Hey DSLR shooters, how often do you use a 70-200 lens for weddings?
I'm currently using a 24-70 and a 50 on my T2i. And I'm pondering on a 85 f1.4 or 70-200 f2.8 as my next purchase.

Thanks.

though being able to shoot at 1.4 is obviously a huge advantage with the extra 2 stops.... I have the 70-200 2.8 and use it during ceremonies. It's variable focal length really lets you frame up well with your surroundings. It would be very hard to move the camera to the perfect place at some of these churches/venues. Especially if you go to one that only let's you stay in the back (happened to me twice). If I just had an 85, it would have been way too wide and unpleasant.

The 70-200 is VERY useful. We have a few and we use them for every ceremony and reception, and sometimes even pre-ceremony for special shots. We also sometimes use the 70-200 with a 2.0 extender, which doubles the range (although you lose some light too). The 85 is a great lens, no doubt, but I would take a 70-200 over an 85 any day if I had to choose just one.

+1 to comments above. 85 handheld is prone to jittery footage without a shoulder rig, so its kind of an awkward length without IS. The 70-200 has IS so you can handhold it without a shoulder rig. Set it at 200 and your background turns to cream. Great lens!

70-200 plus the 5d2. Of the lenses i have - this is my favorite.
With the ability to shoot higher ISO, I rarely feel that this lens is too slow, and it is more versatile in a wedding environment than a long prime.

I have probably shot over 60 DSLR weddings and I've never used the 70-200mm. It's too big and bulky for me. I use the 85mm 1.8 and the 135mm 2.0 which are better under low-light.

I'm sure you'll make lots of use out of it. It's an excellent lens! Except that I'm already in love with our two 135mm f2.0L and can't resist to use it! :P

Although, I did purchase a Canon 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS the other day for our backup lens.. turns out to produce excellent image quality and very cheap too :)

Hey DSLR shooters, how often do you use a 70-200 lens for weddings?

it is permanently attached to my 5D:), I mean 100% of park and 90% of reception footage from 5D shot with 70-200 2.8,, I also have 135mm on 1D, which makes it look pretty close, except for the better low light of 1D and 135mm, but it's prime, and i like zooms for weddings - not always have time to use foot zoom:) Plus it has very good stabiliser, and i can do handheld @200mm and it's very smooth, I agree with Travis I'll choose that lens any day over 85 or 135mm.

I think if you work with the same photographer every weekend, the 70-200mm will work for you. But if you work with different photogs every weekend, the 85mm will be better. I worked with a photog last week that stood 2 feet away from the B&G all day..no way a 70-200mm will have done me any good unless I wanted to shoot the back of the photogs head.

Michael, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the 70-200 already covers the 85mm range, so I don't see why using a 70-200 would be an issue. If you end up in a situation where you need the 85mm range, just adjust the 70-200 zoom to the 85mm setting. Right?

Michael, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but the 70-200 already covers the 85mm range, so I don't see why using a 70-200 would be an issue. If you end up in a situation where you need the 85mm range, just adjust the 70-200 zoom to the 85mm setting. Right?

I think with the 70-200mm you can stand much further back away from the action (which is ideal) but in most cases, the photographers are standing so close that the further back you stand can only hinder your ability to maneuver and get a better angle. The 70-200 is a big heavy lens to carry and manuever. Unfortunately for me, I don't work with the same photographers every weekend so I have to be able to be quick on my feet because the photogs say they will do one thing, but will often do another and have no clue where I am standing.

I agree that the 70-200 is a heavier lens, but it can also go wider than the 85 .. or much closer. So to me, it's a much more versatile lens for a live event situation. Use what you like, though I say. d;-)

The 70-200. You can use this to get shots of people enjoying dinner w/o them noticing.

But more importantly, you need the range rather then a fixed lens. I use the the 70-200 for corporate work and other events.

Get the 70-200 first

Only for the ceremony, on the camera in the middle aisle.

i can do handheld @200mm and it's very smooth

You must have nerves of steel, Buba. I would never trust myself going handheld with any DSLR, no matter how wide and no matter how good the image stabilizer is. If you're getting stable shots @ 200mm, what is your technique?

Travis & Kelly. What do you guys think about the Sigma 70-200? I've come very close to buying the Canon but it's just so much money and I wasn't sure how much I would really use it.

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.

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

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

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/

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

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.

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

Not as much now since I got a 135 2.0.

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....

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?

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. :)

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!

"

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.

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.

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).

I'm expected by the clients to be more personal in my shooting and up on the action. It can go either way though, I'm sure. Two-man shoot, you can have one man with a shorter lens up in the fun while number two can be getting B-roll from afar.