tanglefoot47 wrote:
I would take the 70-200 2.8 IS any day over the 70-200 4 IS and I do agree with you the 4 IS is a tab sharper and it really doesn't do 2.8 well. I have owned a few 4 IS in the past and I liked the lens but it feel more like a toy compared to my 2.8's. I use mine for sports where the 2.8 or 3.2 really helps
I agree. I recently shot a rugby game on a nice sunny day, and so I figured I'd give my right shoulder a break by using a 70-200/4L IS, instead of a f/2.8L IS. The f/4 provided fine results, but it just didn't balance well on a 1DII. The next game, I went back to the 70-200/2.8L IS, and that's the way it'll stay.
My last comment on this subject as I’m not going to run in circles pointlessly.
Yes I have certainly shot at f4 at weddings before…of course…haven’t we all But if f4 (even with IS) is all that I had I would be up the creek so to speak. Not only is f4 not fast enough for the vast majority of wedding shots but the bokeh stinks and stinks is a very polite description. You buy the best tools for the job no matter what your career is an f4 zoom for weddings is a poor choice. 80-90% of the time when I use to shoot weddings I shot wide open all the time. Lighting would demand this and clients love bokeh. It is tough enough at f2.8 and I just could not imagine shooting a wedding where f4 was my limit.
All but the absolute best wedding photographers will miss shots with primes. This is the nature of the beast. I’m guessing however that you are one of the absolute best so I guess this does not apply to you. For my on personal use I much prefer to shoot with primes but weddings are crazy, hectic, fast paced and out of control and this is an understatement. When I shot weddings I would always have a good prime like the 85mm 1.2 on a backup camera over my shoulder but due to the fast paced nature of weddings you need a tool that gives you the flexibly to always be in position to get shots you would not otherwise be able to get with a prime so a 16-35L, 24-70L or 70-200mm 2.8IS would always be in hand. You will miss shots at a wedding if all you have are primes (or an f4 zoom) unless you one of the absolute best.
Things may be a little different in the Netherlands but in the US you are rarely even allowed to use flash during the ceremony, only for the formals afterwards and the reception to follow. You better have the absolute best f2.8 zooms if you plan on shooting weddings over here. Pop off a flash at most ceremonies and that will be that last wedding you shoot at that church!
My point is that you should not buy the 70-200mm f4IS or the 135mm f2 if you are making the purchase primarily with weddings in mind. The vast vast vast majority of wedding pro’s would all recommend the 70-200mm 2.8 IS as your go to long range zoom for weddings….no question about this. Later when funds allow add a specialty lens like the 135mm f2 as it truly is a joy to use and probably my all time favorite canon lens. There is a reason why the 70-200mm 2.8IS along with the 24-70L and 85mm 1.2 are the three go to lenses among top wedding pro’s. My last suggestion to the original poster is if you don’t have a lot of wedding experience find a pro that will allow you to be a second shooter. Get a fair amount of weddings under your belt working with another pro as there is so much to learn. Wedding photography (if you want to be good) is one of the toughest types of photography to master. Understanding what tools you need for the job is just a small small part of all that is involved. Best of luck to you!!!!
I just shot a wedding in Spain this weekend with a 17-40 and a 24-105, both of which are f4. Of course, I used a lot of other glass besides, but those two worked fine in adequate light.
The 16-35 would seem to me to be a bad choice for a wedding photographer because at 28-35mm it makes people look weirdly-shaped and that isn't fixed by distortion correction.
I would avoid the 70-200 f4 IS for weddings and go with f2 and wider telephoto lenses. If you feel you need 85mm and 200mm then run an 85 on full frame and keep a third crop camera - something like a 450D - handy. I even take a 200 f1.8. Be prepared to carry more gear and use primes. A 70-200 f4 IS will cramp your style when shooting in churches because subject motion will drive you mad. There's no substitute for wide apertures.
