Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
p.1 #1Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
Figured this question is better in the Canon forum than wedding photography section.
Anybody chime in - but I'm particularly interested in feedback from those of you who shoot a few or a lot of weddings and portraits. Have you sold your 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom in favor of primes? Thanks !
Over the years I've used 70-200mm a lot, but it's probably my least favorite lens to hold. Not sure if the reason I haven't sold is due to convenience or procrastinating. I do realize it can save steps at times. But with 45mp sensors offering a buffer with cropping, etc., maybe it's time to reconsider selling my 70-200mm and just change my style. For portraits I used 85mm 1.2 the most and also have a 135mm for a fair amount of reach. When using the zoom, I find most of the images are 135mm or less and the ones past 135mm are usually close to 200mm in a space where I had room to walk. I figure the worse case scenerio is 6 months without a 70-200 proves life got harder and I just order a nice used Tamron G2 and open the box in a few days. Best case scenerio is shoots become more creative and enjoying a lighter combo in hand and easier bag to carry.
Anybody chime in - but I'm particularly interested in feedback from those of you who shoot a few or a lot of weddings and portraits. Have you sold your 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom in favor of primes? Thanks !
Over the years I've used 70-200mm a lot, but it's probably my least favorite lens to hold. Not sure if the reason I haven't sold is due to convenience or procrastinating. I do realize it can save steps at times. But with 45mp sensors offering a buffer with cropping, etc., maybe it's time to reconsider selling my 70-200mm and just change my style. For portraits I used 85mm 1.2 the most and also have a 135mm for a fair amount of reach. When using the zoom, I find most of the images are 135mm or less and the ones past 135mm are usually close to 200mm in a space where I had room to walk. I figure the worse case scenerio is 6 months without a 70-200 proves life got harder and I just order a nice used Tamron G2 and open the box in a few days. Best case scenerio is shoots become more creative and enjoying a lighter combo in hand and easier bag to carry.
Aug 25, 2026 at 05:24 PM
p.1 #2Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
Which 70-200 do you have? If you haven't tried the RF 70-200 you should give it a try. It's much lighter and smaller than all previous 70-200's especially since you don't need an adapter for it which makes them all longer and heavier due to weight distribution. If I remember correctly, my RF 85 f/1.2 was about the same weight as the RF 70-200, which is also very compact for the gear bag. I carry two bodies, and always usually have the RF 70-200 on one body for portraits/events. The upper zoom range and 200 f.2/8 is nice to have for taking candids.
Aug 25, 2026 at 07:57 PM
p.1 #3Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
artsupreme wrote:
Which 70-200 do you have? If you haven't tried the RF 70-200 you should give it a try. It's much lighter and smaller than all previous 70-200's especially since you don't need an adapter for it which makes them all longer and heavier due to weight distribution. If I remember correctly, my RF 85 f/1.2 was about the same weight as the RF 70-200, which is also very compact for the gear bag. I carry two bodies, and always usually have the RF 70-200 on one body for portraits/events. The upper zoom range and 200 f.2/8 is nice to have...Show more →
I have the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8. The adapter is always in my bag for 2 other lenses or that one.
Internal zoom is my preference both for function and cradling in my hand, so apparently the RF would shave 200 to 300 grams. But for an extra $2200 to $2400 extra.
Which 70-200 do you have? If you haven't tried the RF 70-200 you should give it a try. It's much lighter and smaller than all previous 70-200's especially since you don't need an adapter for it which makes them all longer and heavier due to weight distribution. If I remember correctly, my RF 85 f/1.2 was about the same weight as the RF 70-200, which is also very compact for the gear bag. I carry two bodies, and always usually have the RF 70-200 on one body for portraits/events. The upper zoom range and 200 f.2/8 is nice to have...Show more →
I have the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8. The adapter is always in my bag for 2 other lenses or that one.
Internal zoom is my preference both for function and cradling in my hand, so apparently the RF would shave 200 to 300 grams. But for an extra $2200 to $2400 extra.
Aug 25, 2026 at 09:27 PM
p.1 #4Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
mdvaden wrote:
I have the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8. The adapter is always in my bag for 2 other lenses or that one.
