Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Wedding Resource List

FM Forums \| Wedding Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2008 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Italo Campilii
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Why would you spend $5k in an impulsive purchase when you could spend the same money on a 70-200 2.8 IS + 85L AND still have some money left for a third L.

I would call that a wiser investment. You don't need a prime 200L on a wedding unless the expense will improve your work dramatically enough to justify the expense.

Seriously, what is wrong with the 70-200 2.8 IS?

Jun 23, 2008 at 09:13 AM

Andrew Welsh
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

You guys are no fun

Now I see Red's nefarious plan.. encourage me to buy the lens so I'm spending tons of bucks on something that doesn't really help me, distracting me from a truly good business investment, thereby dragging me (the competition) down

Seriously though, I agree that for strictly wedding + portrait use this lens is a bad, bad investment. If I want to dovetail into sports photography the lens then becomes a good investment.... but do I want to get into sports photography? I dunno. The lens also has other uses and I guess I need to put a dollar value on those other activities and then decide if it's worth it.

And for the record I have nothing specific against the 70-200/2.8 IS, I know it's a fine lens and highly recommended-- it's just not for me. Otherwise I'd own it and an 85L today instead of the 300/2.8.

Jun 23, 2008 at 02:12 PM

Andrew Welsh
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

liza wrote:
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.

I've managed to find use for a 300mm and 400mm lens at most every wedding I've gone to, so I'm very certain the 200 will be even more usable. I have contemplated the 100 macro, and I'm happy with my off-camera lighting setup.

I think I'll put my 1.4x TC on the 135L at my next wedding this upcoming Sunday and see if I like it... it'll be a good simulation of the 200/2.8L.

Jun 23, 2008 at 02:16 PM

Italo Campilii
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Still don't know why you want to reach 300mm 400mm....are your weddings that big in space? I know if i got inside a big church 200mm is way more than what i need, even on a full frame.

So in order for your purchase to make sense, please tell us what your plan is with this lens. Give us more info on your goals with it. Otherwise you're not going to get the input you're looking for.

Jun 23, 2008 at 06:23 PM

p150
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Italo Campilii wrote:
Still don't know why you want to reach 300mm 400mm....are your weddings that big in space? I know if i got inside a big church 200mm is way more than what i need, even on a full frame.

Wow, you must not have to deal with the same house rules that we almost always have to contend with. Many times we are relegated to the back of the church or in the balcony. Sometimes I wish I had something a little longer than 200mm to get some nice shots of the couple's faces or hands. I think that, in general, a 70-200 is the top choice for back-of-the-church shooting. I would be afraid that something longer would be more of a burden to haul around than it would be a help for those two or three shots I would like it for.

- Jeff

Jun 23, 2008 at 09:48 PM

Italo Campilii
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

p150 wrote:

Wow, you must not have to deal with the same house rules that we almost always have to contend with. Many times we are relegated to the back of the church or in the balcony. Sometimes I wish I had something a little longer than 200mm to get some nice shots of the couple's faces or hands. I think that, in general, a 70-200 is the top choice for back-of-the-church shooting. I would be afraid that something longer would be more of a burden to haul around than it would be a help for those two or three shots I would like it for.

- Jeff

Yup Jeff, biggest church so far required 70-200 easy but behind the altar there's not really much room for a 300 or even more a 400mm. My debate here is why 200L prime + weight + price. What justifies the price? Your NEED to have this lens or your WANTS all of the suden became a NEED to have it?

Jun 23, 2008 at 11:06 PM

p150
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Italo Campilii wrote:
My debate here is why 200L prime + weight + price. What justifies the price? Your NEED to have this lens or your WANTS all of the suden became a NEED to have it?

I completely agree. I don't get the strict loyalty to primes in a fast-paced wedding environment.

- Jeff

Jun 24, 2008 at 01:16 AM

Andrew Welsh
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Italo Campilii wrote:
Yup Jeff, biggest church so far required 70-200 easy but behind the altar there's not really much room for a 300 or even more a 400mm. My debate here is why 200L prime + weight + price. What justifies the price? Your NEED to have this lens or your WANTS all of the suden became a NEED to have it?

Italo:

This purchase decision is 70% want and 30% need.

Last wedding I shot involved a very large venue where 300 mm let me fit a standing person in landscape orientation:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Full frame from 5D, no PP, no cropping, no sharpening

I was using my 1.4x TC on the 300/2.8 for certain shots as well.

Of course I was shooting 2nd and the primary photog had access to walk up front... but if I was relegated to the back, even the 300mm shot was "barely enough".

Jun 24, 2008 at 02:11 AM

Italo Campilii
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Andrew,

It sounds to me you need to get up closer where the action is. No offense, but a 300 2.8, no matter how good you can hold the camera with your monopod or tripod, will always limit you to getting shots you need. Even 200 2.0 IS handheld can be tricky when considering weight + handheld in low light conditions, situations where you just have to grab non-moving subjects.
.
Last week I had a venue where I shot with available light with my 70-200 2.8IS and i caught superb shots very well lit, but it wasn't a wedding. If I had to stand in a lowly-lit church with this lens and no flash, I'd really have to take my time on each shot to get it perfectly sharp, and unless you're @ ISO 3200+, you really have no time to do this.

For your lenses, I'm not saying they're not sharp or good..my point is that they account for 10-50% of use tops..and how many keepers?...I understand your shooting style can be different from others, but coming from your response, I can now understand why you "want" this lens.

