Good deal or no?

[RikWriter]

I am being offered a Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens in exchange for my Canon 70-200 f4L and $400. Both are in the same condition, with box and bag. Is this a good deal for me, value wise?
Also, as I mostly do outdoor photography (albeit sometimes in low light) do I need the 2.8? And since I rarely have a tripod available, should I instead hold out for the IS version?

[blue_max]

I am being offered a Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens in exchange for my Canon 70-200 f4L and $400. Both are in the same condition, with box and bag. Is this a good deal for me, value wise?
Also, as I mostly do outdoor photography (albeit sometimes in low light) do I need the 2.8? And since I rarely have a tripod available, should I instead hold out for the IS version?

If you look at the purchase price for each lens, then that will give you an indication of the relative value. If you own the f4, you should be the best person to say if you need the 2.8. If you didn't need a tripod with the f4, you should save your money.

Graham

[RikWriter]

If you look at the purchase price for each lens, then that will give you an indication of the relative value. If you own the f4, you should be the best person to say if you need the 2.8. If you didn't need a tripod with the f4, you should save your money.

Graham


I own the f4, but I've never owned or shot with the 2.8, so how do I say if I need that particular lens? And I didn't need a tripod with the f4 because it is very light. I was asking if I would need one for the 2.8.

[blue_max]

I own the f4, but I've never owned or shot with the 2.8, so how do I say if I need that particular lens? And I didn't need a tripod with the f4 because it is very light. I was asking if I would need one for the 2.8.

I guess there are only two reasons for owning the faster lens, the extra speed or the increased bokeh. If you are shooting in the same conditions as the f4, then you might prefer the bokeh, but are less likely to need the tripod. The 2.8 needs half as much light to shoot the same picture (think that's correct), so you can still get the shot if the light started to fade. If you were shooting something like a deer, which was moving fast in not so good light, then the IS would help, as would a tripod.

Graham

[blinking8s]

i cant afford the 2.8, college budget...but to me, its worth every penny more. As far as the trade, Id say its close to fair...and you wont reret the 2.8 if the weight doesnt bother you, never bothered me unless i was shooting an all day sports event where a monopod wasnt used and my wrist was dead...haha...

[condyk]

I'd hold out for the IS version or sell the F4 and buy a new Sigma f2.8. At least you get a full warranty and I think you'd save cash too.

[blinking8s]

Im iffy on the IS, cause I dont ever HAVE to have it...but its an extra tool if you can step up and get it, comes in DAMN handy for panning and other motion type stuff in sports shots.