cannon 70-200 F.4 non is, anyone own one.

[Luke Oliver]

So i cant afford the F 2.8 , anyone used this for weddings on a 5d 7d or 550d , how does it hold up in the church with the F.4

regards

luke

[Joel Peregrine]

Hi Luke,

After starting out with an f4 non-IS I sold it and got two f4 IS. I found that I needed IS for candids and telephoto shots. But after a few gigs I was seeing that the f4 isn't fast enough for many churches and I was shooting the processionals at too high of an iso, so I sold the F4 IS's and got a used 2.8 IS and Tokina 80-200 f2.8. I haven't tried it in that situation yet but I've heard that the older push-pull zooms (as opposed to a rotating barrel) work very well for tracking during processionals. The Tokina's run around $200:

- KEH.com

The one I use is very sharp, though for candids and even monopod work I can't get smooth telephoto shots without IS.

[Louis Maddalena]

I have the 70-200 F4L and I love it for some situations, but for other I have to opt for a prime that is faster for inside the church. If I only had one body though and couldn't have a few cameras with different lenses on each, I'd get the 2.8 for a faster lens that also zooms.

[Robert Turchick]

I absolutely love my 70-200 f4 non IS

There are two BIG advantages the f4 non IS has over the others...weight and cost.
The disadvantage is the light gathering ability.

Since most of what I use than lens for is outdoors, it's a no brainer. Even handheld photos are easy. Video must be on a tripod or stablizer though at the longer focal lengths.

Used on a tripod, I think you could get away with it indoors but it wouldn't be my first choice. If you do have to run it at higher ISOs there are noise reduction plugins that work pretty darn well.

[Steven Arbiu]

I had the 2.8is, now I opt for the f4is. If you have a crop camera then you "might" need it. With 5d just bump the iso a notch and your there. The 2.8 is just too big, too heavy, too expensive and too intrusive. If canon came out with a f1.8 70-200, would we all have to go out and get it? nope. 2.8 is also quite soft at 2.8 and need to go back to f4 to get the sharpness back when doing photography. IS is a must on either especially on the f4.

Now the new 70-200 2.8 II is a whole new ball game. The sharpness is like a prime and for me is worth the weight but $2,300? Puhleeez. If you are some pro who has an assistant and others doing your editing, mmmaybe.

F4 and a tripod is the cheapest way out of this mess. $500 for the lens and $60 for a nice tripod for photography.

For Video, you'll need a nice fluid head that can support all that weight.

[Susanto Widjaja]

i have 70-200 f4 non is and it has been sitting on my drawer for the past 10 shoots or so.

I know I don't want to upgrade to 2.8 because of the size. but I will go for the f4 IS cause the non IS version has too much shake for me at the 200 length. the aperture doesn't really bother me because you would mostly use this lens during processional and I dont think im confident enough to focus sharply on moving objects on f2.8 anyway. during coctail hours where everything is more relax, i always use my beloved 135 and I can go f2 and focus confidently because people generally just sit down or stand still.

[David Schuurman]

Susanto, I've only shot 2 weddings with the 70-200 2.8 (rental) but I jumped in with both feet for the processionals. I lost focus a bit on the first one but on the second one I took focus marks before hand and it worked pretty good. Just gotta practice and have another angle or two that you know you can cut to when you lose focus.