 on crop which is perfect for me.

I've shot weddings with that same setup...2 crop bodies (30Ds at the time), with the Tamron 17-50 on one and the 70-200 on the other...I was very happy with it

Sovern wrote in post #15254444
I plan on starting up my own photography business in about a year and will be primarily shooting weddings, portraiture, and other various events and odd jobs.
I've been doing a lot of research into the 70-200 2.8 and it seems like an excellent lens for full body but I'm wondering if it would be a waste of money and too tight for a crop body.

Thanks.

Just an idea, Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM. Lot's of possibilities with this on a C sensor.

70-200 is one of the best purchases you will make after your camera. Period.

I use 2 60d's and the following:

Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS
Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS
Sigma 30 1.4
Sigma 85 1.4

The 70-200 doesn't see much use except for outdoor candids and back of the church ceremony shots. Apart from that I'm pretty much 30 1.4 and 17-50 2.8.

Consider the fact that many pros find the 70-200mm range to be very sufficient range for wedding coverage on a FF camera...and that is equivalent to having 44-125mm lens on APS-C camera. If the 55-250mm lens had a faster max aperture, folks would find it be a a fine range of FL to have in a lens...in the wedding business, the slow max aperture is its doom.

Thanks for the input guys, like I said though the 70-200 would be nice but it's very, very pricey ($2,000+ for the f2.8 version which is the only one that makes sense to me) and I'm trying to start out on a budget and I like the look that primes give me especially in the telephoto range. I did more research and from what I've gathered one 17-50 2.8 and a 85 1.8 on a second body is a excellent combination for weddings and portraiture on crop body.

I loved my thrifty fifty and I'm sure that the 85 1.8 will be a much better lens and the 135L too. 70-200 just seems like a waste on crop as the body won't be seeing all of the glass and it will probably be too long for the weddings that I shoot as really it's a 112-320 lens which is crazy long. I'll pick one up when I go full frame someday.

The thing is that I shoot weddings/portraiture/a​nd events so wouldn't the 85 1.8 be better for portraiture than the Canon 70-200 F4/F2.8?

My budget for both bodies (two 60D's or a 60D and T4i, Canon 85 1.8, Tamron 25-75 1.8 for third body) and lenses is about $1,500.

The Sigma 70-200 I considered in the beginning but judging from the sample shots that I saw it has harsh bokeh in my opinion. The 50-150 would be nice but again it's too expensive and wouldn't be good for portraiture work as again the bokeh is harsh.....

70-200 is great on a crop and still provides you the full focal range, just at a 1.6x perspective. Not sure what you mean when you say "the body won't be seeing all the glass"

I guess your problem is it is well out of your budget. If you plan to do photography as a business I think you need to be a little more realistic and invest in some better gear first.

El Pedro wrote in post #15258480
70-200 is great on a crop and still provides you the full focal range, just at a 1.6x perspective. Not sure what you mean when you say "the body won't be seeing all the glass"

I guess your problem is it is well out of your budget. If you plan to do photography as a business I think you need to be a little more realistic and invest in some better gear first.

Hmm I disagree again. 60D & T4i, 17-50 2.8, 85 1.8, and a second shooter with a 50D and 25-75 2.8 seems more than adequate for a wedding and any portrature work and a lot of people use the 17-50 85 1.8 combo for weddings.

Spending $2,000 on a lens seems a little bit crazy to me considering that I'd probably not use it too much as like I said before its very long on crop (more than likely too long for the weddings I'll be shooting).

What I mean by "the body won't be seeing all the glass" is that the sensor on a 1.6 crop body will not see all of the glass as it's smaller than a full frame sensor....this also means that you'll be shooting an effective 112-320 focal range which is crazy long......85 1.8 is 136 effective focal range on crop which is a nice middle ground and nice for portraits and more than likely candid's from a far.

If I spent all of my money on a 70-200 2.8 I'd only be on one body (A Rebel 450D) and it would be pointless as we all know that one body for a wedding is a no no and the 70-200 2.8 is overkill for the 450D as it's limited to only 1,600 iso and is pretty out dated.

I'm trying to be smart about my purchases just saying "If you plan to do photography as a business I think you need to be a little more realistic and invest in some better gear first" doesn't help and doesn't make any sense as the gear that I listed is more than adequate for professional wedding/portraiture work.

Sorry mate but there is no way in the world I'd want you and your second hand entry level gear shooting my wedding. If you want to be taken seriously and actually make a living (which I assume you do as you said you intend to set up a business) you should consider a loan of some sort to get the right gear.

85 is longer than 70 last time I checked too.

Funny how you mention second hand entry level when you shoot with the same gear that I'm planning on getting (60D's and 17-55 2.8). The only thing we differentiate on is telephoto lenses. Have fun shooting weddings with a 70-200 on a 1.6 crop body indoors.....like I said that's 112-320 effective focal length I don't want to be taking shots of peoples heads only you know.

85 1.8 is faster, sharper, and sits right in the middle and the 135L is 216 effective focal length which would be perfect for shots from way far away.