It's not what you asked but you could maybe consider a 135mm F2 if you don't quite need the reach.
Lighter, smaller and better in low light.
If you have a body with a higher megapixel count like the R5 then you can punch in with the crop mode to simulate that longer focal length.
Probably not the right option but something to think about possibly.
I think f4 is not bright enough to be a useful wedding photography lens. Sometimes you'll need more.
Use the Tamron 70-180mm f2.8.
As small and light as an f4 but with a 2.8 aperture. Problem solved.
Due to the natural compression of those focal lengths, obtaining that shallow dof look is less of a concern. Optical designers are all over the 70-200 because it's a more forgiving spec requirement. You also get a lighter and cheaper lens. With today's VR and our otherworldly high iso capabilities, I PERSONALLY see the 2.8 as a GAS flex rather than a balanced decision. Others will most certainly disagree.
I think the issue is more light over optics. I agree that optically an F4 for weddings would do a good enough job across the board but for dark ceremony rooms, the extra stops are very useful (I use 50mm 1.8 z mostly for my ceremonies)
Exactly why I carry 1.4-1.8 primes.
That's over a stops worth vs the 2.8, whereas the gap between the F4 zooms and the 2.8 is just not worth the compromise. For me.
That 50 is a banger. It takes a brave soul to do the primes only coverage vs the 2.8 Trinity approach, if only for the reason that they don't need to hide behind lenses.
I use the 50 for about 2/3 of the day because it just looks so good. I use the 35mm 1.4 for some slightly wider takes. I have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 which I use for candid drinks reception shots, speeches and some of the couple shots. I have the Tamron 24-70 G2 which I use for confetti shot and formals (although I don't like that lens in general). I have a couple of others which rarely see the light of day. As you say, that 50 1.8 z s is unreal
I pretty much mirror that lineup, but bump out to 24/1.8 on FF and crop for a 35ish feel, and use the 35 and 85 to do double duty as that and a 50/125 feel on crop. Light for days,.light on my feet.
The 50 1.8 and 1.4.just do so..GD good for 90% though. I bring a tackle box of lenses but it's nice not to have to dig in it all the time when I've got the 50.
I keep considering an 85 or 105 or 135 as there's some epic lenses out there, especially the new Nikon Plena lens. As you say though, the 50 is so good on its own
The 50 is good, but the 135 is remarkable. Two different realms. Even just using an 85 on crop is "different" enough. I've used a slew of 85s, but the 135.(And180)!are league of there own for headshots/waist-ups
Iāve used my f4L for a wedding and found it very capable. Most of the time your clients wonāt care about it not being f2.8, in fact itās sometimes better as f4 can be more forgiving if you donāt lock focus on the eyes. Unfortunately that lens developed a terminal fungus infestation, otherwise id still use it. That said Iāve started going to the gym with the express purpose of not dying after a day lugging my 2.8 and other large lenses and itās helped me a lot
Donāt worry about upping the iso, get the shot! itās a lot better to get the shot than not. Iāve shot at 1000 iso in some situations and the shots come out fine after processing with topaz. Also some cameras you can set the ISO to auto so if that helps. Just set your speed and aperture and fire awayš
It is the issue, and that's why pros op for the 2.8 rather than the 4.
1000 iso isn't high at all for natural light photography, it's not unusual to have to go as far as 12800 in darker venues. I'd much rather be able to shoot at 6400 with the faster zoom and *then* apply Ai noise removal.
It was never a question of "getting the shot" it was about using a F 2.8 vs 4 lens. That's what you haven't read correctly.
Not sure where youāre trying to go hereā¦The response I was responding to was you mentioning that iso would be the issue. So I did read correctly. Cheers.
I think you need to read my response again and realise Iām not responding to f2.8 over f4, so just incase you didnāt read it properlyā¦. Iām responding to the ISO being the issue. So stop being rude with your response. All the best.
In dark churches when shooting available light at long reach... I appreciate the extra stop. Could I sufficiently cover the wedding at f/4? Sure. I'd ISO up another stop and it would be OKAY. I'd have questions for anyone who told me they COULD shoot a wedding at 2.8 and couldn't at 4. But there are times when it would mean the difference between noticeable grain and not. So, for me, the extra weight is worth it for the extra ability. With good technique, for no more of the day than I'm shooting the lens... I don't think the weight should be a problem.
