Which lens to get...

Right now I am deliberating between the 70-200 f4L IS and the Sigma 85 1.4

I currently shoot with a 40D, my main lens is the Sigma 17-50 2.8...great lens. I also own a 50 1.8, sigma 70-300 f4-5.6, and the 18-55 kit lens.

I have started to do some paid photography, I did a wedding, an engagement shoot, senior pictures, and family portraits last year. I've got at least two weddings that I am for sure shooting this summer, possibly three.

My issue is what new lens to get. I need something longer than my 17-50 that is good quality. Not only is the sigma 70-300 not that great, but the autofocus also occassionaly makes a loud screeching sound...not good for weddings!!! I rented a 70-200 F4L IS for the wedding last year, and absolutely loved it. It is an incredibly sharp lens. It worked great for this wedding, as it was outdoors in good light in the early afternoon. One of the upcoming weddings is indoors. I am concerned as to whether the F4L IS is going to be fast enough. I realize that F4 is not that fast for indoors work, but at the same time, there's not much subject movement indoors at a wedding, so the IS might be enough.

My other option is the Sigma 85 1.4. I have rented the Canon 85 1.2 and was blown away...however there is just no way that it is in my budget. The 85 is obviously much faster for indoor work, but is much less versatile than the 70-200.

If I get the 70-200, I will again rent the 85 1.2, and if I buy the 85 1.4, I can rent the 70-200 2.8L IS. Either way I will be covered concerning the wedding, but the question I am wondering is which of these two should I buy first!

Thanks!

Have you thought about a Canon 85 1.8? To be honest, unless the wedding venue is really bright, f/4 won't be fast enough for indoor shooting. Unless you're using a flash....which could be very distracting. Just becasue the 70-200 has IS doesn't mean it will stop motion it'll just let you slow down the shutter which would create more motion blur.

I would buy an 85 and rent the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I just bought an 85 1.8 and it's aweome! I took this test shot of my wife's dog (he was the only willing model) on Friday evening after doing a small MFA (-3) on my lens. Shot at 1.8. Not the best quality photo since I took it off my wife's facebook page.

When I shoot weddings I carry (3) lenses and (2) bodies along with an assortment of flashes.

1- 70-200 f/2.8 OS Sigma
1- 17-50 f/2.8 OS Sigma
1 - 50mm f/1.4 Canon

Never wanted or needed an 85mm on my crop bodies

rivas8409 wrote in post #15779806
Have you thought about a Canon 85 1.8? To be honest, unless the wedding venue is really bright, f/4 won't be fast enough for indoor shooting. Unless you're using a flash....which could be very distracting. Just becasue the 70-200 has IS doesn't mean it will stop motion it'll just let you slow down the shutter which would create more motion blur.

I would buy an 85 and rent the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I just bought an 85 1.8 and it's aweome! I took this test shot of my wife's dog (he was the only willing model) on Friday evening after doing a small MFA (-3) on my lens. Shot at 1.8. Not the best quality photo since I took it off my wife's facebook page.

I had briefly looked at the 1.8, but not real seriously. It sort of assumed it was a lower-end lens since it is not that expensive, but it seems to be a pretty good bang-for-your-buck type lens...I will look into it some more.

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #15779830
When I shoot weddings I carry (3) lenses and (2) bodies along with an assortment of flashes.

1- 70-200 f/2.8 OS Sigma
1- 17-50 f/2.8 OS Sigma
1 - 50mm f/1.4 Canon

Never wanted or needed an 85mm on my crop bodies

I really enjoyed the 85 1.2 when I had it, but depending on the space it can definitely be cramped when using it indoors...unfortunatel​y I am not going to be able to go to the venue ahead of time to know how big the room is.

I looked pretty seriously at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 also, but in most comparisons it just doesn't seem to hold up to the Canons. What are your thoughts on it??

Also, I really enjoy nature photography, obviously the 70-200 is much better for that. I do lots of hiking/backpacking so the weight and size of the 2.8 are a concern.

Gosh, why can't Canon just make an affordable 50-500 f1.4L IS that weighs under 2 pounds!!

davidmtml wrote in post #15779895
I looked pretty seriously at the Sigma 70-200 2.8 also, but in most comparisons it just doesn't seem to hold up to the Canons. What are your thoughts on it??

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 MK II (best in show) > Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS > Canon 70-200 f/2.8 MK I > Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS)

With Sigma you get 85% of the MK II quality wise for roughly 65% of the investment.

Since I don't rely on my camera to put food on the table the Sigma line is very appealing; I would switch over to Canon in a heart beat if things were reversed.

Rocky Rhode wrote in post #15779952
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 MK II (best in show) > Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS > Canon 70-200 f/2.8 MK I > Canon 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS)

With Sigma you get 85% of the MK II quality wise for roughly 65% of the investment.

Since I don't rely on my camera to put food on the table the Sigma line is very appealing; I would switch over to Canon in a heart beat if things were reversed.

Where would you put the F4 IS in here...many believe that it is the sharpest of any 70-200 out there?

davidmtml wrote in post #15779982
Where would you put the F4 IS in here...many believe that it is the sharpest of any 70-200 out there?

The f/4 is praised for its size/weight and sharpness; if all your venues are daytime outdoors I would go for this lens without question. I got the f/2.8 because I needed that extra stop for afternoon/evening use, and the f/4 just isn't going to get you there.

davidmtml wrote in post #15779982
Where would you put the F4 IS in here...many believe that it is the sharpest of any 70-200 out there?

I believe the Sigma OS is on par with the 70-200 f4 IS at f4. The 70-200 2.8 IS MKII is better than either of them by a bit.