# Weddings 70-200mm 2.8 is vs 4 is



## DCM1024 (Feb 19, 2013)

I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 19, 2013)

DCM1024 said:


> I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.



consider trying out the sigma 85 f1.4
its smaller lighter sharper and faster
since I got this lens I use it alot more than the 70-200 at weddings
the 70-200 is still great but the 85 can do the same or better job
the 70-200 does feel very heavy after a solid 12 hours or so of wedding shooting


----------



## DCM1024 (Feb 19, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> DCM1024 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.
> ...



Thanks - I will check that lens out. I have also planned to add an 85mm at some point....


----------



## mbpics (Feb 19, 2013)

DCM1024 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > DCM1024 said:
> ...



Do you really need 85, 100, and 135...? It seems like you could either choose two primes from that range or carry a single zoom (or a prime + zoom).


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 19, 2013)

i find 2 FF bodies with a 16-35 on one and 85 on the other a very nice light combo that gives excellent coverage

i dont miss the gap between 35 and 85


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 19, 2013)

DCM1024 said:


> I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.


I agree that it is not an easy decision. There is no definitive answer, I think. For the near future, I'm probably going to keep several lenses in this range and keep evaluating what I bring.

With the improved high ISO performance of the 5D3 and the improved high ISO performance of Lightroom 4, I have in the past year been able to substitute the f/4 for the f/2.8 version (both with IS). It does mean shooting at ISO 6400 and higher sometimes. Whether the lighter f/4 is an acceptable compromise depends on the lighting where you're shooting and on your own tolerance for high ISO noise. I think the f/2.8 version was more of a necessity for the 5D2 and earlier models, and with Lightroom 3 and earlier. It _may_ still be a necessity for some locations with less light.

The f/4 version is a much nicer size & weight. I was tempted to replace my version I of the 70-200/2.8 with version II, especially with the recent sale pricing, but I am using it less and less, and have always found version I to be very sharp. 

The 100/2.8 IS macro and the 135/2 are certainly good alternatives, both much lighter than the big 70-200/2.8. The question is whether you want to give up the zoom flexibility for a tele prime. In theory, a 135/2 should be an ok substitute for the 100-200 range as it is already 70% of the way to 200mm. And the 70mm end of a 24-70 zoom on another camera should be an ok substitute for the 70-100 range. So with a 24-70 and a 135, you might skip the 70-200 altogether ... maybe.


----------



## K3nt (Feb 19, 2013)

Sunsniper or BlackRapid is all I got to say when it comes to the 70-200mm f/2.8L MkII. Shot three weddings with it and no issue with weight.


----------



## photo212 (Feb 19, 2013)

The f/2.8L is a great lens, but the f/4L is great as well. 
You'll have to decide whether you will use that extra stop or not. 
Will you use the shallower depth of field?
To gain a stop in shutter speed?
Do you shoot in low light situation where the extra brightness in the viewfinder will help?
to (auto)focus? 
If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, I think you answered you question.
If you answered "no. no. no." you can safely go for the f/4L


----------



## rs (Feb 19, 2013)

One thing to consider - if you're planning on carrying around the 70-200/4 IS _and_ the 135L all day, the two together are 20g heavier than the 70-200/2.8 IS II - and I'm sure I'm going to kick up a fuss by saying this, but the 70-200 II is so good that there's little point in buying or using a 135L if that zoom is in your bag.

Having said that, if you tend not to carry around your other lenses while using the camera, that argument doesn't hold up. The 70-200/4 IS is a really good lens, and the high ISO capability of the 5D3 allows you to get away with some quite low light situations with it.


----------



## nurfc (Feb 19, 2013)

2.8 all the way with the blackrapid on the lens. I always have it connected.


