I know I've posted my review of the lens before, but I finally processed my images from the wedding where I tried out the 200/2 IS. Fortuitously, I got stuck in the darkest church I've ever shot in so far-- 1/20 sec, ISO1600, f/2. And I was sent to the balcony. I would've been dying up there with the 300/2.8 IS, or limited to tripod use. However, the IS of the lens is really superb, and I was able to handhold the 5lb camera/lens combo with no/very little camera shake. Of course at 1/20 sec, you get subject movement, but I was glad to have it.
And for Portraits, it really is the 135L on steroids.
Here are some images (not the best-- I was off my game a bit with this wedding, but just samples):
trillium wrote:
I don't see anything here my 70-200 IS could not have done. 5 or 6 grand? The bride and groom won't notice.
Or in the UK, 9 grand.
In a way I'd love this lens, or the 200/1.8, but from a business point of view I can't really justify it. The long end of the 2.8 zoom is really not that far off in terms of performance (though I'd love the newer IS)
In a way I'd love this lens, or the 200/1.8, but from a business point of view I can't really justify it. The long end of the 2.8 zoom is really not that far off in terms of performance (though I'd love the newer IS)
Agreed. If someone would give me one, I'd probably love to use it.... but will that lens give me enough additional capability to earn $5k more than I would have earned? The break even would be like a decade or two. Totally worth it for sports shooters, but I just don't see it making money for weddings.
I agree with the business value statements made here- it really isn't a sound investment for a fulltime wedding photographer. Extend that to portraits and sports, then it is worthwhile. Plus it's a cool toy to have for your inner gearhead As a full-time pro I would have a very hard time justifying it. The 135L is a much sounder investment if you need f/2, and the 70-200 2.8 IS if you need IS, and the 200/2.8L if you need a 200mm prime-- if you're a wedding photographer. Yeah I know the pictures aren't totally amazing, but don't let the content be your main impression source.
Congratulations on the 200L lens -- I've always wanted one but will have to wait I like the first image u posted, and I can imagine the conditions you were shooting must have been difficult.
Is it just me, or are the images not as sharp as I would have imagined, especially with 5 stop IS? I just purchased a 135L since I can't afford the 200 F2L yet..and I have been thrilled with it it's insanely sharp.
Would you be kind enough to post some more shots (in a less inclement situation), if you don't mind?
I have a 200/1.8 I use at weddings. I never use it during the ceremony but I'll often use it at the photo session between ceremony & reception.
It gives a real look to shots. Big dollars though! I'm going to get the new version to get the IS as it is a heavy chunk and I have lost a few shots to shake.
This is 1 example of a 200 1.8 wedding shot I took.
Going by what Andrew said - could the 70-200 REALLY do 1/10th @ f/2.8? Or 1/5 @ f/4, I know mine couldn't do that, and both IS versions theoretically have the same degree of "hand-holdability" (how long before that becomes a recognised word?)
Fair point - I only count on mine down to about 1/40th at the long end. But then I've yet to be 'sent to the balcony' for a wedding, so I've never needed a long lens, IS or otherwise, during the ceremony.
Yeah, I can do mine (f/4) down to about 1/25th, but there's a very high risk of motion blur at that point anyway, I suppose I've been lucky so far, 6 months into doing weddings and I've always been able to get at least 1/50 at 2.8 (24-70)
SOrry.
As a full-time pro I would have a very hard time justifying it. The 135L is a much sounder investment if you need f/2, and the 70-200 2.8 IS if you need IS, and the 200/2.8L if you need a 200mm prime-- if you're a wedding photographer. Yeah I know the pictures aren't totally amazing, but don't let the content be your main impression source.