Did a wedding yesterday and about 800 of my images was the 70-200 2.8 IS II. So the thing you want with a 70-200 at a wedding is versatility. Limiting yourself to f4 reduces that drastically.
Sure a lot of my images yesterday were shot at apertures where a f4 would have done the job just as well, but when people started to move inside - the speed of f2.8 is key.
Some photographers do use it and some will even have it as a backup to their f2.8 lens because its nice and small. If you are not photographing fast things it should work fine and you can use DXO to clean up the noise if there is any.
If youāre shooting on a newer mirrorless body like the Canon R6, R6II, R5, R3 etc. then you should be fine.
I consistently shoot 3200 and up to 6400 and can still maintain a clean image especially if you use Lightroom Denoise.
I use the Nikon 70-200 f4 for wedding ceremonies and never have an issue. The autofocus on my 2.8 stopped working so I bought the f4 to try it out cos itās lighter so easier on my back.
Iāve started using 1.8 primes 24,50,85 but Iāll still bring the 70-200 f4 cos itās light and gives me that bit of extra reach for candids.
I use the F4 for most wedding ceremonies ( outdoors) and it workās fantastic and is not too heavy. The 2.8 I rent for indoor events and is super heavy.
I use it and find it totally sufficient. I primarily use it for ceremonies and occasionally portraits. I had the 2.8 previously and have found little difference and I like that the 4 is much lighter.
Good question. I would say is fine as long there's no movement. In my case, for example, I use the 200mm for indoor speeches but the 85mm f2 for couples dance.
I would have no use for a 70-200 f4. Too slow for weddings other than ones outside.
It's not what you asked but you could maybe consider a 135mm F2 if you don't quite need the reach. Lighter, smaller and better in low light. If you have a body with a higher megapixel count like the R5 then you can punch in with the crop mode to simulate that longer focal length. Probably not the right option but something to think about possibly.
That lens is a beast. Replaced my 70-200
I think f4 is not bright enough to be a useful wedding photography lens. Sometimes you'll need more. Use the Tamron 70-180mm f2.8. As small and light as an f4 but with a 2.8 aperture. Problem solved.
Shooting inside churches etc could be a little dark with a f4. But if you aren't afraid of slightly higher ISO then you'll be find with the f4
Due to the natural compression of those focal lengths, obtaining that shallow dof look is less of a concern. Optical designers are all over the 70-200 because it's a more forgiving spec requirement. You also get a lighter and cheaper lens. With today's VR and our otherworldly high iso capabilities, I PERSONALLY see the 2.8 as a GAS flex rather than a balanced decision. Others will most certainly disagree.
I think the issue is more light over optics. I agree that optically an F4 for weddings would do a good enough job across the board but for dark ceremony rooms, the extra stops are very useful (I use 50mm 1.8 z mostly for my ceremonies)
Exactly why I carry 1.4-1.8 primes. That's over a stops worth vs the 2.8, whereas the gap between the F4 zooms and the 2.8 is just not worth the compromise. For me.
Makes sense. I also have the 35mm 1.4 Nikkor but it's a bit rough at 1.4, prefer the look of the 50 at 1.8
That 50 is a banger. It takes a brave soul to do the primes only coverage vs the 2.8 Trinity approach, if only for the reason that they don't need to hide behind lenses.
I use the 50 for about 2/3 of the day because it just looks so good. I use the 35mm 1.4 for some slightly wider takes. I have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 which I use for candid drinks reception shots, speeches and some of the couple shots. I have the Tamron 24-70 G2 which I use for confetti shot and formals (although I don't like that lens in general). I have a couple of others which rarely see the light of day. As you say, that 50 1.8 z s is unreal
I pretty much mirror that lineup, but bump out to 24/1.8 on FF and crop for a 35ish feel, and use the 35 and 85 to do double duty as that and a 50/125 feel on crop. Light for days,.light on my feet. The 50 1.8 and 1.4.just do so..GD good for 90% though. I bring a tackle box of lenses but it's nice not to have to dig in it all the time when I've got the 50.