----------



## pwp (Feb 19, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> I find 2 FF bodies with a 16-35 on one and 85 on the other a very nice light combo that gives excellent coverage
> I don't miss the gap between 35 and 85



+1. As weight is a real issue for a long days shooting, this is a classy combination. The Sigma 85 is a cracker. Much faster AF than the Canon 85 f/1.2; important for weddings. 

-PW


----------



## obach (Feb 19, 2013)

rs said:


> One thing to consider - if you're planning on carrying around the 70-200/4 IS _and_ the 135L all day, the two together are 20g heavier than the 70-200/2.8 IS II - and I'm sure I'm going to kick up a fuss by saying this, but the 70-200 II is so good that there's little point in buying or using a 135L if that zoom is in your bag.
> 
> Having said that, if you tend not to carry around your other lenses while using the camera, that argument doesn't hold up. The 70-200/4 IS is a really good lens, and the high ISO capability of the 5D3 allows you to get away with some quite low light situations with it.



RS made a very good point. I own the 5D3 and 70-200 f4 IS and no doubt, the lens is very sharp. Then the discussion is back to the weight of the pack. If you ever shoot a pic with f4 or higher with the 2.8 lens, you are walking around with 750 gr. ekstra load on your shoulders. If you need the 2.8 bokeh, you have no choice.
With the 5D3, I would say go for the f4 lens. 750 gr. less to carry, and I will assure you that your customers will never notice the difference.
Good luck with your final selection!


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 19, 2013)

DCM1024 said:


> I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.



I've used all three, the f4 was the lightest and easiest to use. But it's half as bright as the 2.8 and a lot less than the 135L. During ceremonies, I tend to perfer fast primes because of the light levels. But for receptions I prefer the flexiblity of a zoom and are generally better lit. So I put my 70-200 f2.8 LIS II in a camera bag in my car and after the ceremony I swap over lenses and pop the bag under the wedding cake table....the safest place


----------



## DCM1024 (Feb 19, 2013)

Thank you everyone for responding. The 135L is a 'want' lens for me after seeing superb photos posted from it by members on this forum, so I can hold off and get it when I have some spare money to burn. The 70-200 zoom will be my next 'need', and I'm still leaning toward the F4 since I'll be able to use it on the 5d3. If I want more bokeh, I do have a 50mm 1.8 in my bag. My bf has been talking about ordering both, trying them side by side and then returning one. I keep telling him he needs his own 70-200, as sometimes we shoot together, sometimes apart. Plus, we've got multiple lenses right now that are redundant. I've got my 17-55 up on CL, but haven't had any luck selling it thus far. Adorama is offering me a price that is fairly close to my asking price, so I'll probably send it in to them. So I guess my final choice is f4 for me, f2.8 ii for him.


----------



## robbymack (Feb 19, 2013)

Weight is a definite concern with the 2.8ii and was probably the main reason I chose the f4IS over it. I just couldnt stand carrying that thing around all day. I'm much happier using the lighter zoom and filling in with fast primes when needed.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 19, 2013)

robbymack said:


> Weight is a definite concern with the 2.8ii and was probably the main reason I chose the f4IS over it. I just couldnt stand carrying that thing around all day. I'm much happier using the lighter zoom and filling in with fast primes when needed.



+1

I think with the 5D3 the low light performance is good enough that f4 will fit the bill just fine.
Also you dont want too shallow a DOF in events and gatherings...and i assume you will have a prime for really shallow work)

70-200L f/4 is a highly regarded zoom in its own right and weighs about half the larger sibling.

While I fully recognize (and own) the f/2.8 II as a high quality zoom, I do not agree that it is called for at every turn just because it is a super duper zoom that also does window and vacuums your floors! There is a cult like following that suggests this zoom as a panacea for everything. If weight is a factor, then by all means stick to the f4 and it is a kick ass zoom.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Feb 19, 2013)

Do you have two 5DIII's and a 7D ? Or one of each ?

