70-200mm - Anyone switched from f/2.8 to f/4 instead for weddings or portraits?

Have any photographers out there, for professional wedding and portraits, switched from an f/2.8 to an f/4 for portraits or wedding photos?

The last year, it's apparent my bag (s) are heavier than expected, but I like full frame size bodies like 5D Mk iii, etc., for holding comfort. But I'm looking to reduce the number of lenses I carry, and reduce weight. I have both 70-200mm in the form of Canon and Tamron. I also have three 85mm ... Canon, Tamron and Zeiss. I got the 70-200mm f/4 for hiking. Then I wondered how it might work out for weddings mixed with primes.

with high ISO capabilities packed into today's camera bodies, 70-200mm f/4 would be more practical unless you need to do large prints?

mdvaden wrote in post #18633933
Have any photographers out there, for professional wedding and portraits, switched from an f/2.8 to an f/4 for portraits or wedding photos?

...I'm looking to reduce the number of lenses I carry, and reduce weight. ....I wondered how it might work out for weddings mixed with primes.

Wouldn't switching from primes to all zooms be a good way to reduce the number of lenses and reduce weight? I love primes, but are they the right tools for a wedding photographer?

I did and actually I did not mind my F4. It had nice Bokeh at F4, it is lighter and I miss it. I'm thinking of selling my 2.8. As stated high ISO cameras are not an issue and I have a 100-400 II.

The f2.8 is heavier but it’s a tool that delivers. The f4 will work but so does lesser variable aperture zooms. Using suitable tools is the importance of delivering pro caliber quality as well as delivering pro composition.

You can’t beat versatility of the 70-200 for run and gun event work. Weight is a negative factor so you may just need to modify your style and go with longer primes. I’d take a canon 85 f1.8 before dropping to a 70-200 f4. For the Canon prime the new 85L 1.4is is an incredible piece of glass.

Family sessions/kids portraits I’ll prefer the 70-200 over primes. However a prime will sit in my bag.

I no longer complain about weight since I never regret not having the right tool on hand. I’d be more angry at myself when I know I could have prevented poor iq due to incorrect tool choice, especially if I own faster glass.

AlanU wrote in post #18634334
The f2.8 is heavier but it’s a tool that delivers. The f4 will work but so does lesser variable aperture zooms. Using suitable tools is the importance of delivering pro caliber quality as well as delivering pro composition.

You can’t beat versatility of the 70-200 for run and gun event work. Weight is a negative factor so you may just need to modify your style and go with longer primes. I’d take a canon 85 f1.8 before dropping to a 70-200 f4. For the Canon prime the new 85L 1.4is is an incredible piece of glass.

Family sessions/kids portraits I’ll prefer the 70-200 over primes. However a prime will sit in my bag.

I no longer complain about weight since I never regret not having the right tool on hand. I’d be more angry at myself when I know I could have prevented poor iq due to incorrect tool choice, especially if I own faster glass.

If I were a working pro I would have the 2.8 in my arsenal along with a few primes.

digital paradise wrote in post #18634340
If I were a working pro I would have the 2.8 in my arsenal along with a few primes.

That may answer a different question. But I shoot professionally and already have the 70-200mm 2.8 with an arsenal of primes.

That loops back to the OP question of whether you ever switched to f/4, or not (possibly the other way around.

AlanU wrote in post #18634334
The f2.8 is heavier but it’s a tool that delivers. The f4 will work but so does lesser variable aperture zooms. Using suitable tools is the importance of delivering pro caliber quality as well as delivering pro composition.

You can’t beat versatility of the 70-200 for run and gun event work. Weight is a negative factor so you may just need to modify your style and go with longer primes. I’d take a canon 85 f1.8 before dropping to a 70-200 f4. For the Canon prime the new 85L 1.4is is an incredible piece of glass.

Family sessions/kids portraits I’ll prefer the 70-200 over primes. However a prime will sit in my bag.

I no longer complain about weight since I never regret not having the right tool on hand. I’d be more angry at myself when I know I could have prevented poor iq due to incorrect tool choice, especially if I own faster glass.

The reply about families is part of what made me start asking others more about the 70-200mm f/4. If I'm reading a depth of field calculator right, the f/2.8 version from 20 feet away has only 0.5 feet depth of field. That's very little for a group. So even with that aperture or my wider aperture primes, I'd still be picking f/4 or f/5.6 to get a family, group or wedding party in focus. Even at f/4, the depth of field is only 0.7 feet.

I have a holster plus straps and can carry a second body with a prime. But whether on a strap or just in hand. the f/2.8 70-200 is weighty no matter what.

bob_r wrote in post #18634282
Wouldn't switching from primes to all zooms be a good way to reduce the number of lenses and reduce weight? I love primes, but are they the right tools for a wedding photographer?

I have enough zooms and primes that I can form a kit or style both ways.

So that's why I'm more pin-pointing to see how many photographers may have switched to the f/4 and whether it worked well for them.