brett maxwell wrote:
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!
I honestly would recommend buying the lens outright-- used if possible-- then reselling it. I did this. I even did the bad thing- I bought it purely on credit. When I sold the lens, I got a bunch of lenses in trade and had to sell all those lenses off (with paypal and shipping fees of their own).
All in all, I spent $139.58 to rent the lens for a month when factoring in all shipping, PP and credit card fees.
One week at lensrentals.com runs $335 USD not including shipping.
Of course I had to deal with the PITA of buying and selling it... but owning the lens yourself is the most economical solution, because it does not lose it's value. And keep in mind, I even dropped the lens and scuffed the pristine hood!
If I had $5-$6k in capital / cash available, I would seriously consider owning the lens for a while, then selling it off. Everyone forgets that the lens still has value, even if you beat on it for 5 years-- so it's not like it's a complete $5500 write-off. Unlike camera bodies which are effectively disposable, with a lens like this you only need to earn $1-$2k off the lens in a 2-4 year period to make up the depreciation (if you buy it new).
A parallel here is my 300/2.8 which I bought for $3400, and I could sell it today for $3400. I'd only lose one way of the shipping cost. Two years from now it'll be worth $3100-$3200 (assuming the price of the new one stays the same)
deepbluejh wrote:
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.
The same framing (ex: a headshot) will give the same DOF with any lens at f/2. The main reason one would use the 200/2 over 135L is the image stabilizer-- candids at a reception come to mind. In the dark cave of most reception halls, unless you're using remote flashes, the 200/2 will outshine the 135L because of the IS.
For daylight outdoor portraits, just use the 135L... the IS gives you nothing, and the 200/2 just weighs a ton in comparison
Nice lens, and I can see plenty of wedding applications .. many which will help distinguish you from your competitors.
As to cost ... if you're shooting 25-30 weddings a year at $3,500 per wedding average then a five thousand dollar lens investment is a relatively small amount, particularly if that lens helps set you apart from the dozens of other wedding shooters in your market.
My 200 1.8 was the best decision i EVER made with my photography, it produces more Wows on location but even more importantly on presentation of the final product.
Nathan Hobbs wrote:
My 200 1.8 was the best decision i EVER made with my photography, it produces more Wows on location but even more importantly on presentation of the final product.
I'd seriously consider swapping for the 200/1.8 if it had IS. Even with the 2/3 stop advantage (due to the differing t-stops of the two lenses, the 200/1.8 transmits more light through at f/2 than the 200/2 does at f/2), it still doesn't make the lens hand-holdable at light that meters as 1/30 sec with the 200/2 (the 200/1.8 would register 1/50 sec, and you'd have to be mighty steady at 200mm with a lens known to not have the best balance for handholding). Although coupled with a 5DII and ISO6400 that could get you up to 1/80 or 1/100... hmm.
The wedding I played with the 200/2 had a ceremony metered at ISO3200, 1/20 sec f/2. Pretty darn dark and the 135L was useless. With the 5D2 and 200/1.8 I could swing ISO6400, f/1.8 to get 1/60 SS.
Perhaps Nathan, you could comment on the success rate of hand-holding the 200/1.8 at 1/60 sec?
Awesome pictures! It's certainly a fabulous lens, but there's alot of PP work here too. The colors look great but not completely natural IMHO. How much saturation did you use?
