how often do you use a 70-200 lens

Gerald Labrador · February 8th, 2011, 01:16 PM

I appreciate everyone's input on my question.

Actually I was thinking of getting a used Sigma when I posted this. So if there are any Sigma lens users out there, your input would be great.

And Travis, I just read the latest EventDV article. Thank you for choosing Miami instead of San Diego. You would have killed all the business here for everyone else.

Greg Fiske · February 8th, 2011, 01:45 PM

If you do go with the 135, you can also get the 1.4 teleconverter.

James Strange · February 8th, 2011, 06:10 PM

i did ALOT of looking into which 70-200 to buy

between:

sigma

Tamron

Canon (2.8 IS, 2.8 non IS, f4 IS, f4 non IS)

decided right away the f4 canons as low light is my main priority.

Neither the tamron or the sigma have IS

the canon was too expensive, and general consensus between the sigma and the tamron was that the tamron was the better of the 2 (both pretty much the same price, at least they were when I was buying last year)

So i bought the tamron, thinking that IS wouldnt be too much of an issue as most of my shooting is on tripod or monopod.

After about 6 months of shooting with the tamron, I;ve came to the conclusion that even on a tripod, IS does a whole lotta work for you.

With the Tamron, even on sticks and especially at the 200mm end, if you breath near the camera, you will get judder, jello, motion, shaky (pick your term)

Now I still think its good for the money, but I kinda wish I'd saved up and got the canon 2,8 WITH IS (or maybe even the f4 with IS, but I often shoot with the tamron wide open at 2.8 (almost every wedding for the speeches I've got the Tamron 70-200 on my 7d, and the canon 17-55 on my 550d.

So I'd say if you afford to save up a but, get the Canon with IS, but I think the IS is a really underestimated element with the long lenses.

My 2 pence

James

Jim Snow · February 8th, 2011, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Strange

After about 6 months of shooting with the tamron, I;ve came to the conclusion that even on a tripod, IS does a whole lotta work for you.

That is so true. When you're long, unless you're on a concrete floor, you will get some visible shake when anyone moves anywhere near the camera/

Johannes Soetandi · February 8th, 2011, 06:26 PM

The Sigma have released the OS (Optical Stabilizer) version priced around $1300.. I haven't try it yet but seems promising.

I used to have Canon f4L and I agree, when someone walks near the tripod the shake is quite visible especially at the long end

Travis Cossel · February 8th, 2011, 06:27 PM

Sigma isn't horrible glass, but it's also not L-series Canon glass either. My thought was two-fold when we purchased our 70-200's. First, lenses are like an investment .. sort of. Buy a great lens and unless you drop it in a lake it's going to last a long time. The second thing was that the Sigma focus rings spin the opposite of Canon's, and that can really mess you up in the heat of the moment. So I stuck with Canon.

Travis Cossel · February 8th, 2011, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerald Labrador

And Travis, I just read the latest EventDV article. Thank you for choosing Miami instead of San Diego. You would have killed all the business here for everyone else.

I'm starting to get bored in Miami ... d;-p

Jason Magbanua · February 8th, 2011, 10:49 PM

Not as much now since I got a 135 2.0.

Susanto Widjaja · February 9th, 2011, 12:59 AM

I own 85mm, 135mm, 70-200 f4 and 70-200 f2.8is

During ceremony, when it is a big church, we use both 70-200 so we can stand as far as we can with our 5ds.

If its relatively small space, i would pick 135 for my monopod and 70-200 on tripod.

If i need to choose between the 3, i would choose 70-200.

135 is too gorgeous to be missed though....

Michael Simons · February 9th, 2011, 03:33 PM

Is there much of a difference between an older 70-200mm and the new version? The new version is $2,400 but a used lens can go for $1,500. Which would you buy?

Craig Terott · February 9th, 2011, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Magbanua

Not as much now since I got a 135 2.0.

"Hail to the king" plays in the background...

If you're shooting more with the 135, that means you're shooting more without IS. For certain, my camera work sucks without IS ...then again, I'm not you. :)

Johannes Soetandi · February 9th, 2011, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Simons

Is there much of a difference between an older 70-200mm and the new version? The new version is $2,400 but a used lens can go for $1,500. Which would you buy?

I've heard that there is a great difference. I haven't try it yet, but my housemate is buying one from overseas and soon I'll be trying (and borrowing) his lens for my next wedding :P .. If have the budget, I would buy the Mkii version.. Always rely on the latest technology!

Jason Magbanua · February 9th, 2011, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Terott

"

If you're shooting more with the 135, that means you're shooting more without IS. For certain, my camera work sucks without IS ...then again, I'm not you. :)

Funny enough, I just realized that I don't have a single lens with IS. But the comments here are most enlightening. Maybe next purchase.

I used to love the 70-200 during bridal preps, but it proved too heavy. The 135 is perfect for this situation. Ceremony is still 70-200 for Cam B. My 135 is on Cam A.

