Do I need a 70-200 for weddings??

mjkent

mjkent

Messages
65
Edit My Images
No
So I sold my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 to save weight and I have a few primes. I have a sigma 35mm art, canon 85mm f1.8 and sigma 105mm macro along with a Sigma 24-105 f4 art.

Have I made a mistake selling the 70-200?? I found that the images were sharp enough but the auto focus was a bit slow sometimes.

Do any of you photograph weddings without a 70-200??

Just interested to know what equipment other people use.

Thanks,

Mike
 
My longest lens is 135. 70-200 is not a lens that I need. The only time it’s useful is for reception during speeches if you can’t squeeze through between the seats.
 
Never used one yet.
Longest zoom i have used is a 24-70.

Though at the last wedding i did i used primes too for the first time ever and i have to say i enjoyed shooting primes so at some point there will be a question mark over the need for the 24-70.
 
Hi stupar. Thanks for the feedback. I much prefer shooting with primes and the wider aperture compared to zooms is appealing especially for low light situations.

I guess time will tell as to what I feel I need. I have been a second shooter at a lot of weddings recently whilst helping my friend who is a videographer and it those situations the 70-200 did help. But as the main photographer I won't have to worry about getting in someone else's way so much.
 
I hired a 70-200 once for a wedding, actually my first one because everyone tells me it's the essential wedding lens, I found out that it's just not for me. What happens with a lens this long is you can't help but zoom in a bit far too much and I end up with lots of "nice portraits" of guests but due to the crop there is no context.

A photo without a story is dull. (In a wedding)
 
Thanks Raymond. That is kind of what I was thinking. I think I'll see how I get on with what I have.
 
mjkent said:
Thanks Raymond. That is kind of what I was thinking. I think I'll see how I get on with what I have.
Click to expand...

Fill your bag instead with a 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro IS and a 135/2.0, that's what I have (although I have a 85/1.2).

The 85/1.2 is my typical long lens.
100/2.8 is my "ring" lens as it's a marco, a good replacement actually for something a bit long if need be, plus it has IS.
135L is when I am stuck at the back of the church, when you are that far away, you zooming all the way to see the back of the head doesn't help anyway, from that far back, you want a bit of context so 135 is long enough.
 
Last edited:
I use 35/85 combo for 90% of my weddings . I do have a 70-200 and probably haven't used it for the last 30 weddings at least . It lives in the car boot and has become a back up lens
 
stumac said:
I use 35/85 combo for 90% of my weddings . I do have a 70-200 and probably haven't used it for the last 30 weddings at least . It lives in the car boot and has become a back up lens
Click to expand...

I didn't buy mine for weddings, I bought it to shoot theatre productions, the 70mm side was the exact width of the stage when I sat in the stands dead centre and 200mm gave me good enough zoom for the close ups. It was only the Sigma version and due to the low light and I was using a monopod I didn't need IS. Cost me £500 and it paid for itself many times over and once the theatre work was done, I traded it in for something else that I actually need.

Didn't even felt the need ever to bring it to weddings, I take the 135L to weddings but even that i don't use that much.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I didn't buy mine for weddings, I bought it to shoot theatre productions, the 70mm side was the exact width of the stage when I sat in the stands dead centre and 200mm gave me good enough zoom for the close ups. It was only the Sigma version and due to the low light and I was using a monopod I didn't need IS. Cost me £500 and it paid for itself many times over and once the theatre work was done, I traded it in for something else that I actually need.

Didn't even felt the need ever to bring it to weddings, I take the 135L to weddings but even that i don't use that much.
Click to expand...
Funny you say that I was thinking of trading mine for the 135mm . I had and sold one . The 135mm was my least used lens but it produced my favourite looking images . Work that out lol
 
stumac said:
Funny you say that I was thinking of trading mine for the 135mm . I had and sold one . The 135mm was my least used lens but it produced my favourite looking images . Work that out lol
Click to expand...

You have to be REALLY far away to use the 135mm length, I find the 85mm does the same job without me having to shout across to the client for directions and 85mm is long enough for most candids, 135 is a bit too long without a lot of people accidentally walk into the shot so it's hardly used.
 