Tom, glad to see you have got it all figured out. You seem to have some strong opinions on what works and what doesn't. You also seem to receive some kind of comfort by referring to the vast majority of pro wedding photographers, who naturally share your opinions () Fine by me
All I am saying is that there are other ways to tackle a wedding... It is no black and white thing. In the end it boils down to the personal preferences/skill level of the photographer and the client's whishes/demands. For example, over here not every client is fond of shallow DOF pictures... and there are very few locations where flash isn't allowed.
If a photographer knows how to use a lens properly and gets the desired results (which makes the client happy), I don't see why a certain lens should be dismissed for weddings. Even if that happens to be a f/5.6 lens. Your personal preference may be different though
HenkvdT wrote:
Using flash doesn't speed up your lenses in any way. Agree with Tom that f4 lenses can make life harder AF-wise when shooting in low light.
mfurman wrote:
To abam:
Is your 135 f/2.0 as sharp (and contrasty) at f/2.0 as 70-200 f/4.0 L IS at 135 mm and f/4.0?
Thank you,
Michael
in prints, at F4, these two lenses are, for me, equals in sharpness and contrast. if you pixel peep, you'll possibly see a difference at 100% on a monitor, but this is not how i present my images (and ymmv).
i hold onto my 135L simply for the bokeh wide open. cheers =)
mfurman wrote:
Would that be inappropriate to ask why you are (again) selling 70-2000 f/2.8 L IS?
Got the bug again and I prefer the 2.8 non IS
But I am wondering how the 4 IS handles LL baseball on a dark cloudy day like we get here in the Pacific NW that is my main concern with the 4 IS. Like I said before there is no doubt the 4 IS is the sharpest of the lot
Do you have any sport shots on a dark gloomy day to show us?
I sent you a PM. You may view other pictures (a big mess - never have time to delete older ones) to see how the lens behaves. Most of my pictures are taken with this lens these days (I use a 1.4 TC a lot).
tanglefoot47:
it handles a TC like it's not even there
Very true as far as IQ is concerned. Unfortunately focus speed suffers quite a bit. Nevertheless, I prefer 70-200 f/4.0 L IS with a 1.4 TC to 100-400 L IS. It will not get me to 400 mm but I was not really using 100-400 above 360 mm anyway.
mfurman wrote:
Very true as far as IQ is concerned. Unfortunately focus speed suffers quite a bit. Nevertheless, I prefer 70-200 f/4.0 L IS with a 1.4 TC to 100-400 L IS. It will not get me to 400 mm but I was not really using 100-400 above 360 mm anyway.
I don't know if your eagle shots you were using a TC or not but they are every bit as good or maybe even better than what I am getting from my 100-400
If you can't afford the 70-200 2.8 IS, For event and wedding, 135L IS is a lot better than an f/4 lens. Think about it. f/2 is 4x faster than f/4. But at 2.8 with IS and a zoom, the 2.8 IS is a better lens IMO for event work.
tanglefoot47 wrote:
Do you have any sport shots on a dark gloomy day to show us?
I posted this image months ago, so sorry about the duplication, but it's the quickest example that I could find of an image from the 70-200/4 IS in dark conditions. I typically rely on a 200/2.8, but every now and then, I like to experiment.
The image is from a 30D, ISO at 1600, manual exposure (1/640, f/4). I always use RAW and the original images are underexposed by at least one stop, but I can (usually) easily fix this in post processing (then PS, now Lightroom). Images are noisy, especially in the shadows, but prints of 8x12 and smaller are certainly acceptable to players and parents.
But if f4 (even with IS) is all that I had I would be up the creek so to speak. Not only is f4 not fast enough for the vast majority of wedding shots but the bokeh stinks and stinks is a very polite description. You buy the best tools for the job no matter what your career is an f4 zoom for weddings is a poor choice. 80-90% of the time when I use to shoot weddings I shot wide open all the time. Lighting would demand this and clients love bokeh. It is tough enough at f2.8 and I just could not imagine shooting a wedding where f4 was my limit. 