Edward Mendoza · February 13th, 2011, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Simons

Is there much of a difference between an older 70-200mm and the new version? The new version is $2,400 but a used lens can go for $1,500. Which would you buy?

You can still get fantastic results with the older.

For those with the APS-C-sized sensor cams (7D, 60D, T2i), a 70-200mm may not be very ideal for weddings where you'll have to be up in the action. The crop factor tightens up your shot tremendously for starters; I had to stand considerably far away from a large dance floor just to get some acceptable medium shots of people dancing. Unless you're standing at the back of a church for the ceremony, I can't see how you're getting "breathable" shots.

Also, it looks great and is easily recognizable by even the lay person as a professional lens, but it's very bulky and heavy. It's awkward to shoot with unless your stabilized in some way, even moreso for the smaller-sensor cams.

This lens was meant for the full-framers, and you'll have a much easier time if so.

Travis Cossel · February 13th, 2011, 05:38 PM

That's part of the beauty of the lens. You don't have to be so close to people when you're filming them. When people don't know they are being filmed you get more authentic footage. We use 70-200's for every single wedding (not exclusively, of course).

February 8th, 2011, 06:27 PM	#21
Travis Cossel Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 2,933	Sigma isn't horrible glass, but it's also not L-series Canon glass either. My thought was two-fold when we purchased our 70-200's. First, lenses are like an investment .. sort of. Buy a great lens and unless you drop it in a lake it's going to last a long time. The second thing was that the Sigma focus rings spin the opposite of Canon's, and that can really mess you up in the heat of the moment. So I stuck with Canon. __________________ Black Label Films www.blacklabelweddingfilms.com

February 9th, 2011, 12:59 AM	#24
Susanto Widjaja Major Player Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 622	I own 85mm, 135mm, 70-200 f4 and 70-200 f2.8is During ceremony, when it is a big church, we use both 70-200 so we can stand as far as we can with our 5ds. If its relatively small space, i would pick 135 for my monopod and 70-200 on tripod. If i need to choose between the 3, i would choose 70-200. 135 is too gorgeous to be missed though.... __________________ If a picture is worth a thousand words, what about motion picture? website: www.papercranes.com.au \| blog: www.weddingvideosydney.net

February 13th, 2011, 05:38 PM	#30
Travis Cossel Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 2,933	That's part of the beauty of the lens. You don't have to be so close to people when you're filming them. When people don't know they are being filmed you get more authentic footage. We use 70-200's for every single wedding (not exclusively, of course). __________________ Black Label Films www.blacklabelweddingfilms.com

February 8th, 2011, 01:16 PM	#16
Gerald Labrador Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 55	I appreciate everyone's input on my question. Actually I was thinking of getting a used Sigma when I posted this. So if there are any Sigma lens users out there, your input would be great. And Travis, I just read the latest EventDV article. Thank you for choosing Miami instead of San Diego. You would have killed all the business here for everyone else.

February 8th, 2011, 01:45 PM	#17
Greg Fiske Major Player Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Santa Ana, CA Posts: 499	If you do go with the 135, you can also get the 1.4 teleconverter.

February 8th, 2011, 06:10 PM	#18
James Strange Major Player Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Posts: 309	i did ALOT of looking into which 70-200 to buy between: sigma Tamron Canon (2.8 IS, 2.8 non IS, f4 IS, f4 non IS) decided right away the f4 canons as low light is my main priority. Neither the tamron or the sigma have IS the canon was too expensive, and general consensus between the sigma and the tamron was that the tamron was the better of the 2 (both pretty much the same price, at least they were when I was buying last year) So i bought the tamron, thinking that IS wouldnt be too much of an issue as most of my shooting is on tripod or monopod. After about 6 months of shooting with the tamron, I;ve came to the conclusion that even on a tripod, IS does a whole lotta work for you. With the Tamron, even on sticks and especially at the 200mm end, if you breath near the camera, you will get judder, jello, motion, shaky (pick your term) Now I still think its good for the money, but I kinda wish I'd saved up and got the canon 2,8 WITH IS (or maybe even the f4 with IS, but I often shoot with the tamron wide open at 2.8 (almost every wedding for the speeches I've got the Tamron 70-200 on my 7d, and the canon 17-55 on my 550d. So I'd say if you afford to save up a but, get the Canon with IS, but I think the IS is a really underestimated element with the long lenses. My 2 pence James

February 8th, 2011, 06:26 PM	#20
Johannes Soetandi Major Player Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Perth, Australia Posts: 387	The Sigma have released the OS (Optical Stabilizer) version priced around $1300.. I haven't try it yet but seems promising. I used to have Canon f4L and I agree, when someone walks near the tripod the shake is quite visible especially at the long end

February 8th, 2011, 10:49 PM	#23
Jason Magbanua Major Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Manila Posts: 317	Not as much now since I got a 135 2.0.

February 9th, 2011, 03:33 PM	#25
Michael Simons Major Player Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Red Bank, NJ Posts: 553	Is there much of a difference between an older 70-200mm and the new version? The new version is $2,400 but a used lens can go for $1,500. Which would you buy?