IMO, a better investment is definitely the 85L or 70-200 2.8 IS but of course, you've already considered them and of course, you're determined to get the 200mm 2.8 IS so that's your answer

Don't know where you can find it cheaper though. Try getting it off some sports photographer.

Edited on Jun 24, 2008 at 07:25 AM

Jun 24, 2008 at 07:20 AM

Lord Fluff
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Andrew Welsh wrote:
And for the record I have nothing specific against the 70-200/2.8 IS, I know it's a fine lens and highly recommended-- it's just not for me.

Is it too common for you or something? I'm sorry, this is one off those threads that I just don't get. Go buy the lens if you really want it - logic obviously isn't going to get in the way with this one.

I really fancy a 200/1.8 though it makes little business sense to buy one - it will only get used for occasional shots and maybe for E sessions, but hey, I'm a photographer, why not? If that's your logic then go for it, but it still intrigues me that you are so dead set against a cheaper, more flexible and really pretty damn good alternative in the zoom....

Jun 24, 2008 at 10:22 AM

anthonyket
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Did you end up with the lens in the end? I only ask because i'm curious in the comparison between the 85L, 135L, 200L f2.8 and the 200L IS version, regarding its usefulness at weddings.

Dec 29, 2008 at 12:11 AM

Italo Campilii
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

135L rocks

Dec 29, 2008 at 12:14 AM

Andrew Welsh
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

anthonyket wrote:
Did you end up with the lens in the end? I only ask because i'm curious in the comparison between the 85L, 135L, 200L f2.8 and the 200L IS version, regarding its usefulness at weddings.

Anthony:

Imagine my surprise when I saw this old thread surface. Bravo on using the search function and following up instead of just posting a new question- well done and well behaved

I did end up purchasing this lens. I posted my review on wedding pics here and an overall review of the lens itself here.

The summary is the 200/2 IS is the 135L on steroids. Whether it is worth the premium in cost is debatable, but it is a mighty fine lens, very much usable for weddings, and I wish I could've kept it (alongside my 300/2.8). Of your questions, I do use my 135L a lot for individual head-n-shoulders portraits. Some use 85mm for this (and the 85L is over a stop faster than the 135L). Among those choices I would immediately exclude the 200/2.8 unless you absolutely need 200mm. Lack of IS is a drawback since f/2.8 isn't fast enough for most dark churches- without IS (if you're shooting handheld).

Dec 29, 2008 at 02:08 AM

RedWhiteandRed
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Hi - I bought the 200 2.0 because I figured it would come in handy on occasion and because of teh what the heck factor.

I can report that the lens is much better than my 70-200 (that I never use) and has seen good use at weddings.

Lenses are not that expensive and you might as well have lots.

Dec 29, 2008 at 02:12 AM

anthonyket
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Thanks Andrew, Great reviews of the lens, i'm looking for a long prime and i thought the 200L 2.8 might be worth the effort, but obviously not because of its speed when you compare it to the likes of the 200L 2 IS and the 135L 2. Though budget and price is always in the equation unfortunately. However this has made me lust after a 200L IS thats for sure.

Dec 29, 2008 at 02:30 AM

deepbluejh
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

If it gives you a greater sense of satisfaction to spend more money, then go for it. However if you are strictly looking at the results in the context of wedding and portrait photography, your money is better spent elsewhere.

A 135L at similar framing will give you very similar bokeh to the 200/2 IS and be nearly as sharp. If you are thinking portraits, then the 200/2 IS makes little sense if you already have the 135L.

In the context of weddings, about the only time I can think that the lens would be useful over the 300/2.8 is during the ceremony when the 300mm was a little too long and the 135/2 was a little too short. Quite honestly, this is a VERY big ticket lens for such a limited application as that.

If you have $5500 burning a hole in your pocket and you are hell bent on spending it, then go right ahead - its an amazing lens. However strictly looking at the application of the lens for what you do, then it doesnt make a lot of sense (business or otherwise).

Edit: disregard this as I see this is an old thread.

Dec 29, 2008 at 03:21 AM

deepbluejh
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

RedWhiteandRed wrote:
Hi - I bought the 200 2.0 because I figured it would come in handy on occasion and because of teh what the heck factor.

I can report that the lens is much better than my 70-200 (that I never use) and has seen good use at weddings.

Lenses are not that expensive and you might as well have lots.

Calling a $5500 lens "not that expensive" is pretty hilarious.

Dec 29, 2008 at 03:23 AM

brett maxwell
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

I can't believe no one in this thread mentioned renting! If you're seriously contemplating a $5000 lens and have never used it, just rent it for one wedding!

That said, if I could have any one piece of photo gear given to me, the 200 f2 would definitely be my choice. (disregarding getting something more expensive and reselling it)

Dec 29, 2008 at 07:25 AM

Italo Campilii
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

deepbluejh wrote:
Calling a $5500 lens "not that expensive" is pretty hilarious.

Depends what you perceive as expensive. What may seem to someone that a $300 is expensive may be to a pro photog pocket cash. I don't see a $5k expensive if I make the money back at the end of the month. I'd see it expensive if I don't make the money back period.

Dec 29, 2008 at 02:34 PM

Neil vN
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · Help me spend $$- 200mm f/2 IS?

Andrew ... I rented the Canon 200mm f2 IS lens ... and it is fantastic.
Sharper wide open at f2 than the 70-200mm f2.8 is at f4

I posted a small review on my website:
http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/2008/07/29/canon-200mm-f2/

I have some images there of a model I photographed. Not a wedding.
But it might give you an idea of the possibilities with this lens.

Dec 29, 2008 at 03:47 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Wedding Photographer \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end