Internal zoom is my preference both for function and cradling in my hand, so apparently the RF would shave 200 to 300 grams. But for an extra $2200 to $2400 extra.
You can find them like new in the $1800 range. The weight difference on paper doesn't do justice due to the offset weight with the adapter.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1951873/0?keyword=RF,70-200,2.8#17082724
artsupreme wrote
Which 70-200 do you have? If you haven't tried the RF 70-200 you should give it a try. It's much lighter and smaller than all previous 70-200's especially since you don't need an adapter for it which makes them all longer and heavier due to weight distribution. If I remember correctly, my RF 85 f/1.2 was about the same weight as the RF 70-200, which is also very compact for the gear bag. I carry two bodies, and always usually have the RF 70-200 on one body for portraits/events. The upper zoom range and 200 f.2/8 is nice to have for taking candids.Internal zoom is my preference both for function and cradling in my hand, so apparently the RF would shave 200 to 300 grams. But for an extra $2200 to $2400 extra.
You can find them like new in the $1800 range. The weight difference on paper doesn't do justice due to the offset weight with the adapter.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1951873/0?keyword=RF,70-200,2.8#17082724
Aug 25, 2026 at 09:48 PM
p.1 #5Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
artsupreme wrote:
You can find them like new in the $1800 range. The weight difference on paper doesn't do justice due to the offset weight with the adapter.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1951873/0?keyword=RF,70-200,2.8#17082724
When I mentioned internal zoom I meant the ones that don't retract or extend.
At the moment, I can easily find prices on most any Canon lenses. But the thread is aimed at photographers who have gone to primes. But I think I understand why you mentioned the zoom lens stuff. It does overlap the topic.
You can find them like new in the $1800 range. The weight difference on paper doesn't do justice due to the offset weight with the adapter.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1951873/0?keyword=RF,70-200,2.8#17082724
When I mentioned internal zoom I meant the ones that don't retract or extend.
At the moment, I can easily find prices on most any Canon lenses. But the thread is aimed at photographers who have gone to primes. But I think I understand why you mentioned the zoom lens stuff. It does overlap the topic.
Aug 25, 2026 at 10:17 PM
p.1 #6Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
Slightly off topic
But is that the latest Tamron G2 version?
I bought a 6mth old copy a few years back for £350!! Seller said it had never been used. (Came with receipt) for some reason I got sidetracked and the lens never saw use until last weekend when I was sorting some stuff out. I had completely forgotten about it until I spoiled the box. Decided to try it out…
Holy smokes it is so contrasty, actually it seems almost too contrasty. The images just jump out. The hood is stupidly big so I looked on Amazon and bought a metal hood 50mm deep but with a 82mm cap to attach to the front of the hood. Also removed the tripod foot too.
Spent the weekend shooting with a 70-200 🤣👍🏻
Fabulous glass, but yes it’s crazy big, but it’s also fabulous too.
But is that the latest Tamron G2 version?
I bought a 6mth old copy a few years back for £350!! Seller said it had never been used. (Came with receipt) for some reason I got sidetracked and the lens never saw use until last weekend when I was sorting some stuff out. I had completely forgotten about it until I spoiled the box. Decided to try it out…
Holy smokes it is so contrasty, actually it seems almost too contrasty. The images just jump out. The hood is stupidly big so I looked on Amazon and bought a metal hood 50mm deep but with a 82mm cap to attach to the front of the hood. Also removed the tripod foot too.
Spent the weekend shooting with a 70-200 🤣👍🏻
Fabulous glass, but yes it’s crazy big, but it’s also fabulous too.
Aug 25, 2026 at 10:33 PM
p.1 #7Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Slightly off topic
But is that the latest Tamron G2 version?
Mine is the original. I think the G2 is only slightly better. The 1st version is as sharp or sharper than Canon's mk ii in the 150mm range. Both the original and G2 are great buys. The photos below are from this lens.
Edited on Aug 25, 2026 at 11:24 PM · View previous versions
Slightly off topic
But is that the latest Tamron G2 version?