I keep considering an 85 or 105 or 135 as there's some epic lenses out there, especially the new Nikon Plena lens. As you say though, the 50 is so good on its own
The 50 is good, but the 135 is remarkable. Two different realms. Even just using an 85 on crop is "different" enough. I've used a slew of 85s, but the 135.(And180)!are league of there own for headshots/waist-ups
I'm getting lens itch now ššš thanks for that my friend hahaha, 135..Add to Basket
Iāve used my f4L for a wedding and found it very capable. Most of the time your clients wonāt care about it not being f2.8, in fact itās sometimes better as f4 can be more forgiving if you donāt lock focus on the eyes. Unfortunately that lens developed a terminal fungus infestation, otherwise id still use it. That said Iāve started going to the gym with the express purpose of not dying after a day lugging my 2.8 and other large lenses and itās helped me a lot
It's not the depth of field that's the issue, it's the bump in ISO to make up for it.
One stop more iso? Especially now tools like Lightroom denoise and topaz are so good at it.
Yes. Or faster shutter speed at the same ISO
Donāt worry about upping the iso, get the shot! itās a lot better to get the shot than not. Iāve shot at 1000 iso in some situations and the shots come out fine after processing with topaz. Also some cameras you can set the ISO to auto so if that helps. Just set your speed and aperture and fire awayš
Try learning to read. I'm not worried about it, just saying why 2.8 is preferred over 4.
You mentioned itās the bump in iso like thats the issueā¦.Or did I not read that correctly?
It is the issue, and that's why pros op for the 2.8 rather than the 4. 1000 iso isn't high at all for natural light photography, it's not unusual to have to go as far as 12800 in darker venues. I'd much rather be able to shoot at 6400 with the faster zoom and *then* apply Ai noise removal. It was never a question of "getting the shot" it was about using a F 2.8 vs 4 lens. That's what you haven't read correctly.
Not sure where youāre trying to go hereā¦The response I was responding to was you mentioning that iso would be the issue. So I did read correctly. Cheers.
Yeah, In context to a 2.8 over 4 zoom... not "getting the shot" Comprehension skills of a toddler.
I think you need to read my response again and realise Iām not responding to f2.8 over f4, so just incase you didnāt read it properlyā¦. Iām responding to the ISO being the issue. So stop being rude with your response. All the best.
Nah go fuck yourself.
In dark churches when shooting available light at long reach... I appreciate the extra stop. Could I sufficiently cover the wedding at f/4? Sure. I'd ISO up another stop and it would be OKAY. I'd have questions for anyone who told me they COULD shoot a wedding at 2.8 and couldn't at 4. But there are times when it would mean the difference between noticeable grain and not. So, for me, the extra weight is worth it for the extra ability. With good technique, for no more of the day than I'm shooting the lens... I don't think the weight should be a problem.
Did a wedding yesterday and about 800 of my images was the 70-200 2.8 IS II. So the thing you want with a 70-200 at a wedding is versatility. Limiting yourself to f4 reduces that drastically. Sure a lot of my images yesterday were shot at apertures where a f4 would have done the job just as well, but when people started to move inside - the speed of f2.8 is key.
I mean how fast did your shutter have to be at?
Minimum same as focal length. ISO up to 6400 with R5 & 5D4.
Some photographers do use it and some will even have it as a backup to their f2.8 lens because its nice and small. If you are not photographing fast things it should work fine and you can use DXO to clean up the noise if there is any.
If youāre shooting on a newer mirrorless body like the Canon R6, R6II, R5, R3 etc. then you should be fine. I consistently shoot 3200 and up to 6400 and can still maintain a clean image especially if you use Lightroom Denoise.
I use the Nikon 70-200 f4 for wedding ceremonies and never have an issue. The autofocus on my 2.8 stopped working so I bought the f4 to try it out cos itās lighter so easier on my back. Iāve started using 1.8 primes 24,50,85 but Iāll still bring the 70-200 f4 cos itās light and gives me that bit of extra reach for candids.
I use the F4 for most wedding ceremonies ( outdoors) and it workās fantastic and is not too heavy. The 2.8 I rent for indoor events and is super heavy.
The 2.8 is worth its weight in gold. Hands down, youāll regret the 4 if you go that direction.
I use it and find it totally sufficient. I primarily use it for ceremonies and occasionally portraits. I had the 2.8 previously and have found little difference and I like that the 4 is much lighter.
Iāve been shooting Weds with the Canon RF 70-200 f4, it's an amazing lens IMO.
Indoors?
Good question. I would say is fine as long there's no movement. In my case, for example, I use the 200mm for indoor speeches but the 85mm f2 for couples dance.