Please talk me out of the 70-200/2.8 IS... (please?)

tim wrote in post #9063664
I photographed a garden wedding on Saturday. If I was using my 17-55 i'd have had to have been quite close and intrusive. With the 70-200 I stayed back behind all the guests and still got great photos.

Not a lot of outdoor weddings here in Deadskunk, Kansas. (The wind will tear you a new arsehole).

I think I'm slowly talking myself out of this thing. I have pretty much free reign to move about during the ceremony - just can't get "nose hair" close. And of course the reception's a free-for-all. Nobody''s sober enough to even notice a few strobes.

Besides, I'd have to buy a bigger bag. Mine's full.

I can get more than adequate "unintrusive" reach with 85mm or 135mm on crop sensor cameras. The only reason the 70-200 would be needed is if getting close is not permitted by clergy/etc.

form wrote in post #9064311
I can get more than adequate "unintrusive" reach with 85mm or 135mm on crop sensor cameras. The only reason the 70-200 would be needed is if getting close is not permitted by clergy/etc.

I bow to your superior experience and intellect.

Being a woman and a pro, I'll try my best at answering this. And form, calm down!

Your wife will kill you or worse if you buy something that costs $1800 new that you will only use a couple of times a year, yet you want it so much. I waited a good 6 months of saving to get mine, which I use a lot. I use it for weddings, events of all kinds, and mostly for dark concert halls and sports. It is the best zoom mid-tele you can buy, IMO, so it's worth the wait and the weight. As to forms comments about the usefulness of the 70-200 2.8 IS, I disagree completely. I use that lens even for portraits at weddings and at receptions, I can sit in my little spot and take candids with no problems. I don't use flash hardly ever with that lens, as it's really fast and so sharp.

The best way to resolve this with your wife, is to prove to her you don't want to spend the money right now, but save for it. After a few months, and a bank statement, she will see you are serious and may let you get away with buying it early. That's as good as it gets, sweetie.

My experience is simply that I spend 95% of the time comfortably using the 35L and 85L, with the other 4% using the Sigma 10-20 and Canon 24-70 (and wishing I had the 24L). The 70-200 gets pulled out only when needed, and the only time it's needed is when I'm not allowed to get close. It would've been completely, utterly useless during the processional and recessional of the wedding I shot just yesterday; nothing less than f/1.4 primes would have been sufficient to get an acceptable shutter speed.

Can you use the 70-200 for lots of things? Yes you CAN...but do you need it for 99% of those things? No, other lenses work just as well and in many cases better. My consistent experience is that almost any shot that can be taken with either a prime or a zoom will be as good or better with the prime IF the prime has a wider aperture. I saved up a long time for my 70-200 too, and when I got it I thought "yay, great to have!" and so it is. But do I use it? Only once in any wedding, and only during the ceremony, and only in a church. I find the 85L and 135L primes to be equally good for candids.

Again, based on need, not what you can use it for: The 70-200 only comes in handy with the ceremony restrictions mentioned; the rest of the time it is a luxury that does not improve the quality of the photos in any way, and any of those shots could be equally or better done by a faster prime.

Semi-off-topic: My processional lenses are always the 85L and 35L, obviously the 85L for long range shots as they're coming in or for close-up face shots, and the 35L for environment, full body, and when they get too close for the 85L to give me the framing I want. Two cameras btw, can't do it with just one.


I don't claim to have superior intellect or experience, but I darn well think that thus far I have not missed the 70-200 at any point in time when I was not shooting in a catholic church. I've never been shooting an engagement or pre or post-wedding shoot or a reception and thought, "you know it would be great to have the 70-200 for this..." Instead, I always find myself needing faster and/or wider lenses.

Form, I think what people are saying is you're stating your usage as fact and how everyone should do things, not opinion and how you do them.

A long prime wouldn't be much good to me, I want to be inconspicuous but get a range of framings, the long zoom does that for me. How weddings are here affects that too - many are outside, and even in the darkest churches ISO3200 F2.8 1/50th will get me the shot. My 70-200's used for ceremony, wedding party photos, receptions, and portrait shoots.

I find myself moving around often to get the best angle of any given person so that I wouldn't consider the zoom to be a real advantage for framing purposes and being inconspicuous.

I know that the 70-200 has no use when shooting getting-ready photos and it is as good as worthless for the processional in low light (assuming you don't use direct flash, which again by my style preferences is also very bad). I know that I can use a 24, 35, 50, 85 or 135mm lens and get 99% of the shots I could want or need easily. I have put on my 70-200 during the reception several times and immediately removed it because I re-realized that it was either too long or simply pointless to use when I could get the same shot with my primes and lower my ISO by one or two full notches without any IQ loss.

