Shooting people indoors: 70-200 f/4 IS vs f/2.8, vs 135L

GregDunn wrote in post #17036393
Or, 70-200 f/2.8IS used for around $1K. f/2.8, IS, 90% of the image quality, half the price of the mkII.

Most of the time when I see the V1 listed used, the fools are asking more than it sold brand new in 2009 before the II was released. I've personally never seen $1k.

werds wrote in post #17036399
But why get the mk1 if the Tammy is superior according to most reviews? Especially with warranty being an issue on a used one (granted I already know the answer to why lol)

Maybe if it could be found at $1k like he said, I could see it, but at the prices I normally see the v1 listed at, I couldn't imagine buying it used over the Tammy VC.

FEChariot wrote in post #17036475
The 70-200/4 IS and 135/2 weigh close enough to being the same that you can't tell the difference if you hold one in each hand.

Holy ham! I didn't even realize that till you mentioned it (I havent had many opportunities to put my hands on a 135L)

werds wrote in post #17036487
Holy ham! I didn't even realize that till you mentioned it (I havent had many opportunities to put my hands on a 135L)

Yea, size/weight is a consideration, I just don't know how those wedding photogs can carry around two bodies, one with the 70-200 f/2.8 strapped on it, all day.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17036493
Yea, size/weight is a consideration, I just don't know how those wedding photogs can carry around two bodies, one with the 70-200 f/2.8 strapped on it, all day.

I agree with the sentiment - I ended up getting a Spider holster mainly because of how uncomfortable camera straps can be with added weight... changes the dynamics for me at least (then again as prior military having a gun belt with heavy objects and a load carrying system feels like second nature and extremely comfortable to me).

werds wrote in post #17036503
I agree with the sentiment - I ended up getting a Spider holster mainly because of how uncomfortable camera straps can be with added weight... changes the dynamics for me at least (then again as prior military having a gun belt with heavy objects and a load carrying system feels like second nature and extremely comfortable to me).

Yea, if you are prior military your fitness level is probably different from mine

mystik610 wrote in post #17036276
I'd go with the 70-200 F4IS. Lighter weight, better optically, and the IS will give you four stops of stabilization, which translates to four stops of light gathering (vs the 1 stop the 2.8 grants) as you drop your shutter speed.

135L is a fantastic portrait lens, but is very hard to use as an indoor event lens, as its not a very versatile focal length.

The OP is shooting moving people. All the IS in the world isn't going to get clear shots of moving targets at 1/15 (4-stops better than 1/200). A bigger aperture will help a lot more than IS, in this situation.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17036951
The OP is shooting moving people. All the IS in the world isn't going to get clear shots of moving targets at 1/15 (4-stops better than 1/200). A bigger aperture will help a lot more than IS, in this situation.

In sports photography where you need 1/500" or better IS would not help. However the OP is talking about event photography where shutters do not need to be as high. So let's talk specifics. Let's assume we are talking about the average Joe who can hand hold at the thumbrule 1/FL. So some people will need to adjust these numbers based on how well they can hand hold. But you also need to eliminate motion blur as well as camera shake blur. I find for events that I want to keep a minimum of 1/80" to 1/100" for most things to eliminate motion blur during an event, but if I'm trying to balance ambient with flash, I might go as low as 1/60" and take a few more shots in case I have some motion blur.

So on FF at 70mm I need to have 1/80". Here the 70-200/4 IS is one stop disadvantage to the 70-200/2.8 non IS since IS is not helping. If you try to drag the shutter a little down to 1/60", you are still 2/3rds stop behind. However on the 200mm end, if you shoot at 1/100", you have now equaled the loss of aperture with IS. 1/80" you gain a 1/3rd stop and at 1/60", you gain 2/3rds a stop.

Of course this doesn't take into consideration other lens attributes like the f4 being lighter, the 2.8 giving more blur, lens sharpness wide open on each and others.

Personally f4 indoors doesn't cut, IS or no IS is secondary. I would prefer even f2 lens. But that is me.

FEChariot wrote in post #17037234
In sports photography where you need 1/500" or better IS would not help. However the OP is talking about event photography where shutters do not need to be as high. So let's talk specifics. Let's assume we are talking about the average Joe who can hand hold at the thumbrule 1/FL. So some people will need to adjust these numbers based on how well they can hand hold. But you also need to eliminate motion blur as well as camera shake blur. I find for events that I want to keep a minimum of 1/80" to 1/100" for most things to eliminate motion blur during an event, but if I'm trying to balance ambient with flash, I might go as low as 1/60" and take a few more shots in case I have some motion blur.

So on FF at 70mm I need to have 1/80". Here the 70-200/4 IS is one stop disadvantage to the 70-200/2.8 non IS since IS is not helping. If you try to drag the shutter a little down to 1/60", you are still 2/3rds stop behind. However on the 200mm end, if you shoot at 1/100", you have now equaled the loss of aperture with IS. 1/80" you gain a 1/3rd stop and at 1/60", you gain 2/3rds a stop.

