Renting a lens... help decide!

I am planning to rent a lens for next weekend to take some pre-bridal pictures of my sister, pictures of our twins, and family pictures (max 4-5 people hopefully). I will probably be shooting in the morning and evening, and maybe some candids during the day. I really want the 70-200 f/4L IS as I am considering purchasing it one day, but is f/4 enough for outdoor portraits in the morning and evening, and is it wide enough for what I want to shoot (I've never shot with a telephoto)? Would the 24-70 f/2.8L or 17-55 f/2.8 be a better choice? I do have a off-camera flash setup but I am limited to about 24', would the 70-200 be too long? Thanks!

I am also a member of the twins club, and an owner of the 70-200 f/4L IS.

The 70-200 will be fine on a crop for everything except maybe the group shots, but you have a wider lens to cover that.

Your OCF should have no correlation with the lens you use. Your flash can be up close and you can be 200' back if you needed to be, depending on the triggers you use.

The 24-70 may be good as well since you can use the long end with a FOV equal to 112mm and the shorter end to take your group shots.

I would go 70-200 just because it will give you a chance to use it before you buy it and you have the focal range covered already on the shorter end.

I gave my vote to the 24-70, mostly because you mentioned group photos. f/2.8 will also be nice to have.

I would rent the 70-200 only because you are considering buying one. In reality, you have a perfect lens for what you are doing, the 50 1.8. You really could save the rental fee for use toward your later purchase and use the 50.

Thanks for the responses. Think I will go with the 70-200 f/4 IS and use another lens for the group shots.

I would go with the 70-200 just because you already have the wide angle somewhat covered with your 18-55. I don't like to rent lenses that won't make a noticeable difference compared to what I already have. Yes the 24-70 is a great lens, but will you notice a big difference compared to your 18-55? I don't think so. While the f/2.8 would be nice, you still may need fill flash.

When I rent I go longer or wider depending on what I need.

Is the 70-200 f/2.8 available to rent? Until I bought one, that is what I rented the most, probably 3 dozen times over 3 or so years.

I am partial to the 2.8

Thanks for the input. You guys aren't making this easy.

Went with the 70-200 f/4L IS but it was not an easy choice.
1) Sharper than the rest and that is a big deal to me.
2) Lighter than the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 24-70.
3) Different focal range than the 17-55 and 24-70. 18-55 IS is pretty sharp although the color and contrast might not be as good.
3) 4-stop IS- important because I am relatively new and do not have the most steady hands
4) Don't necessarily need f/2.8, have a 580EX II and off camera flash setup which I will be using. Do not need to stop motion in low-light.
5) I will potentially be buying this lens one day so if I can "wow" my wife with the pictures that will make justifying it easier.

Should have listened and gone with a shorter focal length.

I am not used to anything over about 50mm and a ton of the portraits were soft... most of them were probably due to camera shake and of course I didn't pack my tripod.

[QUOTE=RacingThoughts;​8639336]Should have listened and gone with a shorter focal length.

I am not used to anything over about 50mm and a ton of the portraits were soft... most of them were probably due to camera shake and of course I didn't pack my tripod.[/quote]

can you show an example with exif? it's really hard for me to see you getting a bunch of photos with camera shake with the f4 IS unless you shot with a too slow of a shutter speed, and i mean waaaaay too slow.

there's no reason to use a tripod with the f4 IS unless you are doing long exposures in very low light.

ed rader

[QUOTE=ed rader;8639445]

RacingThoughts wrote in post #8639336
Should have listened and gone with a shorter focal length.

I am not used to anything over about 50mm and a ton of the portraits were soft... most of them were probably due to camera shake and of course I didn't pack my tripod.[/quote]

can you show an example with exif? it's really hard for me to see you getting a bunch of photos with camera shake with the f4 IS unless you shot with a too slow of a shutter speed, and i mean waaaaay too slow.

there's no reason to use a tripod with the f4 IS unless you are doing long exposures in very low light.

ed rader

I'll try and post someone tonight when I get home.

I contacted LensRentals.com, just to have them check the lens to be sure. Sent some sample images and Roger decided to refund me, which I was not even asking for! Talk about great customer service.

Here is one of the sample images:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I think thats not a good example,i like the softness of the shot sort of photo i like to take.having said that i'll probably get hammered now.good job with the refund though,

butugly wrote in post #8647610
I think thats not a good example,i like the softness of the shot sort of photo i like to take.having said that i'll probably get hammered now.good job with the refund though,

Well, like I said I wasn't even looking for a refund I just wanted to know if it it was an error on my part (narrow DOF, camera shake) or the lens itself. I expected a crazy sharp lens with top notch image stabilization and very few of the shots have come out as sharp as my 50mm or 18-55 IS.