No doubt this is all relative to a person's shooting style, but under most conditions I find that shorter lenses have a lot more practical use during weddings. The 24-70 may get used for the cake cutting and certain ceremonies, the 10-20 gets used for environmental shots, and the 35L and 85L get used for everything else.

I recognize I am only giving an opinion, but I am also stating something that most others in the thread have not stated, and I am basing it on my apparently very different preference for style of shooting weddings. It is also an honest, sincere and practical discouragement against the purchase of an expensive lens that, in my opinion, is not really worth owning instead of, say, a 24L or 35L. Workhorse lenses fall in the standard zoom range; they deliver 95-99% of the shots, from key moments to candids to all the fun things in the wedding....

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Spending money on L lenses is going to be expensive no matter which lens it is. Joey, you chose the primes, which is your style. I like zooms, due to me not wanting to move around too much. That is my style. The 35L is $1300 already. And I have the 24-70 and use that most of the time. I didn't choose the 24L and 35L. It is a choice and maybe, if I shot a lot of weddings every year instead of being selective, I'd find the primes are sharper and more reliable for AF. In the meantime, I shoot in chapels and concert halls where flash is not allowed and the pro is not to move from their spot. The 70-200 is the way to go. I think the best advice is to save up and buy what you need.

I actually started with zooms (Tamron 28-75, Sigma 10-20, 70-200 f/2.8 IS) and a 50 f/1.8, believing that I didn't need more than maybe one prime in my setup just to cover low light situations. In fact, my last purchases were the fast primes, and now I use them the most. It took me that long to realize how important they are. I don't choose primes over zooms for sharpness, but instead for their other useful traits of having better light gathering ability first and narrower DoF second.

The 35L is available used for $1100 or so. Certainly not a cheap lens, but the Sigma 30mm is much less expensive and is similar for crop sensor cameras.

Admittedly, it seems like 9 out of every 10 people has a photography style that finds the 70-200 useful for all sorts of things during weddings. Obviously it seems to serve most people well...and it's a good lens, of course, but perhaps I'm spoiled by having f/1.2 and f/1.4 so that anything slower does not really work for me much anymore.

Here are wedding scenarios where I think a fast prime is necessary:

When you're shooting an outdoor ceremony where the bride scheduled it 30-40 minutes later than it should have been, and the sky is dark and all the light you have is coming from a few flashes 20-30' away on either side and/or minimal flood lights (and this has happened 2-3 times), then you need the fastest aperture you can get to expose adequately, and f/2.8 isn't going to give adequate light or shutter speed (depending on flash vs. flood).

When the processional/recession​al are taking place inside a church, and f/1.4 gives you 4x the shutter speed so you can get that key shot of the bride walking down the aisle (with her parent) without it being blurred by motion.

To capture as many shots as possible during the garter/bouquet toss when you don't have off-camera 580EX flashes with CP-e4 battery packs installed but instead only have Sunpak 383S flashes and therefore a slower refresh rate, forcing you to use them at minimum power for faster cycling (see the bouquet toss photo sample I posted).

When you want that great narrow DoF that isolates a subject well and blurs the background, but you don't have enough room to stand 10-20' away from the subject to do it.

When you want to drop your ISO one or two full stops to get the same shot, allowing more room for processing and better dynamic range (which is reduced at higher ISOs).

When you're in the bride's dimly lit dressing room, and you want to use natural/available light and an ISO under 1600-6400.

Here's a fun one: When your only flash bouncable surfaces are far away and f/2.8 won't give you enough light from the bounce, but f/1.4 gives you 4x the effective flash power and makes the shot happen.

And for the Las Vegas casino/resorts that I spend so much time shooting in: When the available light is limited (as it is in every one of them), and/or you can't afford to draw attention from security by using flash.

I will agree that the majority of my shots from a wedding come from the lenses in the 24mm-85mm range. The 70-200mm does not get used a lot, but it is handy when needed. You could also consider the 135 f/2.0 (half the price) and then get an extension tube. For portrait sessions, however, this is my bread and butter. So it all depends how you intend to use this.

I think you really need to ask yourself the reason why you want this. Will it bring any noticeable ROI? List the reasons on paper and build a business case. If it won't bring you any return on investment, then you are purely buying this for convenience. There's nothing wrong with that, but having a good understanding of the "why" regarding purchases may help your decision making process.