Mine is the original. I think the G2 is only slightly better. The 1st version is as sharp or sharper than Canon's mk ii in the 150mm range. Both the original and G2 are great buys. The photos below are from this lens.
Canon EOS 5DS TAMRON SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD A009 lens 129mm f/4.5 1/200s 320 ISO 0.0 EV
Edited on Aug 25, 2026 at 11:24 PM · View previous versions
Aug 25, 2026 at 10:47 PM
p.1 #8Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
mdvaden wrote:
But is that the latest Tamron G2 version?Mine is the original. I think the G2 is only slightly better. The 1st version is as sharp or sharper than Canon's mk ii in the 150mm range. Both the original and G2 are great buys.
You are so right
I have the first generation IS version of the canon ef 70-200/2.8
I got sick of the attention a white lens in public attracts - hence buying the Tamron
But what I noticed last weekend is this G2 version can’t be a true 200 as the image was much smaller than the image in thd canon. Also the Tamron vignettes like crazy but I read the lens was reversed engineered as Tamron did not pay canon to use the EF mount so there’s no correction profiles
But regardless the sharpness and contrast tramps all over my canon version.
Your post now has me drooling over a used mint boxed EF MK3 70-200/2.8
🤣👍🏻
That would give me the best of both worlds
Pixelpuffin wrote
Slightly off topicBut is that the latest Tamron G2 version?
You are so right
I have the first generation IS version of the canon ef 70-200/2.8
I got sick of the attention a white lens in public attracts - hence buying the Tamron
But what I noticed last weekend is this G2 version can’t be a true 200 as the image was much smaller than the image in thd canon. Also the Tamron vignettes like crazy but I read the lens was reversed engineered as Tamron did not pay canon to use the EF mount so there’s no correction profiles
But regardless the sharpness and contrast tramps all over my canon version.
Your post now has me drooling over a used mint boxed EF MK3 70-200/2.8
🤣👍🏻
That would give me the best of both worlds
Aug 25, 2026 at 11:00 PM
|
p.1 #9Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Your post now has me drooling over a used mint boxed EF MK3 70-200/2.8
🤣👍🏻
That would give me the best of both worlds
Just added a few more photos to my last post.
Maybe you've already seen the video on Youtube, but Dustin Abbott's reviews on the Tamron G2 are two of the more comprehensive.
https://youtu.be/EXNIWHQiRiA?si=Oyl9vszA8-rkFXqP
Your post now has me drooling over a used mint boxed EF MK3 70-200/2.8
🤣👍🏻
That would give me the best of both worlds
Just added a few more photos to my last post.
Maybe you've already seen the video on Youtube, but Dustin Abbott's reviews on the Tamron G2 are two of the more comprehensive.
https://youtu.be/EXNIWHQiRiA?si=Oyl9vszA8-rkFXqP
Aug 25, 2026 at 11:32 PM
p.1 #10Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
mdvaden wrote:
Pixelpuffin wrote
Your post now has me drooling over a used mint boxed EF MK3 70-200/2.8🤣👍🏻
That would give me the best of both worlds
Maybe you've already seen the video on Youtube, but Dustin Abbott's reviews on the Tamron G2 are two of the more comprehensive.
https://youtu.be/EXNIWHQiRiA?si=Oyl9vszA8-rkFXqP
Just arrived at work
But I’ll watch when home this evening
Thanks 👍🏻
Aug 25, 2026 at 11:56 PM
p.1 #11Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
IMO for a wedding a 70-200mm is a must have non negotiable. Great images and the flexibility to not take a chance missing something particularly at the ceremony. For your clients sake you just don’t want to put yourself in a position where if all you had were primes might cause you to miss a shot over the flexibility of a zoom. Ceremony was generally a 70-200mm over one shoulder and an 85mm 1.2 over the other shoulder. Reception was a 16-35mm or 24-70mm over one shoulder and the 85mm 1.2 over the other shoulder. As good as they are in terms of flexibility, IQ and bokeh on the long end I’ve never loved 70-200mm’s but they are just a must have if you shoot both weddings and portraits. And for a portrait session be it indoors or outdoors and unless some location issue made it difficult to use it would ALWAYS be the 85mm 1.2 over the 70-200mm because the 85mm 1.2 is such a special prime and really makes your work stand out.