Of course this doesn't take into consideration other lens attributes like the f4 being lighter, the 2.8 giving more blur, lens sharpness wide open on each and others.

All true. No argument from me. It is the OP who stated the need for 1/200. Your references to 1/60 and thirds of a stop don't mean much if the OP HAS to shoot at 1/200. If he is going to shoot at the 1/FL rule of thumb in order to eliminate SUBJECT motion, the IS is doing nothing for him. (At 200mm and 1/200, it would certainly help me.) It is also the OP who stated the f/2.8 IS II would be the best tool for the job, because of the aperture, not the stabilization. I agree with him.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17037343
All true. No argument from me. It is the OP who stated the need for 1/200. Your references to 1/60 and thirds of a stop don't mean much if the OP HAS to shoot at 1/200. If he is going to shoot at the 1/FL rule of thumb in order to eliminate SUBJECT motion, the IS is doing nothing for him. (At 200mm and 1/200, it would certainly help me.)

When I've shot events, I prefered 1/200" or better myself too, but I've also used the slower speeds when I was limited by light with good results too so I'm questioning a fast fast 1/200" line in the sand for 100% of the shots taken. Obviously the situation will change and settings will need to change here and there.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17037343
It is also the OP who stated the f/2.8 IS II would be the best tool for the job, because of the aperture, not the stabilization. I agree with him.

Except he said the budget wasn't justified for the II. I have to say I'm more in Bobbyz's camp anyhow thinking a f2 is more the way to go however. I'm not sure if the OP has a speedlight, but I would get a used 580EX2 and a 135/2. Those would both run about the same as a 70-200/4 IS for now.

The speedlight would help his existing 24-105 out a bunch and the 135/2 would be a nice step to a longer term 'down the road' pair of a Sigma 35 Art + 135/2 or a 24-70 II + 135/2. Even further down the road the OP could add a second 6D.

Thanks very much everyone. Very useful info to chew on. I think I am going to choose between the 70-20 f/4 IS or the 135L. Size/convenience/budge​t trumps for me, as I can't see myself using the 2.8 zoom frequently enough to justify the expense and size. The smaller lenses would be something I can use for shooting events but also just for everyday photography. I'd like to reserve the budget for a 2.8 in the 24-70 range instead.

So... 70-200 f/4 IS vs 135L, what do u think?

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17036951
The OP is shooting moving people. All the IS in the world isn't going to get clear shots of moving targets at 1/15 (4-stops better than 1/200). A bigger aperture will help a lot more than IS, in this situation.

That fourth stop may not mean a whole lot, but when you're starved for light (because you're shooting indoors), the ability to shoot events at 1/50s (fast enough for portraits) of a second goes a very long way. At 1/50s at F4, You still net out an extra 2 stops of light gathering over the f2.8 non IS and 1/200s

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17040753
Thanks very much everyone. Very useful info to chew on. I think I am going to choose between the 70-20 f/4 IS or the 135L. Size/convenience/budge​t trumps for me, as I can't see myself using the 2.8 zoom frequently enough to justify the expense and size. The smaller lenses would be something I can use for shooting events but also just for everyday photography. I'd like to reserve the budget for a 2.8 in the 24-70 range instead.

So... 70-200 f/4 IS vs 135L, what do u think?

I love the 135L, but its a niche lens, and not a very good indoor event lens, as the focal length can be hard to work with indoors. I'm not against using primes for events (I often use wider primes during wedding receptions), but I personally could see where the 135L can be a little too restricting....when you're shooting indoors and have limited room, you can always step closer to your subject to frame a shot, but you don't always have the ability to step back.

Between the 70-200 f4 IS and the 135L, the difference can be shots at F4 + stops higher ISO noise, vs not being able to frame a shot at all.

mystik610 wrote in post #17040986
T

Between the 70-200 f4 IS and the 135L, the difference can be shots at F4 + stops higher ISO noise, vs not being able to frame a shot at all.

That is why get 70-200mm f2.8 non IS if budget doesn't allow IS versions. F4 is crap shoot indoors even with higher iSO cameras unless you using strobes/flashes etc to augment ambient light.

I like to shoot portraits and used my 85 L II over the 70-200 II, so I recently sold the zoom. I just got the 135 L, very happy with this lens! I don't think you can go wrong with the 70-200 f4 IS or the 135 L. For portraits, I prefer the 135 L, but the 70-200 f4 IS would make a nice travel zoom. Ultimately, you may want to get both.

Just a wacky thought
If you are considering an F4 lens How about the 70-300 L iS USM f4 to 5.6 . 4 stops IS, very very compact much lighter.
Maybe my lens is a superb copy but its not too far behind the 70-200 L 2.8 MkII

Only real negative is the f2.8 is a lot easier to lock focus on in really low light .
Might be worth hiring one for a day.
Carrying the 70-300L or the 70-200 F2.8 L II for say 4 hours is a world apart! Imo