Raymond Lin said:
You have to be REALLY far away to use the 135mm length, I find the 85mm does the same job without me having to shout across to the client for directions and 85mm is long enough for most candids, 135 is a bit too long without a lot of people accidentally walk into the shot so it's hardly used.
Click to expand...

I used my 85 on a shot yesterday where I wanted the couple small in the image compared to the barn they were standing by - they thought it hilarious how far I ran away to get them all in :D

A 135 would have had me needing to be so far back I'd been in the next field lol

I'm still considering one though :)

Dave
 
I am doing a days training with a company called 'the trained eye' next Monday. It's a wedding portfolio shoot, mock weddings in three venues basically. Wedding photography with no pressure if I cock it up. I guess I'll know after that what lenses I prefer and work for me.
 
mjkent said:
I am doing a days training with a company called 'the trained eye' next Monday. It's a wedding portfolio shoot, mock weddings in three venues basically. Wedding photography with no pressure if I cock it up. I guess I'll know after that what lenses I prefer and work for me.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you won't.

At the end of that day, the best you can hope for is you'll know what shots the trainer would have got and with what equipment.

They'll set up a shot and you'll join a queue to shoot it, then they'll set up another. It's a rubbish way to learn how to photograph a wedding.
 
What I was getting at it that I have been a 2nd tog numerous times whilst helping a friend who is a videographer. Those times I was using a 70-200. During this training course I will be sticking to 35/85 and I'll find out how it goes.
 
mjkent said:
What I was getting at it that I have been a 2nd tog numerous times whilst helping a friend who is a videographer. Those times I was using a 70-200. During this training course I will be sticking to 35/85 and I'll find out how it goes.
Click to expand...

I am guessing the idea of you with a 70-200 as a 2nd tog was because your duty was capturing candids. Totally guessing but I gather when most people think candids, they think they have to be far away to capture the moments so you get given a 70-200. The truth is that you don't necessary need a 70-200 to do candids nor you need to be miles away.
 
You guess correct. My main duty was to help video the wedding with my friend. I was also taking photos with the couple's permission to help build a portfolio and get some wedding exposure and the 70-200 was just the most convenient at the time. No need to change lenses.

But when I am the main photographer I don't really want the weight and size of the 70-200. Therefore I am planning to use primes.

When I started this post, I was just curious to see how many people use a 70-200 and how many use primes and how they feel they get on with their chosen gear.

Had some interesting comments so far so thanks all.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I am guessing the idea of you with a 70-200 as a 2nd tog was because your duty was capturing candids. Totally guessing but I gather when most people think candids, they think they have to be far away to capture the moments so you get given a 70-200. The truth is that you don't necessary need a 70-200 to do candids nor you need to be miles away.
Click to expand...
Totally agree . My second shooter takes the candids and she keeps grabbing her 70-200 to which I keep telling her to swap to her 50mm . In fact one of her best weddings was when I gave her my x100f and told her to use nothing else. It forced her to get in to the wedding from a guests point of view rather than standing at the back wall picking off head shots
 
Last edited:
It's funny, over the past 6 months or so I've noticed quite a lot of negativity towards the 70-200 lens and towards photographers who use the lens. A form of snobbery if you will.

FWIW I use a 70-200 for much of the "couple shots" during a wedding and have done throughout my career. It's the only zoom lens I own but I wouldn't be without it. I like the compression produced by the longer end of the lens and the VR can be so handy. The latest version is also much lighter than previous models, I don't begrudge the weight at all.

So here's a vote for the lens from me.
 
ryanyboy said:
It's funny, over the past 6 months or so I've noticed quite a lot of negativity towards the 70-200 lens and towards photographers who use the lens. A form of snobbery if you will.

FWIW I use a 70-200 for much of the "couple shots" during a wedding and have done throughout my career. It's the only zoom lens I own but I wouldn't be without it. I like the compression produced by the longer end of the lens and the VR can be so handy. The latest version is also much lighter than previous models, I don't begrudge the weight at all.

So here's a vote for the lens from me.
Click to expand...


I've not seen snobbery about it, and I'm certainly not putting anyone down who does use it - I did for the first 8 years of my Weddings :)

My best Pro mate always swore it was the finest lens & focal length going and he shot over 50% of any Wedding with his - until 3 weeks ago when he moved to the Sony A9 and bought an 85mm which he now already loves more than his 70-200 !!! :D

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top