Canon 70-200L 2.8 - my last chance to ignore!!!

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/08/2005 12:26:26 PM · #1

I'm ready to go down and buy the Canon 70-200L 2.8 today. I don't want to spend that much money since the 70-200 F4 is MUCH cheaper but if I'm ultimately going to use it for wedding shots, should I just go for it and buy the 2.8? Please post some shots that were taken with the 2.8.

Thanks!

moodville

Nikon D100

02/08/2005 12:28:37 PM · #2

If you're going to use it for wedding shots then think of it as an investment. You'll likely get more keepers and possibly better quality out of the 2.8, which translates into more money and a quicker payback. I doubt you'll regret it.

Bran-O-Rama

Canon EOS-5D

02/08/2005 12:31:25 PM · #3

If you can afford it, definitely go for the 2.8 and if possible, the IS version since you'll be using it for weddings. I have the non-IS version since I use mine for sports but when using the lens indoors for non-sports photography, I can see where I'd definitely need the slower shutter speeds while handholding.

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

02/08/2005 12:31:50 PM · #4

Hey, you can't work in construction without workboots. Go for it. Get the right gear for the job.

02/08/2005 12:34:00 PM · #5

I definately don't need the IS version. When I do shoot some weddings, I'll be using a flash everytime, so I don't have to worry about slow shutter speeds.

nova

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM

02/08/2005 12:41:08 PM · #6

Be sure to drop a note about how much you love the lens (I'm betting that at this point, resistance is futile and you are definitely going to buy!) And yes, that is jealousy you hear in my voice :)

02/08/2005 12:44:35 PM · #7

yup, buy it. I did, she's soooooo pretty.

Canon EOS-20D

02/08/2005 12:45:58 PM · #8

Originally posted by photomayhem:

I definately don't need the IS version. When I do shoot some weddings, I'll be using a flash everytime, so I don't have to worry about slow shutter speeds.

Are you sure? Lots of churches and/or the minister presiding over the ceremony will not allow flash.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

02/08/2005 12:52:27 PM · #9

Originally posted by mk:

Originally posted by photomayhem:
I definately don't need the IS version. When I do shoot some weddings, I'll be using a flash everytime, so I don't have to worry about slow shutter speeds.

Are you sure? Lots of churches and/or the minister presiding over the ceremony will not allow flash.

I would not say lots, but MOST churches do not allow flash until the recessional, and some, not until the couple has left the sanctuary.

Not to mention that unless you are fairly close, flash won't do anything but light the foreground. One of the biggest benefits of having the IS version of the 70-200 would be to shoot from the back of the church.

If you're up near the front, a shorter fast lens may be better suited to what you're doing.

02/08/2005 12:58:04 PM · #10

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

One of the biggest benefits of having the IS version of the 70-200 would be to shoot from the back of the church.
If you're up near the front, a shorter fast lens may be better suited to what you're doing.

yup, I learned that this weekend when I tried to hand shoot from the back of a relatively small room without a flash. With the 10D at any ISO over 200 I got grain (sometimes too much) and using shutter 1/60 they'd be slightly blurred (it was also VERY dark in there). The IS would've come in handy.

P.S.My new flash compensates for foreground/background distance so I won't have a blown out foreground (ie audience) and dark background (ie wedding couple) from now on when zooming from the back and firing the flash. Or so it says.

Message edited by author 2005-02-08 12:59:01.

02/08/2005 01:20:24 PM · #11

Eric,

Thanks for the post. I'm looking into the same lens. Was going to ask you if you thought of adding the 1/4 extension to the order. (After reading your Bio, I'm thinking not. You go for the lens itself!)
Would be interested to hear any comments about lens extensions, that is, need, uses, versatility, especially with the 70-200L f2.8. Forgive me for sliding in on your thread.

02/08/2005 01:25:53 PM · #12

Originally posted by drydoc:

Would be interested to hear any comments about lens extensions, that is, need, uses, versatility, especially with the 70-200L f2.8. Forgive me for sliding in on your thread.

do you mean lens extenders? (the white thingies). I was going to ask that myself.

02/08/2005 01:35:57 PM · #13

Yes. The "white thingies." I guess they are properly called, "teleconverters." Canon has two available: 1/4x and 2x.

Prof_Fate

02/08/2005 01:42:24 PM · #14

a 1.4 TC will cost 1 sto of light, a 2x 2 stops. With a 200 lens you have 320mm now, so unless you are going after wildlife outside, you don't need that uch range for a wedding and why cost yourself the stop of light?

Sony 16-35mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* FE ZA OSS Lens

02/08/2005 01:48:37 PM · #15

I'm thinking about getting the 2x teleconverter for outdoor shots also... The place where I'm buying it has a 15 day return policy, so i'll have to test the combination out and see how it looks/performs.

bryanbrazil

Sony Alpha a7R III

02/08/2005 01:55:06 PM · #16

I've heard the quality loss is more significant with the 2x teleconvertor than with the 1.4x. I've never used the 2x teleconvertor, but I have the 1.4x and use it with my 70-200 f4. It works very well and I don't notice any loss in quality.

Message edited by author 2005-02-08 13:55:35.

02/08/2005 01:58:28 PM · #17

Thanks Pro Fate.

Was not thinking of weddings at all, wildlife - a possibility, but more in the line of outdoor sporting events and even night (stadium lit) baseball games. I would think there would be enough lighting here to play with one f-stop. Just looking vor added versitility. Also, trying to avoid the cost of an additional telephoto lens. Is my reasoning here on or off?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

02/08/2005 02:03:45 PM · #18

BTW Eric, thanks for letting me slide in. Appreciate, and learning from, the info exchanged here.

Canon EOS-20D

02/08/2005 02:28:28 PM · #19

Originally posted by drydoc:

Yes. The "white thingies." I guess they are properly called, "teleconverters." Canon has two available: 1/4x and 2x.

Some information which might help with the white thingies:

//www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

(You may have to cut & paste into yr address bar if the link is broken)

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/08/2005 04:37:08 PM · #20

Well I did it! I got the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS lens. This thing better be worth it's weight in gold!! I could have bought a brand new 20D and a Canon 70-200 F4 for only $300 more than this one lens!!! Let's just say I'm going to do some serious test cases over the next 15 days (the length of the return period)!!!

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

02/08/2005 05:01:06 PM · #21

[quote=photomayhem... Please post some shots that were taken with the 2.8...[/quote] Non-IS version:

Message edited by author 2005-02-08 17:05:06.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/08/2005 05:10:32 PM · #22

Originally posted by photomayhem:

Well, it is a lot of money and, frankly, I wouldn't want a gold lens. I do believe it's a good investment though, in photography.

Mark

Canon EOS-600D/T3i Rebel

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

02/08/2005 05:19:50 PM · #23

another reason that I'm thinking about just getting a FZ-20, It's got a lens that's 36-432mm, F2.8 throughout the whole range, and IS too. It's Leica glass, so It's not too bad. I know it's not as good as a full cannon lens on an SLR, but it is $1,000 less (not even including $1,000-8,000 body)

02/08/2005 05:37:02 PM · #24

Congrats Photomayhem! She's a bute and I'm sure will serve you well. I read the article posted somewhere above..makes me want the IS version. Does it make the lens overall any slower?