Looking for some opinions...

[thebeatles]

I know there are a lot of these threads, but bear with me. I am starting to get into wedding photography a good bit. I have been assisting a professional wedding photographer for a little while now and he may employ me to start shooting my own so he can take on more gigs. I currently have a T1i with the 17-40mm f/4 and the 85mm f/1.8. I am ordering a 5D mark ii this week and have about $2,000 to drop on glass. Here's where I am looking for opinions. I know that I am looking for lenses in the telephoto range, but haven't pinned down exactly what I want just yet. I have a plan A and a plan B.
Plan A: Pick up the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for $1,899 with a filter.
Plan B: Pick up the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS and the 200mm f/2.8L ii (no IS) for a combined total of about $1,800.
My initial thought is that "Plan A" would give me versatility in focal range, and IS, which will be good for "no flash" ceremonies. "Plan B", on the other hand, would give me the ability to take tight, macro, detail shots with the 100mm and telephoto shots at the ceremony with the 200mm. I am not sure whether the lack of IS with the 200mm will end up being a huge issue though, considering at 200mm in a dark church, my shutter speeds might cause blur at that length, (I am hoping the 5D's high ISO qualities will allow me to shoot at 1600 or 3200 and still look OK). I am also assuming that the primes would have better optical quality. So as you can tell, I am at a bit of a crossroad here. What do you folks think? Feel free to provide your own "Plan C" if you wish! Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this.

 

[Big Mike]

I'd go for the 70-200mm. Being able to change your focal length without switching lenses, is often a big benefit during a wedding.

The only problem, IMO, is that there is a new version of the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS...adding 'II' to the end of the name. The new version is supposed to be a fair bit sharper. But of course, the new version is $2300. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=70-200mm+L+IS+II&N=0&InitialSearch=yes

Another option would be the 70-200mm F4 L IS. It's is known to be a very sharp lens. And while I usually recommend the F2.8 version, the 5DII can easily make up the one stop loss in shutter speed with it's great high ISO performance. But then you have the issue of DOF. If you like the shallow DOF that F2.8 gives you, then you may want to avoid the F4 version....but if not, it may be a good option. It's also a good deal lighter, which would be nice for a long day of shooting.

 

[Derrel]

The 100 macro and 200/2.8 prime option doesn't sound too good. The "old" 70-200 2.8 IS model is still pretty solid on FF. The focal length flexibility of the zoom would be pretty handy.

 

[thebeatles]

I'd go for the 70-200mm. Being able to change your focal length without switching lenses, is often a big benefit during a wedding.

The only problem, IMO, is that there is a new version of the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS...adding 'II' to the end of the name. The new version is supposed to be a fair bit sharper. But of course, the new version is $2300. 70-200mm L IS II

Another option would be the 70-200mm F4 L IS. It's is known to be a very sharp lens. And while I usually recommend the F2.8 version, the 5DII can easily make up the one stop loss in shutter speed with it's great high ISO performance. But then you have the issue of DOF. If you like the shallow DOF that F2.8 gives you, then you may want to avoid the F4 version....but if not, it may be a good option. It's also a good deal lighter, which would be nice for a long day of shooting.

Thanks mike! Great advice as always! :thumbup: I was wondering if the improved high ISO of the 5D would allow me to shoot with something like the 70-200mm f/4 in dark churches. I suppose the fact that it still has IS would help a good bit too. Is the f/4 version notably sharper than the f/2.8 at f/4? Sorry for all the questions.

 

[thebeatles]

The 100 macro and 200/2.8 prime option doesn't sound too good. The "old" 70-200 2.8 IS model is still pretty solid on FF. The focal length flexibility of the zoom would be pretty handy.

Thanks for the advice Derrel! Totally off point, but I wish those 70-200's weren't so outrageously obvious! They are like giant white beacons! I am not sure whether the large white monster would be distracting during a ceremony or not. I guess wedding photographers use them all the time though eh? I always try to slip under the radar when shooting events, and I think that a giant white lens would pretty much ruin my "sniper approach! Once again, sorry, totally irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Big Mike]

Some like the big white lenses, some don't. I like that it 'looks professional'.

If it bothers you, you could always add a one of those lens jackets (or whatever they're called) or even buy the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 (although there would be a step down in quality with the Sigma (but also a big step down in price)).

I'm quite sure that the 5DII would allow you to shoot with F4 as a max. Heck, I almost never go above ISO 800 with my cameras...while the 5DII looks great at 3200 and even 6400 is usable.

Yes, the old version of the 70-200 F2.8 L IS, is still a good lens. And I don't think that it's a 'huge' difference between it and the F4...but part of the reason I bought mine, was that it was 'the best tool'...but now with the new version out there, the old version is no longer 'the best tool', so you'd be making a compromise by buying it...and if you are already making compromises, then you should seriously consider the F4...because it's a great compromise.

Of course, one train of thought would be to just buck up and shell out for the new version of the F2.8...and then you'd have the peace of mind that you do have the best tool for the job.

 

[thebeatles]

Some like the big white lenses, some don't. I like that it 'looks professional'.

If it bothers you, you could always add a one of those lens jackets (or whatever they're called) or even buy the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 (although there would be a step down in quality with the Sigma (but also a big step down in price)).

I'm quite sure that the 5DII would allow you to shoot with F4 as a max. Heck, I almost never go above ISO 800 with my cameras...while the 5DII looks great at 3200 and even 6400 is usable.

Yes, the old version of the 70-200 F2.8 L IS, is still a good lens. And I don't think that it's a 'huge' difference between it and the F4...but part of the reason I bought mine, was that it was 'the best tool'...but now with the new version out there, the old version is no longer 'the best tool', so you'd be making a compromise by buying it...and if you are already making compromises, then you should seriously consider the F4...because it's a great compromise.

Of course, one train of thought would be to just buck up and shell out for the new version of the F2.8...and then you'd have the peace of mind that you do have the best tool for the job.

Great points. :thumbup: I have some "food for thought" now!

 

[Derrel]

Nikon makes giant black beacon 70-200's...you could go Nikon and get a giant black beacon that would performa about as well...

But seriously, I know the feeling. When I was coming up in the 1980's, virtually all lenses were smaller than they are today. The 85mm f/2 for example, was not much bigger than today's 50/1.4 primes...it had 52mm filter diameter, and was small. A 105/2.5 or 135/2.8 or 200/4 were all quite,quite small lenses. ZOoms were often 70-150 or 70-200, and they were SMALL...the first "BIG" lens I every had was a Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f/2.8 vari-focal...it drew comments all the time, "Wow, that's a huge lens!" etc,etc.

While people are more used to big,honking white lenses today 25 years later, I still believe that in MANY social photography situations, the typical 24/70 f/2.8 zoom lens impairs the reactions of people...it's very obvious...and the longer zooms look, well "pervy" to many people...