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.


Your thoughts?

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.

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.

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.

I can't resist....

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.

"a third camera body in a 20D"


Really? What is the second camera body you have in the 20D? If I stick my G9 and SD550 inside my 20D, will my 20D get better?

save your money!

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

Lord Fluff wrote:
I can't resist....

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"

sav0320 wrote:
"a third camera body in a 20D"


Really? What is the second camera body you have in the 20D? If I stick my G9 and SD550 inside my 20D, will my 20D get better?

OK, ok, poorly worded, I meant I have 3 camera bodies and the 20D is unused.

For what Canon wants for their 200 f2 IS you could get a D300 AND 200 f2 VR.
Shooting in a cave would now be an option!

Edited by trenchmonkey on Jun 22, 2008 at 06:42 AM GMT

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?

Think he meant to type "own"

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...

Andrew Welsh wrote:

There hasn't been a situation yet where when using the 85 or 135 that I thought "gee, I wish I had a zoom"

Evidently though you wish you had 200mm? And the zoom aint shabby at the long end...

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.

Arka C.

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.

Arka C.

+1

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?

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.

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.

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.

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