If you are making $$$ shooting events, weddings and portraits you just never know when you will need the flexibility of the 70-200mm but would always choose the 85mm 1.2 when you aren’t rushed or the space allows. Key which doesn't really answer your question is to never leave home without both!!!
If you are making $$$ shooting events, weddings and portraits you just never know when you will need the flexibility of the 70-200mm but would always choose the 85mm 1.2 when you aren’t rushed or the space allows. Key which doesn't really answer your question is to never leave home without both!!!
Aug 26, 2026 at 08:32 AM
p.1 #12Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
mdvaden wrote:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1951873/0?keyword=RF,70-200,2.8#17082724When I mentioned internal zoom I meant the ones that don't retract or extend.
At the moment, I can easily find prices on most any Canon lenses. But the thread is aimed at photographers who have gone to primes. But I think I understand why you mentioned the zoom lens stuff. It does overlap the topic.
I mentioned the RF 70-200 because you said your Tamron 70-200 is your least favorite lens to hold, and I'm explaining why that is. Not only is your Tamron 1lb heavier with the adapter, it's very front heavy which is why you don't like holding it. I get it because I still have the EF 70-200 variants in my arsenal and it's a night and day difference handling the compact lightweight RF version compared to the front heavy EF pigs with the adapter. I'm a prime fanatic and prefer shooting primes 90% of the time but as mentioned the 70-200 is an essential lens for run and gun event/wedding shooting. The RF 70-200 is also lighter than the RF 85 f/1.2. The extending front element has zero impact on the IQ as it's a sharp lens throughout. As also mentioned the EF variants take up a ton of space in the bag compared to the RF which can be stored vertically. I prefrer primes but the RF 70-200 is one zoom lens I always carry on a second body:
artsupreme wrote
You can find them like new in the $1800 range. The weight difference on paper doesn't do justice due to the offset weight with the adapter.https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1951873/0?keyword=RF,70-200,2.8#17082724
At the moment, I can easily find prices on most any Canon lenses. But the thread is aimed at photographers who have gone to primes. But I think I understand why you mentioned the zoom lens stuff. It does overlap the topic.
I mentioned the RF 70-200 because you said your Tamron 70-200 is your least favorite lens to hold, and I'm explaining why that is. Not only is your Tamron 1lb heavier with the adapter, it's very front heavy which is why you don't like holding it. I get it because I still have the EF 70-200 variants in my arsenal and it's a night and day difference handling the compact lightweight RF version compared to the front heavy EF pigs with the adapter. I'm a prime fanatic and prefer shooting primes 90% of the time but as mentioned the 70-200 is an essential lens for run and gun event/wedding shooting. The RF 70-200 is also lighter than the RF 85 f/1.2. The extending front element has zero impact on the IQ as it's a sharp lens throughout. As also mentioned the EF variants take up a ton of space in the bag compared to the RF which can be stored vertically. I prefrer primes but the RF 70-200 is one zoom lens I always carry on a second body:
Aug 26, 2026 at 09:57 AM
p.1 #13Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
I've always had a 70-200 of one model or another. Back around 2007 when the f/4 IS version was released, I switched to it for reasons including size, weight, AF responsiveness, sharpness (it was sharper than the f/2.8 IS v1 at that time). But obviously f/4 sacrifices some of the shallow DOF look possible with f/2.8. So for things like weddings and events, where generally I as the photographer have a fair amount of control over access to the subjects of the photos, in that it can usually be whatever distance I need it to be, combined with working with another more seasoned wedding photographer on his weddings, I mostly transitioned to fast primes with the 70-200/4 reserved as back up in case I needed 200mm, or the convenience when the subject/background separation of a faster lens wasn't needed. That said, the EF 135/2 also works with the TCs, so it can match the zoom's reach as a 189/2.8.
I think wedding coverage without a 70-200 is entirely possible. But you may still want to keep it, at least initially, as a back up option in case of equipment failure with your primary lenses, for example.