I found the 135L a tad too long on crop for indoors hall/church work, but epic on my 6D - so perhaps a 24-70 2.8 on the 5DIII and a 85mm (either) on the 7D to give you a "crop" 135mm

Off topic and not often mentioned, but my 135L was great on my crop 450D at air shows.


----------



## Dantana (Feb 19, 2013)

For those that have used both, is there a difference in IQ between both the 70-200's at f4? Is the 2.8 sharper stopped down a stop, or are they about equal?


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 19, 2013)

Dantana said:


> For those that have used both, is there a difference in IQ between both the 70-200's at f4? Is the 2.8 sharper stopped down a stop, or are they about equal?



At F4 they are both tack sharp in my hands. 

Again the f4 is an acclaimed lens in its own right...what the 2.8II offers is one stop extra light at a higher weight. it comes down to shooting style and portability issues... highly personal depending on photographic needs and tolerance to accommodate weight. If you are a big guy with 10 inch hands, the fact you can easily carry it has no relevance to a petit woman or a smaller person in general.


----------



## DCM1024 (Feb 20, 2013)

I have a 5d3 & 7d, bf has 2 5d2. Redundant lenses are a 24-105, 17-55 plus I have a 55-250 is. He also thinks I should sell the 7d, but I would keep it depending on price as a backup.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 20, 2013)

DCM1024 said:


> I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.



Canon 24-70 f2.8 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS on FF bodies - DONE


----------



## AudioGlenn (Feb 20, 2013)

DCM1024 said:


> So I guess my final choice is f4 for me, f2.8 ii for him.



I think that's the perfect compromise. It would be nice to have the 70-200 f/4 when I'm out shooting during the day and don't need the 2.8. The 2.8 IS II is a pain when I have to carry it for 12 hours.

That said, I've actually started using the spider holster system on my think tank belt. Have you considered a belt carrying system. It beats having anything around your neck or on your shoulder(s). I'd give it a try. I have a Black Rapid strap and even that bugs after a while. I hardly even feel the camera weight (5dmk3, 600ex-rt, and 70-200 2.8 IS II) on my hips/waist.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 20, 2013)

DCM1024 said:


> Thank you everyone for responding. The 135L is a 'want' lens for me after seeing superb photos posted from it by members on this forum, so I can hold off and get it when I have some spare money to burn. The 70-200 zoom will be my next 'need', and I'm still leaning toward the F4 since I'll be able to use it on the 5d3. If I want more bokeh, I do have a 50mm 1.8 in my bag. My bf has been talking about ordering both, trying them side by side and then returning one. I keep telling him he needs his own 70-200, as sometimes we shoot together, sometimes apart. Plus, we've got multiple lenses right now that are redundant. I've got my 17-55 up on CL, but haven't had any luck selling it thus far. Adorama is offering me a price that is fairly close to my asking price, so I'll probably send it in to them. So I guess my final choice is f4 for me, f2.8 ii for him.



My wife and I shoot together, we bought 2 70-200f2.8L IS II leneses since we figured we didnt want to be fighting over using that lens and having one each was fine until I got the 85mm, she prefers to shoot with zooms I prefer primes, so now for weddings having 2 70-200 lenses is redundant (having 2 is still fine for fashion and runway where this lens is basically without equal and we both use them)

If you are going to get 2 lenses why not get the 70-200 f2.8L IS II and the 85mm f1.4 ?

having 2 shooters taking shots with the same focal length lens is kind of redundant at a wedding. making sure both shooters are using different lenses give more variety.

typically my wife shoots with the 24-70 f2.8L (the 70-200 is heavy for her so she only uses it some of the time)
I will usually use the 16-35 and the 85 although since I have gotten the sigma 35 I'm torn i got it more for low light receptions but it's just so damn good i want to use it for everything now!

tough choices


----------



## elflord (Feb 20, 2013)

DCM1024 said:


> I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.



