after some advice on getting 70-200 f2.8 is

[outtram]

currently have a 400d, 24-105 f4 is, 50mm 1.8, 580ex, 430ex.

i'm looking at purchising the 70-200 f2.8 is and after some advice on if this is a good move or not. i basically love the 2.8 depth of field and never have time for a tri pod. it is of course 2,400$ so is damn expensive.

anyway i'm shooting a wedding in two weeks offically for a friend, also got 3 more weddings for friends next year which i wont be the offical photographer. have a 2.5 year old boy who i take tons of photo's of and also my sister in laws kids also. want to go down to philip island and shoot some bikes with my dad as well.

i've hired this lens twice for my sister and a cousins wedding and really liked it.

so yeah this has always been a dream lens for me but also is a lot of money and ideally if money was no object i'd buy a 5d as well.

anyway thoughts comments would greatly be appreciated.

thanks

[firsty]

unless you jump ship and come over to Nikon the lens will serve you well for a very long time through multiple bodies and as you have already tried it out you know that you want it
don't forget you can save on that price in the bargain section

[Oneputt]

I know that the 70-200 is a fine lens, but for a wedding lens? I would have thought that something much shorter would be more suitable

[jdear]

I know that the 70-200 is a fine lens, but for a wedding lens?

it is a great lense for weddings. And alot of wedding photog's use it unless they have replaced it with a handful of primes in that range.

J

[bwhinnen]

70-200 is a great candid lens! I can't recommend it highly enough (even the Canon version ). Three of my friends have them with their Canons and the quality is superb.

[PiroStitch]

70-200 f2.8 IS all the way if you can afford it. Over time you will get a return on investment easily.

[ozimax]

The 70-200 F2.8 IS is the only lens I own now. I borrow WA lens when I need them. While I found it not nearly as sharp at F4 as the 70-200 F4 lens, it is overall an amazing lens. Perfect portrait lens used the world.

Positives:

Colours are true
Focussing is instantaneous
Bokeh is sensational
Build quality is bomb proof
Sharpness is excellent
All round usefulness
F2.8 when you need it, sell your flash and your tripod!
IS (which I hardly ever use)
Weather sealed
L series lens
Resale value is high (if needed)

Negatives:
Cost, but you get what you pay for
Weight, but you get used to it
Slightly soft wide open but stopped down it's sharp. I actually think it's more about photo technique - this is a heavy beast and requires some adapting to get consistently sharp images. Once you get used to it, you need to adjust your technique when using lightweight lens like the 17-40 and others.

Hope this helps.

Ozi

[PiroStitch]

The weight thing will be an issue on a 400D, but after a while you do get used to it...your forearm muscles will definitely get toned

[ozimax]

Re: Weight issue. I don't know if there's a battery grip for the 400D, but it makes a big difference on the 30D, balance wise.

[outtram]

thanks everyone for your thoughts and encourgment on spending all my money

there is a battery grip but i dont have one. i've actually never had a problem with the shape and size of the 400d when i have rented the 70-200 is i never had a problem with balance etc..

i'm leaning towards getting it due to my long term goal of getting great lenses and hopefully picking up a 5d or 6d or something down the track.

i did however have an interest comment from someone about getting the following
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM -$600
Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM -$900
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM -$400
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM -$550
$2450.00

i've had some really bad experiences with sigma x 3 i know and i'm thinking switching lenses to much is going to be a pain and the past i was happy just swaping between the two.

anyway thanks heaps for all the coments.
cheers troy

[gstark]

Troy

i've had some really bad experiences with sigma

People who have been around here for a while know me as an anti-Sigma tragic, but were very surprised when I recently bought myself a Sigma 10-20.

This is truly a fun lens, and it's now my second favourite, being topped only by my 85 f/1.4.

But you need to look at your needs in toto, and neither of these lenses can do the job of the other; I need both of them.

And I still need my 80-400, and pretty well all of the other glass I have too.

Note however that the 10-20 is the only non-Nikkor glass that I own, and I have no plans of buying anything other than Nikon or Canon glass for my current crop of bodies. While the Sigma 10-20 is a great lens, the Canon 10-22 isn't too much more to buy than the Sigma, and that's probably how I'll handle the wide angle side of things for my Canon kit.

You should review your needs, and your shooting style and subjects, and go with what those dictate in terms of your lens needs.

[outtram]

thanks for the wide lens thoughts, not shoting a lot of wide stuff at the moment but might go the canon 10-22 path if i do find that i need something wider.

really leaning toward lashing out on the 70-200 2.8 is cause i've been looking at it for a long time and when i've hired it i have just loved every minute and love the shots it allows me to take.

most of my shots aren't tri pod friendly due to either being kids running around not sitting still or being in a church and moving around a lot and trying to sneak around as inconspicusoly as possible

thanks everyone for your thoughts.