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?

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

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:

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.

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....

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.

135L rocks

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

close up, the 200 gives better bokeh than the 135 and is scary sharp at f/2.

though I use my 135 at f/2 quite a bit - at least on my sample it doesn't hold a candle to the 200/2 with both wide open.

How heavy is the 200 f/2? Same as 70-200 2.8 IS?

Neil vN wrote:
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.

The bokeh on that lens is scaringly awesome. It's well worth the $5k investment.

italo the 200/2 is 2.5kg

sejanus wrote:
italo the 200/2 is 2.5kg



HOLY SMACK. Definitely need assistant + monopod with my broken back

heres a couple from me with that lens

Well Sejanus a few of those make the argument right well and proper.

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.