70-200 f/4 IS vs. 70-200 f/2.8 IS

I am wondering what I should get. Obviously everyone is going to say that the 2.8 is a must for weddings but, i am also looking at getting the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 which I would use for low light in the church.

My main concern, is that I want to be able to use the 70-200 for use outside of weddings, and I know the 2.8 is HUGE, and heavy. I don't know if I want this. With my gear, and the two new primes, do I really need the 2.8 IS? Why? Sample pics? Thanks.

Oh and I am hoping to get a 5D (or its replacement) in the next year, which will be great for my 24-105! Oh, and should I get the 50mm or the 85mm first?

For me the 24-70, 24-105IS, and the 70-200IS are the BEST zoom glass you can buy with the 70-200IS being the top of the list.


Hands down I could not do my business without this lens. I think everyone so own one!

Of course, I would choose the 2.8 version, because it gives you as much advantage as possible. That and focus accuracy and hit ratio goes up when your 20D is paired with a 2.8 or faster lens. Many people forget this point, but I think it is THE most important one. No focus = no shot no matter how great your glass is.

I don't think I could use the 24-105 with it's F/4 aperture when it gets REALLY dark. I know many others do, but not me personally.

Not to hijack this thread, but I have two follow-up questions:

1) do canon lenses perform better as a result of being manufactured by canon vs. tamron and sigma et all.

2) mike, if the 70-200 is on one camera, what's on the backup body you carry? I've been debating whether it's the fisheye or a wide angle lens (17-40) or the 24-70.

To be honest the 2.8 does not feel that heavy to me. For most weddings I survive with that glass and the 24-70. You get used to both and tend to forget about them and get on with the job. Worth the money. Image quality is wonderful, never been keen on the white color tho.

the f/2.8 saved my butt a couple of times this past weekend. I may been able to make do or work around a shot w/a f/4, but I'm glad I didn't have to.

I had a roughly 9 hour day and my arm was achy by the end of the evening..it is heavy indeed...but you get used to it.

How often do you actually shoot wide open though? Any sample pics where the f/4 wouldn't cut it. Again, if I use the primes for great blur and DOF, and low light, why the 70-200 2.8?

95% of all our images are taken at f/2.8 hand held. If they are not at f/2.8 I accidently moved it to f/3.5 when shooting on the fly. For me f/4 simply would not do. However with that said I know MANY great wedding photographers who use the 24-105 f/4 IS and LOVE it. So different strokes for different folks.

For me I use 24-70L and either a 100mm macro or 200 f/2.0 or 70-200L IS f/2.8 on the other body while my photo partner has the 16-35L and 70-200L IS on his two bodies. We mix it up from time to time with fisheye, longer glass for big weddings, 200 f/1.8 for very dark weddings, etc. However the glass listed above are the four pieces we use at every wedding.

I shoot wide open outside in mid-day even, I simply can not get away from the f/2.8 or faster glass. Its just me and my style.

i like the 2.8 version. i know it's gonna be heavy so in a way i'm looking forward to using it to pump up my skinny arms.

i'm shooting a friend's wedding on 12/30.. starting from 9AM till maybe around 11PM. i plan on using the 2.8 at receptions so i snipe away. but during the day...17-55 & the 50 1.4 should do the trick.

GlitterPhotography wrote in post #2400613
How often do you actually shoot wide open though? Any sample pics where the f/4 wouldn't cut it. Again, if I use the primes for great blur and DOF, and low light, why the 70-200 2.8?

Yeah, whenever I am inside, I am always wide open, whether that be 2.8 or 1.4.

I didn't buy a fast lens to stop it down. It just seems pointless to me.

In a dark church i'm sometimes at F2.8/ISO1600 and only get 1/30th. Get the 2.8 IS. 17-55 F2.8 IS with the 70-200 F2.8 IS is a great combo, throw in a fast prime not too long for receptions and prep.

GlitterPhotography wrote in post #2400613
How often do you actually shoot wide open though? Any sample pics where the f/4 wouldn't cut it. Again, if I use the primes for great blur and DOF, and low light, why the 70-200 2.8?

At weddings, I shoot 2.8 or wider a lot of the time. Something wider than f4 is necessary for weddings. I just bought the 70-200 2.8 IS (I had to rent a 200 2.8 before). I couldn't shoot weddings w/o it! I'm sure most everyone here will tell you it's a great investment.

Mike Fulton wrote in post #2400646
95% of all our images are taken at f/2.8 hand held. If they are not at f/2.8 I However with that said I know MANY great wedding photographers who use the 24-105 f/4 IS and LOVE it. So different strokes for different folks.

Not that I'm in the "great wedding photographers" category, but I do have to say that the 24-105 f/4 IS is my primary lens at weddings. I use it for getting ready shots, formals w/my B800, B&G shots... If it's an outdoor wedding then I rarely use anything else. That being said, it's not sufficient for many circumstances at weddings, and the DOF at f/4 is a little on the shallow side.

Do most people here shoot wider than 2.8 even outdoors, or just indoors? And if you do, do you still use flash? Thanks.

GlitterPhotography wrote in post #2400956
Do most people here shoot wider than 2.8 even outdoors, or just indoors? And if you do, do you still use flash? Thanks.

Mostly indoors. I don't use flash during the ceremony (thus the need for faster glass). At receptions, though, sometimes I'll use 1600ISO, f/1.4 with flash and still only be at 1/30th.