<soapbox>
On a personal note, you need to discuss this with your wife. Period. Why are you consulting a bunch of avatars on a major purchasing decision and not your wife? By your own admission you are anticipating her opposition (I hope the castrating thing was a hyberbole). Why would you want to risk severing the relationship, even if temporarily, over something like this? To me it speaks volumes of your priorities. Allowing her to be part of the conversation might just surprise you. There is comfort in being included. Invest in her self-esteem and you may reap rewards far greater than you imagined. And maybe even the 70-200 WITH her blessing.
</soapbox>

caught14 wrote in post #9066941
<soapbox>
On a personal note, you need to discuss this with your wife. Period. Why are you consulting a bunch of avatars on a major purchasing decision and not your wife? By your own admission you are anticipating her opposition (I hope the castrating thing was a hyberbole). Why would you want to risk severing the relationship, even if temporarily, over something like this? To me it speaks volumes of your priorities. Allowing her to be part of the conversation might just surprise you. There is comfort in being included. Invest in her self-esteem and you may reap rewards far greater than you imagined. And maybe even the 70-200 WITH her blessing.
</soapbox>

And if that doesn't work, buy it anyway and just slip it in your bag. If she's as dis-interested as my wife is, she'd never notice it was any different than the lenses you already have...unless, of course, it's your first white lens.

RT:

As a woman, wife and a photographer, I'll give you my two cents.

1. It's never, ever, a good idea to manipulate your wife. Your relationship with her is more important than a lens. Yeah, I said it.

2. Suzy has some good input above. Save for.

3. Be up front about what you want and why, talk to her like a human being, discuss options of how to obtain it, like saving for half of it and getting it, then paying off the rest over a couple months. Also, discuss how quickly the lens can help you recover the cost. Be realistic and talk it over. Also, saving for it makes the purchase mean more in the long run and it's not just the latest, greatest toy you feel you need for your collection.

Wives are more sensible than men like to think sometimes. We want you to be happy and have good things, especially when you're having a good time. You might be surprised at the result.

SuzyView wrote in post #9064431
Your wife will kill you or worse if you buy something that costs $1800 new that you will only use a couple of times a year

Oh... you have no idea. One DOES NOT piss off Mrs. McAllister.

Yep, it works extremely well for you (and a gazillion others) but I can see it both ways.

These days, I'm just a lowly 2nd shooter whoring myself out to half dozen photographers when they need me. I've done my own weddings but actually like being #2. Less headaches and I sleep a lot better.

The only reason I'm even considering the 70-200 is because these guys are always up front and they almost always shoot with primes hopping around like freaking jack rabbits. Add me to the fray and it just doesn't feel right. Somebody needs to back up and just stay put or else one day, "Olga" the ex-shotput thrower from the '56 Olympics recently turned church hag will pummel one of us. (And rightfully so I might add!)

Were I on my own though... AND based on the liberal shooting conditions here I'd go for the faster primes and just do the zoom shuffle with not-so-nimble feet. The 70-200 still sounds appealing though... instant "creamy" portraits and instant wide without moving given the right conditions. I've also considered the 'fly-on-the-wall" approach to candids as well but to be honest, the venues are pretty small here.

Naw... I'm just gonna dump her.

I kid!

Actually, I think I'm going to hang low on this and just keep watching for the rumored new 70-200 slated for early next year with that high-falutin' hybrid IS. At the very least, one should see a ton of used IS 1's on the market.

God help me if it costs $2800 and I like it though. (Sterile, broke and single again)

Do you have a sister?

It's pretty easy if you want to spend less money. You'll have to give up the zoom.

I own the 70-200 f/2.8 IS AND the 135L. I haven't used my 70-200 in over a year. Only keep it for video (IS for video is awesome). The 135 on a crop has tons of reach and f/2 on that camera looks significantly better than f/2.8, imo. It's about half the price.

And if you want to save even more money, BUY USED! Nearly every lens I own is used. I might get a lemon one of these days and have to fork out a few hundred bucks to get it fixed, but I'll still have a net gain from the couple thousand that I've saved in used gear

caught14 wrote in post #9066941
<soapbox>
On a personal note, you need to discuss this with your wife. Period. Why are you consulting a bunch of avatars on a major purchasing decision and not your wife?
</soapbox>

Oh for god's sake, lighten up.

I jest. And I *think* everybody else here gets that but you.

Besides, you should read what she says about me on the BDSM forums.