canon 70-200L IS or primes?

[guitarkid]

just your opinion on this...i still don't know.

i have a 30D and 20D.

lenses are;

Sigma 10mm-24mm
Sigma 70-200mm F4
Sigma 18-55mm F2.5
Canon (cheap) 70-300mm F4.5?
Canon 50mm F1.8

i use the sigma 70-200 for everything and love it. i shoot mainly weddings and need something for low light. i just started shooting with the prime lens 50mm. i love it!!! looks so great with low light! very fast as well! i will look at a 24mm possibly or a 35mm. i need a little more room in the images and 50mm is zoomed in too much a lot of times for what i shoot.

i heard the canon 70-200L IS is really great. i need something fast that looks great in low light. i thought of getting a 135mm prime and a 24mm prime but then i would have to change out with the 2 cams and risk missing a shot. i really like the 50 prime and couldn't get over how nice they they look compared to my sigma 70-200mm. the sigma is nice but the prime was great.

anyway, thanks,
steve

 

[Big Mike]

I don't own it...but I've always heard that the 70-200 F2.8 IS...is the cat's @SS. With F2.8 and IS...you should be able to get sharp shots with natural light in a lot of places. I say go for it.

 

[usayit]

primes vs zooms.... thats a question only you can answer. From the sound of your post, it seems like you are leaning towards zooms. I personally shoot mostly with primes but switch to zooms when necessary. If you do a search, you will find one common thing people say about the 70-200L IS. Not one person regrets it. I have it... takes great pictures.. better yet.. great pictures but I find it way too heavy on long trips by foot. I've considered selling it many times to bring back $$$ for other purchases but just could never make that final step towards getting rid of it.

 

[thebeginning]

you'll be plenty happy with the 70-200IS...especially since one can easily tell that you are more comfortable with zooms. if you were doing portraits, i'd more easily suggest some primes but for wedding work, the 70-200IS is just plain fantastic.

 

[guitarkid]

finally tried out the 70-200 IS by canon. not as heavy as i thought. nice and pro looking. the zoom isn't as much as i thought, meaning, there wasn't as much distance between the 70 and 200 as i thought there would be. IS was nice but as someone pointed out, possibly in another thread, i really don't think the 200mm warrants IS. overall, it's pretty damn nice and very steady but maybe not worth the $1600 price tag; ouch. i may get it but who knows. weddings would really have to pick up for it to be worth it i suppose.
steve

 

[Digital Matt]

i really don't think the 200mm warrants IS.

Can you handhold a 200mm lens at 1/60 an get a sharp picture every time? I know I can't.

 

[bitteraspects]

the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, Iis my second favorite lense. and its a close second. i always use this glass for weddings, and ill have a prime on my second camera. you cant go wrong with this glass, its amazing

 

[guitarkid]

Can you handhold a 200mm lens at 1/60 an get a sharp picture every time? I know I can't.

actually, yes i can, about 80% of the time. that's why i don't feel it is worth it for me. i have even squeezed off shots at 1/30 with no issues. the only time it's a hassle is when i'm shooting 1/60 at 300mm. that's tough. that's tripod time. i guess i've had years of practice shooting video with no tripod. i've always been pretty steady.

 

[bitteraspects]

the IS is more for things like sports photography ect. its true you may nit need IS at 2oomm, but at the same time, you might not need a tripod either, but they moth help produce sharper images and give you more flexibily in your exposure.

 

[Tiberius]

IS is absolutely useless for sports most of the time. The point of IS is to be able to shoot at slower shutter speeds without blur, but with sports shots, since it's subject motion not camera motion, you'd still get blur.

 

[thebeginning]

actually, yes i can, about 80% of the time. that's why i don't feel it is worth it for me. i have even squeezed off shots at 1/30 with no issues. the only time it's a hassle is when i'm shooting 1/60 at 300mm. that's tough. that's tripod time. i guess i've had years of practice shooting video with no tripod. i've always been pretty steady.

niccce. if you can shoot at 1/60 pretty easily, and 1/30 sometimes...then how would you like to handhold a 200mm at 1/4 sec?

 

[guitarkid]

niccce. if you can shoot at 1/60 pretty easily, and 1/30 sometimes...then how would you like to handhold a 200mm at 1/4 sec?

yeah, that's true. i'm still thinking of getting this lens. it's just so much money. few more weeks to think about it. thanks guys!

 

[markc]

i will look at a 24mm possibly or a 35mm. i need a little more room in the images and 50mm is zoomed in too much a lot of times for what i shoot.

If the 50mm is too telephoto, won't the 70-200 be even worse? I tend to lean towards primes for my own shooting because I like the wide apertures. It looks like you have good coverage in zooms. My own next choice in lenses would be a 35mm prime for my 10D. It's a "normal" lens on that camera (and yours) and would be like a 55mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

 

[guitarkid]

yes, that would be too much zoom but i'm looking to replace my 18-200 sigma. that sigma is a GREAT lens but with IS and the canon lens, i'm thinking it will be better. so i would have an 18-55 F2.5, 50mm F1.8, 35mm (soon) and the 18-200 sigma F4...which i may want to replace with the 70-200 F2.8.
so when shooting i would use the 70-200 IS and the 35mm on the 2nd camera. i think that's a good plan.

 

[darich]

I have the 70-200 F2.8 L non IS version and while i sometimes wish i had paid that bit more to get the IS i don't feel the money warrants it for my type of photography.

I reasoned that with the stuff i shoot and having f2.8 I'd be buying IS for the sake of it so i opted to not to go for it.

The 70-200 lens is brilliant...my second favourite behind the 24-70 f2.8.

Quality wise most of the guys in here have advised me in the past that L quality is comparable with most primes.