Currently I have 300/2.8, a third camera body in a 20D, and a 400/5.6L that isn't being used due to the 300/2.8 + TC.
Question: Would it be a good business move, particularly for wedding portraits/candids and portrait business in general, to sell off the 20D, 400/5.6 (which I'm going to do anyway) and 300/2.8 for a new or used 200/2 IS?
Some background/ guidelines / constraints on your answers:
- I don't want the 70-200/2.8 IS so don't recommend it.
- I generally prefer primes over zooms.
- I generally prefer telephoto over wide angle
- I bought the 300/2.8 partially for weddings, partially for other things (sports, birding, astro)
- Rest of my lens kit is 24-70L (primary lens @ weddings), 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 (happy with), 135L, 8mm fisheye
- Have 5d primary body + 40D backup/2nd body... if I had two 5d's I'd consider all-prime setup, but I'm not selling the 40D and I'm a bit chicken to try.
- price is dropping on 200/2, and may drop further over next year or two-- if I buy a used one now it might cost less to buy new next year.
It's hard to justify a $5k lens investment for weddings. Easy if I shot indoor sports for a living, but hard to justify for just family portraits and weddings. The basic principle I ask is, am I going to make that money back over the life of the lens?
Factor in here I would use this lens for hobby / personal projects (astrophotos, birds, sports etc). I realize the 300/2.8 is a better fit for those activities.
Although the 200/2 is only 1 stop faster than the 200/2.8L, reports on the IS indicate hand-holdability down to 1/15 or 1/5 sec... which squarely puts this in the realm of useable for candids in a church or at a reception. The 200/2.8 which is 1/9th the cost, would only be handholdable at 1/200 or faster, which eliminates it as a contender in my mind.. despite the economics.
I could keep the 300/2.8 and sell the 20D, 35/2 and 400/5.6 for a 35L. Not particularly excited about the 85L although it would be nice, and switch to an all-prime setup.
Buy the lens. Likely you will think it is amazing and then after maybe 3 or 4 months realize how heavy it is and sell it. But - a nice lens to won for a while.
I personally would love the 200 f2 if I had more money than I knew what to do with, but that is not my luxury. I'm a prime guy as well, but I would definatelt upgrade to the 85L before I got the big gun. My areas are wedding/portrait and it is my "I don't know how I would live life without it" lens.
I'm contemplating a 200 1.8 myself, but even that is hard to justify for my work.
sboerup wrote:
I personally would love the 200 f2 if I had more money than I knew what to do with, but that is not my luxury. I'm a prime guy as well, but I would definately upgrade to the 85L before I got the big gun. My areas are wedding/portrait and it is my "I don't know how I would live life without it" lens.
I'm contemplating a 200 1.8 myself, but even that is hard to justify for my work.
A big reason I'm not too excited about the 85L is the "slow" focus speed. I (embarrassedly) admit that I have focus troubles... even with very fast focus speed lenses- 135L, 300/2.8L. Also, the minimum focus distance on the 85L leaves something to be desired. I often bump into the minimum focus distance on the 85/1.8-- I imagine I'll be frustrated with the 85L. And yes, f/1.2 is a thinner DOF than f/2 and 1 1/3 stop faster.
For comparison, the magnification factors:
85L: 1:9
200/2: 1:8
85/1.8: 1:7
200/2.8: 1:6.3
35L: 1:5.5
135L: 1:5.3
100/2.8: 1:1
And all of this has nothing to do with business sense
deebo7 wrote:
If you see yourself consistently shooting in churches where you are stuck in the back, then sure, go for it.
Id say use that 5k to get a 85L, 35L, better computer equipment, albums or any of the million other things you need to run a wedding business.
The money is partially being used for my own personal recreation / hobby. Agreed that from a strict business standpoint, I would own 2 5D's and the 24-70 and 70-200, and sell the 40D and 300/2.8. There is an percentage of recreational hobby in here, although the business need still must to be justified to the CFO
What's wrong with the 70-200 2.8 IS? Tape it at 200mm and you're set.
Seriously, it's a great lens - there is a reason it is such a common tool in the wedding photographer's bag. Try one, you might like it.
No particular problem with the 70-200 other than it is redundant for me having the 85/1.8 and 135L already. There hasn't been a situation yet where when using the 85 or 135 that I thought "gee, I wish I had a zoom"
RedWhiteandRed wrote:
Buy the lens. Likely you will think it is amazing and then after maybe 3 or 4 months realize how heavy it is and sell it. But - a nice lens to won for a while.
Thanks Red. The weight honestly isn't that big of a concern, I'm happy to deal with it for now
I'm not sure what "a nice lens to won for a while" means.. perhaps there's a typo?
trenchmonkey wrote:
For what Canon wants for their 200 f2 IS you could get a D300 AND 200 f2 VR.
Shooing in a cave would now be an option!
IIRC, isn't that what you did? I'd still have to sell off the 300/2.8 though Looking at B&H (out of stock BTW) I see the 200/2 VR is about the same price as the 300/2.8...
I have a 200L and can tell you that it really isn't a good length for shooting a wedding. Invest in the 35L, the 100mm macro, some external flash units for off camera work, and some Pocket Wizards.
Your highlighted question asks if this would be a good business move. As someone who has been shooting events for about four years, and whose wife still does, I would say it's a pretty awful business move. While I think it's completely indefensible from a business standpoint, it does, of course, satisfy the "I want to own a fast expensive prime" urge that this board likes to nurture with a vengeance. We have a number of expensive superfast L-primes in our kit, and we don' really use them often enough to justify their purchase as business assets. They're great pieces, of course, and I wouldn't part with them easily, but they don't add tremendous value to our business.
If you are looking for a good shallow-DoF lens in the 200mm range, the 200mm f/2.8, or 70-200 f/2.8 (which you refuse to consider) are the best business decisions. They give you 99% of what the 200 f/2.8 gives you for less than half the weight and a third of the cost. Unless that missing 1% add triples the value of your wedding portraiture (something I seriously doubt), I would either leave the 200, or treat its potential purchase for what it is; an artistic impulse buy.
ha, i bought an 85F1.8 because I thought it would be an alternative to buying the 70-200 IS, since I had
the non is version. After renting the 70-200 IS this weekend, I can say, dump your primes and buy the zoom.
If you have not shot an event with one, rent one and give it a go, you will change your mind.
lordarka wrote:
Your highlighted question asks if this would be a good business move. As someone who has been shooting events for about four years, and whose wife still does, I would say it's a pretty awful business move. While I think it's completely indefensible from a business standpoint, it does, of course, satisfy the "I want to own a fast expensive prime" urge that this board likes to nurture with a vengeance. We have a number of expensive superfast L-primes in our kit, and we don' really use them often enough to justify their purchase as business assets. They're great pieces, of course, and I wouldn't part with them easily, but they don't add tremendous value to our business.
If you are looking for a good shallow-DoF lens in the 200mm range, the 200mm f/2.8, or 70-200 f/2.8 (which you refuse to consider) are the best business decisions. They give you 99% of what the 200 f/2.8 gives you for less than half the weight and a third of the cost. Unless that missing 1% add triples the value of your wedding portraiture (something I seriously doubt), I would either leave the 200, or treat its potential purchase for what it is; an artistic impulse buy.
Looking at B&H (out of stock BTW) I see the 200/2 VR is about the same price as the 300/2.8...