At my wedding, the photographers were two lightly built 20-something women. I think between them they were shooting with a 70-200mm f/2.8, a 16-35mm f/2.8 and a 24-70mm f/2.8. At least for the posed shots, the 70-200mm f/2.8 was on a tripod, so 

(a) they were only lugging around 3 lenses between the two of them, (one of which was a 70-200mm f/2.8) and 
(b) for the most part, they weren't handholding it (never during the posed shots, though they may have been for the candids)

It meant also that at any given time the two photographers were getting substantially different shots. 

So speaking to your situation if you're shooting as a two person team, and you are looking to economise on weight, having two of those bulky 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses (if I read you correctly he already has one) seems like a poor choice (I don't see what having a 70-200mm f/4 would add if he already has the 70-200mm f/2.8 either). So I'd say skip it (maybe get a 135L instead if the two of you need to take tele shots at the same time) 

Or were you thinking of a scenario where you're shooting alone ?


----------



## DCM1024 (Feb 20, 2013)

elflord said:


> DCM1024 said:
> 
> 
> > I know this should be an easy decision, but my female, 51 yo, 5'3" frame is wanting the smaller, lighter, less expensive f4 to be an acceptable compromise. I am upgrading lenses this year and just ordered a 100mm macro f2.8l is. I also want a 135 f2. Any comments on the zooms? My bf is pushing me to get the best lenses, since we've already invested in multiple 5d bodies. Any suggestions and input appreciated. I do understand the 2.8 ii is great, just worried that it's too much for me to pack for a full day wedding.
> ...



Right now neither of us have a 70-200. I agree there would be no need for us to have two lenses of the same focal length if we were always shooting as a team, but we don't. Sometimes we shoot as a team, sometimes we are on separate gigs on the same day, both needing that focal range. I did propose us each getting our own 70-200s tonight - one a 4, one a 2.8. That made sense to him.


----------



## Shane1.4 (Feb 20, 2013)

I have the 70-200 f4 IS with a 5d mkiii and it does fine. However I picked up a 135L and now that is all I ever use. The shots just turn out so gorgeous. I don't mind missing a shot here or there if the ones I am getting with the 135L are so much better.


----------



## elflord (Feb 20, 2013)

DCM1024 said:


> Right now neither of us have a 70-200. I agree there would be no need for us to have two lenses of the same focal length if we were always shooting as a team, but we don't. Sometimes we shoot as a team, sometimes we are on separate gigs on the same day, both needing that focal range. I did propose us each getting our own 70-200s tonight - one a 4, one a 2.8. That made sense to him.



What kind of setup do you have when you're on your own ? Do you have two bodies ? (you have a backup, right ? ) 

Anyway regardless of setup, you can only shoot with one lens at a given moment, so you could always shoot with the standard zoom until a shot calls for whatever tele you have (whether it's the 135L or 70-200mm f/4)


----------



## DCM1024 (Feb 20, 2013)

elflord said:


> DCM1024 said:
> 
> 
> > Right now neither of us have a 70-200. I agree there would be no need for us to have two lenses of the same focal length if we were always shooting as a team, but we don't. Sometimes we shoot as a team, sometimes we are on separate gigs on the same day, both needing that focal range. I did propose us each getting our own 70-200s tonight - one a 4, one a 2.8. That made sense to him.
> ...



I have been using 2 bodies, a 5d and a 7d. 24-105 on the 5d, 55-250is on the 7d. 580ex, various light modifiers. The 70-200 will replace the 55-250. 24-105 replaced the 17-55. I was shooting with a 5d2 last year, but replaced it with a 5d3 in December. I have always wanted a macro, even just for my own fun/hobby, but will also use it for detail shots at weddings. I consider the 70-200 to be a need, but I also really want a 135L. My only other personal lens is a 50mm 1.8. All other gear belongs to my bf, he has 2 5d2, 2 24-105 (another redundancy), 580 ex, plus we have elinchrom strobes.


