I currently have a 17-40 f/4 and a 70-200 f/4 with a Canon 40D body; can I be successful with low light applications or should I be looking at F/2.8 or faster?
Bottom line is that I am not sure; just getting into wedding photography and am trying to figure out what I should be budgeting for in terms of lenses...tks for your reply
if you are using a tripod & high iso, then you will be ok....i managed for years like that with good results. If you can afford it, then by all means just up to the 2.8 version...merry christmas to me, I just got the 70-200 2.8!!!
I use nikon gear - 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 VR - On y D300s I push the ISO up and get along ok. Have fun choosing - there are way too many to choose from.
I had the 70-200 f/4.. and while it was a great lens (considering the price), in my opinion the f/4 will not be enough to do a consistently adequate job in low-light situations. I currently have the f/2.8 non IS version and I think that even that is 50/50 in low-light situations. I know its tough, but its probably better to bite the bullet and budget in the money now.
For your typical dark church (and no flash), you'll get necessary/decent shutter speeds at ISO 1600 at f2, ISO3200 at f2.8 and ISO6400 at f4... So with today's ultrahigh ISO cameras, it really just comes down to how high you can tolerate the high ISO to compensate for your slower lenses.
trying to figure our what 2.8 lens to buy first, 17-55 or 70-200 f/2.8 IS, thoughts on that question
The 17-55 was my first IS lens. I used it at a pretty dark wedding and it was amazing (compared to the sigma 18-50 2.8 I was using that was non-IS).
I was so impressed on monday I got the 70-200 2.8 IS, to this date (3+ years later) still my single most expensive photography purchase. But worth every penny.
Fast lenses or IS? Take IS.
At the wedding tonite I had the choice of the 70-200 2.8 IS or 85 1.8. I know I can handhold the Great White at 1/40 to 1/50 range no problem. The 85 I need 1/100 to get a shot with no camera shake. Typical reception - it was too dark to get the 1/100 shutter speed.
Now one can use flash, and I almost always do at receptions, so I'd prefer the flexibilty of a zoom and dont' find 2.8 a problem.
As for ceremonies I've only had one where I needed more than 2.8 and IS can give me in 6 years of shooting. And I have a tripod for that. And pretty much if I can't shoot at 1/40 (Great White) or 1/5 sec (17-55 IS) then a tripod won't help as i'll get subject motion blur.
70-200 F4 vs 2.8 IS - I have both. The bokeh on the F4 sucks IMO, but then the 2.8 is very flare prone if your shooting into light. The F4 is sharper, lighter, cheaper and great for an amateur or walkaround duty or perhaps outside work. For a pro where you're paid to give the client an image and not an excuse, you buy the best gear available. And if you still come up short, well you've got no one to blame but yourself.
The 70-200 2.8 IS is fast enough for low-lit conditions. It all depends if you're using available light or flash. Personally the 135L is better when it comes to low-lit conditions and much lighter to say.
On the wide side, 24L or 35L @ 1.4 work wonderfully on a full frame. 16-35L 2.8 II, 17-55 2.8 IS or 24-70L 2.8 are the alternatives.
Robert Butts wrote:
I currently have a 17-40 f/4 and a 70-200 f/4 with a Canon 40D body; can I be successful with low light applications or should I be looking at F/2.8 or faster?
I would say yes but there are different low light scenarios. In the u.s you guys stay through the reception i understand so deal with lots of movement. I've done plenty of night shots where the couple are posed and in those cases f4 is more than fine.
There are other advantages to fast glass though so it's smart to plan on acquiring some for shooting weddings regardless.
The following image shot at f4 with video light, 10pm. It wouldn't have occurred to me that the lens was not fast enough to hand hold. As i say once you factor in movement it would be a problem.
(These kids got married on a budget, pocket money doesn't go as far as it used to).
