used Canon lenses

[Thomas]

I have an opportunity to buy a used Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L (without IS) lens for about 70% of a cost of a new one at a local camera store.
Is the image stabilizer an important feature I'd be missing in the future?
Should I also be interested in a used Canon 300 f/4 IS for about 60% of a cost of a new one?
I have a Canon D60, so for me both lenses have an effective focal length of 320 mm and 480 mm, respectively.
Is a 1.4 teleconverter a useful add on?
If you can give me some advice based on your personal experience with those lenses, I'd appreciate it very much.
I have to make my mind within a few days. Photography is my hobby and I have to justify purchases like that.

Thomas

[Cal Maier]

Thomas,

What type of photography are you interested in? The lenses that you have mentioned are very good quality and if you are going to be shooting sports I doubt that you'd miss having IS on the 70-200L. The advantage of Image Stabalization is being able to hand hold the lens at slower shutter speeds (low light portraits, etc.) I have the 70-200L non IS and usually use a monopod when shooting any sports. The 300 f4L is getting to be fairly long on the D60 and the IS would certainly help it out. The 1.4 TC is a very good teleconverter and I would list it as being a must have in any lens collection.

The 70-200L is IMHO one of the best zoom lenses available today with or without IS. If you can get a used one in good condition for 30% less than a new one I don"t believe you could go too far wrong. These lenses seem to hold their value very well and that sounds like a fair price if in good condition.

My choice, if you can only buy one of the lenses, would be the 70-200L with the 1.4 TC. This would be a much more useful combo to have than the 300IS and the TC.

Good Luck!

Cal

[toycollector]

I bought a 70-200 2.8/L on eBay for $900. It arrived in mint condition with all original boxes and paperwork. I use it occassionally with the 1.4x and it's a good combination.

I wouldn't look at the 300 F4 IS IMHO.

I bought a 400 5.6/L from B&H. You can find them on eBay as well. It takes great moon shots with the 1.4x


Wait a few weeks for the offical announcements or check out Delta International for new lenses from Canon.

[mitchell]

I must second the suggestions of both Cal and the ToyMiester. I own a d60 and have the 70-200L 2.8 (non IS) and use it alot with the 1.4x. This is a wonderful combo. I even did some individual sports team shots recently with the 70-200 and they turned out fantastic! I have a 300L 2.8 that I use for catching sports action when I need the length (with 1.4x & 2.0x), but ONLY when I need the xtra length. The 70-200 is, by far, my most used lens. I say go for it, you'll not be sorry. Email me for a couple of images from my latest sports team shoot. semophoto@hotmail.com

[Transfix]

I have both the lenses you are talking about in the IS versions.

Like everyone said above, it depends on what you are shooting. I shoot sports / nature. The 70 - 200 2.8 IS USM L is by far my favorite lens. If I could do it again, I would probably save up longer and get a 400 2.8 over the 300 f4. (or perhaps a 300 2.8 ) however with the D60 conversion your 300 will be a 480 like you said.

Be sure if you are getting the L series lenses to get the canon 1.4 x type II extender. Other extenders such as Tamron will not work with the L series lenses. I also have the canon 1.4 type II.

Shooting 1V w/ motor drive.

[Thomas]

Thank you all for your replies. I know that this topic has been discussed at other forums, but I did not find a convincing argument for one (IS) or another (non IS) lens. Most often people write that they love what they already have, but they do not have experience with both types of lenses.

As to my situation regarding the L series zooms, I am back to square one. The non IS 70-200L 2.8 I wanted to buy (mostly because of the price) finally was not available. The owner chose to sell all his equipment to someone else instead of selling individual pieces. I was very dissappionted at first, but now I do not have the price incentive to play a role in my decision.

I shoot a variety of photographs. Some of my shooting is sports and dance performances, other are portraits outdoors and indoors. I also take photographs of architecture and people. During my vacations in Europe I took about 5000 photographs using a G2 (D60 was still on order). Now with the new camera I am experimenting with it to see what it can do.
So what do you think, is it worth waiting longer and saving for the IS version of the acclaimed 70-200L 2.8 zoom?

Thomas

[Pekka]

Just one thought: IS could be obsolete in few years as noise levels of digital cameras improve. If you had ISO 1600+ available with great quality you seldom would need IS.

[kd6lor]

Thomas wrote:
Thank you all for your replies. I know that this topic has been discussed at other forums, but I did not find a convincing argument for one (IS) or another (non IS) lens. Most often people write that they love what they already have, but they do not have experience with both types of lenses.
Thomas



I have to dissagree with you. If you use the IS, you can turn it off and see how the lens works in a non-IS situation. I have the 70-200IS, and I periodically turn off the IS. It makes a big difference. Is the difference worth the money? That is for you to decide.


If your shooting style requires low light shots, I would get the IS version. If you shoot in high light situations, I would get the 70-200 4.0 and save the money and not be carrying a lot of lens you don't need. The IS is heavy.


I like Pekka's thought about faster sensors, but I wouldn't hold my breath that it will come out soon.


Paul