----------



## preppyak (Feb 20, 2013)

robbymack said:


> Weight is a definite concern with the 2.8ii and was probably the main reason I chose the f4IS over it. I just couldnt stand carrying that thing around all day. I'm much happier using the lighter zoom and filling in with fast primes when needed.


Yep, this would be my answer too. If you need more light, then the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 probably isn't enough (especially in a dark ceremony or reception) and you'd want something in the f/1's anyway. But, if the room is bright or you are outdoors, f/4 will do the job just fine.

Also, it may not be the biggest factor, but the f/4 IS and the Sigma 85 or 135L combined would be the same if not cheaper than the f/2.8 II. And you can decide based on pre-scouting, etc which you'd need that day


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 20, 2013)

24L + 50L + 135L on two 5D3s. It's my preferred setup.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 20, 2013)

DCM1024 said:


> The 70-200 zoom will be my next 'need', and I'm still leaning toward the F4 since I'll be able to use it on the 5d3. If I want more bokeh, I do have a 50mm 1.8 in my bag. My bf has been talking about ordering both, trying them side by side and then returning one. I keep telling him he needs his own 70-200, as sometimes we shoot together, sometimes apart. Plus, we've got multiple lenses right now that are redundant. I've got my 17-55 up on CL, but haven't had any luck selling it thus far. Adorama is offering me a price that is fairly close to my asking price, so I'll probably send it in to them. So I guess my final choice is f4 for me, f2.8 ii for him.


In your situation, I'd get the 70-200 f/4 L ... I know a lot of people say f/4 is not good for wedding photography etc but I've seen photos made by some accomplished photographers, even with a "slow" lens like Tamron 28-300 VC ... one example is this: http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/test-driving-new-tamron-28-300mm-vc.html
The 70-200 f/4 L, is on sale right now for $1149 (for IS version) and $674 for non-IS ... this one is light on body and light on your purse.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 20, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> [, even with a "slow" lens like Tamron 28-300 VC ... one example is this: http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/test-driving-new-tamron-28-300mm-vc.html



???

Even on that website the images look horribly soft and they are probably reduced in size so should appear sharper!
maybe if that retro clarity reduced soft focus look is what you are chasing
but that is a terrible recomendation
the tamron 24-70 looks to produce decent results when people get good copies 
but a tamron superzoom, please.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 20, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > [, even with a "slow" lens like Tamron 28-300 VC ... one example is this: http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/test-driving-new-tamron-28-300mm-vc.html
> ...


I am not recommending 28-300 ... I was trying to make a point in favor of EF 70-200 f/4 L ... however, I believe David when he says: "During my Master Class last week, I actually printed a 24 x 36" print from this image series and it looked fabulous. So even using the Tamron lens and what many would consider the worst-case F-stop scenario, I am getting beautiful portraits of my bride".
Tamron 28-300mm VC lens at 300mm, F6.3 @ 1/200 second, ISO 200 (below image is from: http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2012/04/test-driving-new-tamron-28-300mm-vc.html)


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 20, 2013)

yeah its subjective but I dont rate those images at all
he must like the soft focus look...

I do see your point regarding the 70-200 f4L
and dont disagree at particularly with a 5Dmk3 where if you used iso 6400 instead of iso 3200
you are still going to get a great image and after processing and print it would still be perfectly acceptable
and you probably wouldnt even notice the extra stop of iso


----------



## jabbott (Feb 20, 2013)

I shoot with both the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the f/4L IS. Since moving up to the 5D3 from the T2i, I have hardly used the f/2.8 version at all - the f/4 version is just as sharp. That said, I primarily shoot outdoors and in decent lighting. If I were shooting weddings where lighting tends to be challenging, I would still think that having an f/2.8 would be required. I think your approach on getting one f/2.8, one f/4 and then sharing one with your husband would potentially work. I also think that the 135 f/2L and 70-200 f/4L IS option would be useful and overall lighter and cheaper.


----------

