What to buy when the 70-200 2.8 IS is out of reach for now?

[Tish]

Yes, I know, don't buy interim lenses, but....

It may be a year before I can pull together enough funds to purchase this lens, unless Canon lowers the price soon (yeah, right.....) or I get enough paid work to justify it. I need a second body first, there's business expenses, etc. I can't see going that long without that focal length though!

So....some ideas in the $450-700 range (used prices):

70-200 f4 L
80-200 2.8 L (very hard to find)
135 2.0 L
200 2.8 L

Or any alternative brand zooms? I'm open to any ideas or testimony at this point. Primary focus is weddings/portraits, but secondary shooting tends to be dogs on the run (dog parks & agility) which requires a fairly lengthy lens.

I will be adding the 85 1.8 in the next week or so to the gear listed below. What would be a decent (not perfect) alternative to the lens we all love? Or do I need to just wait..........

[ilovemycamera]

If you know you have your heart set on the 70-200 2.8 IS, just wait it out... i know it's easier said than done, but there's no need in shelling out the $ for something to tide you over for 6-8 months... JMO

[milleker]

Lottery Ticket? :)

I agree with ILMC, wait it out. After the cropped sensor you've got basically a 30-90mm lens and a 160mm. You'll usually stick to 80-90mm for portraits anyway. The 70-200 will make a very nice addition (if you like shooting nature, sports or birds you might love the 2x teleconverter to go with it).

[Philco]

The 135 is a really sweet lens though, I have to say. You could probably use it for a while and still get most of your money back out of it when you're ready.

[tim]

Use the 100mm and stand closer or crop. I'm not kidding, it's a great lens, though one I don't use much since I have the 70-200.

[islandphoto]

I have the 70-200 f4 and love it. Yes - I know it's not as good but it still produces amazing photos. At times I wish that I had 2.8 but then I just bump up the iso and it's comparable (I think). Good luck!

[tim]

I think there's more light in Maui than in New Zealand! :p

[islandphoto]

Maybe...I've always wanted to see New Zealand. Everyone raves about how beautiful it is :)

[Matatazela]

70-200f4 is great, and as an alternative it may also be worthh noting that it weighs less than half the weight of a 2.8 IS version. Just a thought when packing for New Zealand!

[tim]

Maybe...I've always wanted to see New Zealand. Everyone raves about how beautiful it is :)

Go to the south island... get to the remote bits... it's bigger than it looks on a map!

[RobKirkwood]

The 70-200 f4 is a superb lens, and we've gotten by for a year with it. However, for weddings the lack of IS is going to be a problem if you handhold - our rate of keeper images has been on the low side purely because of camera shake. I'm also not convinced it would be much use for dogs-on-the-move stuff, and maybe 200mm would be a bit short for this anyway?

Might be worth looking at the Canon 70-300 IS, again it starts at f4 but at least you should be able to use some slower shutter speeds with the IS for weddings?

Personally I'd get the second body and go with Tim's recommendation of using the 100mm f2.8

Rob

[tim1960]

Wait it out. It will be worth it.

[sapearl]

I didn't - I saved up for a year and just "zoomed" with my legs. In the meantime I just used the 24 - 105L which is not really a substitute, but works well in combo with the "shoe leather." ;)

I'm not a buy and sell kind of person. I'll research something to death, decide EXACTLY what I need to get the job accomplished, save for it, wait patiently and then buy it. The thought of buying something as an interim tool just to resell it at a loss just aggravates me from a wasted time and money standpoint. But that's what happens when you become an old curmudgeon. :rolleyes:

[Toogy]

I'd recommend a 85mm F1.8 or 100mm F2.8 in the meantime. Forget the 70-200F4 if you do any indoor weddings. I used this lens for my first year and it was never used indoors.

[rhys]

There's the Sigma 70-200 f2.8

[thewavebb]

There's the Sigma 70-200 f2.8

I was going to say the same thing....

[jamiewexler]

What about the 70-300 IS?

I used the 80-200 f2.8 my first year, but could never really use it indoors. My main indoor lens before I could afford the 70-200 IS was the 85 f1.8. Gets you pretty close on a crop body.

[CyberPet]

I picked up the old Canon 80-200/2.8L used until I could afford "da big lens". Now I'm going to part with my dear 80-200, but it'll get a good home, so I'm not really sad, just a bit. I'm going to miss the Magic drainpipe!

[jamiewexler]

I know what you mean Petra. The 80-200 was my first L lens, and had the best color and contrast of any lens I've used. A little piece of my heart went with it when I traded it...

[Wedding Shooter]

I used the Sigma until I could afford the L. It is definitely a good lens.