Fast decent zoom lenses

[TheEvilGiraffe]

I've got a wedding to go to in a few weeks time.. I want to try a nice fast zoom lens as I've needed an excuse to buy one for a while.

Looked into borrowing one - no one has one near me that I know of

Looked into renting one - looking like the best part of a ton for a weekend for a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 ... couldn't justify that really. Also looks to be a f**kload of hassle re: timing of deliveries etc. essentially adding on days to avoid missing said wedding.

So, I foolishly remembered about Kerso on TP and now I've got a couple of lenses in a shopping basket ready to be deleted/bought.

Has anyone got any experience with:

http://www.flashcamera.co.uk/sigma-50-150mm-f-2-8-lens-for-canon/ - I like Sigma and this is nice and fast, but a bit short.

or....

http://www.flashcamera.co.uk/canon-ef-70-200mm-f-4l-usm-lens/ - It's Canon / L / only £85 more than the above... but it's f/4 so not as fast, but essentially very close.

I'd love a Canon f2.8 but a £k or more is just totally ridiculous.....

 

[Andy.]

Revels has/ had the 50-150 IIRC and was very happy with it.

The f4 might not be fast enough for you.

Have you thought about using a 85mm (f1.8) instead? You'll just have to walk around a bit rather than zooming. It's a great lens though.

 

[DanFreemanPhoto]

f/4 wont be fast enough imo.

Whatever it is, has to be 2.8. I'd go for the 70-200 f/2.8 if you can.

 

[Reev]

Personally, I'd go for the Canon because you know being an L lens, it's going to be sharp throughout the range, even wide open. I hadn't heard of the 50-150 before so just read a couple of reviews and it seems to suffer from autofocus issues and it gets a bit soft around the edges. The extra stop would be nice but the 70-200L is consistently regarded as one of the best bang-for-your-buck zooms you can buy, in fact it's probably the next lens I'll purchase.

 

[Laura]

i have the canon L series f4 70-200 and at 70 its fooking top, at 200 im not a massive fan,

 

[Cup_Phil]

I had the f4 70-200 for over a year - it's a lovely lens but for a wedding - too slow

Just to throw you a curve ball - I picked up a 70-200 f2.8/L second hand on ebay. Absolutely mint, in it's original case, only 18months old for £730
That's only £230 more than a new f4

Also it's a mind-blowingly good lens. Sharp everywhere, stupidly fast AF. I love it

 

[Xanda73]

I find my 70-200 f/2.8 too much for weddings, unless you doing repotarge( sp?) type stuff from distance. 28-70 f/2.8 is perfect for me.

 

[Laura]

my wedding kit consists of 29mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 70-200 f4

 

[Cup_Phil]

It depends what type of wedding photography style you're into
A few of my friends do a lot of weddings and do them in a stealthy "from a distance" style with a 135mm f/2 (another FANTASTIC canon lens to consider) - or a 70-200 f2.8

But then I know a few people who much prefer the traditional posed photos and use either the 24-70 f2.8 or the 16-35mm f2.8. Or even on a budget the 28mm f1.8

Also really depends on what camera you use - a 135mm or 70-200 might be a bit long on a crop body, but on a 5D MKII it'd be lovely

 

[TheEvilGiraffe]

Interesting updates, thanks guys and gurls !

 

[Brazo]

All my future zooms will be 2.8 minimum. that extra stop of speed is invaluable. IMO any lens even canon L glass needs to be stopped down a stop for optimum sharpness. Thats not to say its not sharp wide open (it is!) but if you are a geeky pixel peeper like myself the difference is obvious and that extra sharpness becomes addictive.

 

[Andy.]

I'm with Brazo with that, with the exception of the 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII, which is just as good at 2.8 as it is at every other aperture. No PP required as standard as contrast and colours are stunning straight out the box. (that's also coming from an avid pixel peeper).

 

[Cup_Phil]

There's nothing wrong with an f4/L 70-200mm for track shots - if you're panning you're rarely below f8 or f10 anyway...