That said, after a nearly 20 year absence, I've returned to the 70-200/2.8 fold with Canon's Z model (in black, which IMO is slightly more discrete in event environments). I don't do a lot of weddings, but for event coverage, combined with the 28-70/2 and two bodies, it does most of what I need in a much simplified kit. Additional to this I carry the RF 1.4x TC and the 20/1.4 VCM for when I need wider. Prior to the Z I was using (and still own) the RF 135/1.8 as a faster alternative to the RF 70-200/4, and found I rarely missed 200mm for most event work. As you suggested, with 45MP, there is room for cropping.
If Canon were to ever finally release a f/2 tele zoom, which IMO was such a logical thing to do when the 28-70/2 was released, and only took Sony ~7 years to follow up on, I'd probably get one as the ideal complement to the 28-70.
Edited on Aug 26, 2026 at 10:30 AM · View previous versions
I think wedding coverage without a 70-200 is entirely possible. But you may still want to keep it, at least initially, as a back up option in case of equipment failure with your primary lenses, for example.
That said, after a nearly 20 year absence, I've returned to the 70-200/2.8 fold with Canon's Z model (in black, which IMO is slightly more discrete in event environments). I don't do a lot of weddings, but for event coverage, combined with the 28-70/2 and two bodies, it does most of what I need in a much simplified kit. Additional to this I carry the RF 1.4x TC and the 20/1.4 VCM for when I need wider. Prior to the Z I was using (and still own) the RF 135/1.8 as a faster alternative to the RF 70-200/4, and found I rarely missed 200mm for most event work. As you suggested, with 45MP, there is room for cropping.
If Canon were to ever finally release a f/2 tele zoom, which IMO was such a logical thing to do when the 28-70/2 was released, and only took Sony ~7 years to follow up on, I'd probably get one as the ideal complement to the 28-70.
Edited on Aug 26, 2026 at 10:30 AM · View previous versions
Aug 26, 2026 at 10:29 AM
p.1 #14Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
artsupreme wrote:
I mentioned the RF 70-200 because you said your Tamron 70-200 is your least favorite lens to hold, and I'm explaining why that is. ... SNIP ... I prefrer primes but the RF 70-200 is one zoom lens I always carry on a second body:
Actually, it may be worth a closer look at the RF 70-200s. I also posted another thread about "compromise" or making one change to set aside another preference. I do prefer internal zoom, but I used to enjoy 24-105 once upon a time. So getting a Canon RF 70-200mm 2.8 like that would still bring the benefit of a great lens. You are right - it's not just the weight of the older 70-200 2.8s but where the weight is located.
I mentioned the RF 70-200 because you said your Tamron 70-200 is your least favorite lens to hold, and I'm explaining why that is. ... SNIP ... I prefrer primes but the RF 70-200 is one zoom lens I always carry on a second body:
Actually, it may be worth a closer look at the RF 70-200s. I also posted another thread about "compromise" or making one change to set aside another preference. I do prefer internal zoom, but I used to enjoy 24-105 once upon a time. So getting a Canon RF 70-200mm 2.8 like that would still bring the benefit of a great lens. You are right - it's not just the weight of the older 70-200 2.8s but where the weight is located.
Aug 26, 2026 at 10:29 AM
p.1 #15Anybody part-ways w/ 70-200mm 2.8 for Portrait / Wedding photos?
Yes, the adapted EF 70-200/2.8 zooms shift the center of gravity that much farther away from the camera due to where the weight is in those lenses and also the additional 1" extension introduced by the adapter. At an event where I shot the adapted EF 70-200/2.8 v3 side by side with the RF 70-200/2.8 v1, this difference in handling comfort was immediately obvious. The EF felt like a lead pipe attached to the camera in comparison to the RF lens. If you prefer internal zoom, consider the Z model. It's still quite lightweight for the class and has a really great zoom ring that is effortless to use without feeling too loose. But yes, it is expensive...
That said, if you really wanted to cut the 70-200 from your primary wedding kit, you can do it. However, I'd still keep one for backup.
That said, if you really wanted to cut the 70-200 from your primary wedding kit, you can do it. However, I'd still keep one for backup.
Aug 26, 2026 at 10:34 AM