Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 03 Sep 2010 (Friday) 10:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which 70-200mm for about $500 (used)

 
turkleten
Senior Member
584 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: NY
     
Sep 03, 2010 13:17 |  #31

You/we could have bought the 70-200 f/4 2 months ago from BeachCamera via Ebay with all those Bing cash back, MrRebates and ebay bucks deal for a net $525 brand new with warranty. That's why I am reluctant to shell out 500 for a used one where you can get a brand new one with warranty for $25 more. I'll wait till October/November when the Canon Fall Rebates are out and bite when it's around $550...


7D | 50mm ƒ1.4 | 17-50 ƒ2.8
Gear | Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
cptrios
Goldmember
Avatar
1,744 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Boston, USA / Burgundy, France
     
Sep 03, 2010 13:21 |  #32

DanPonjican wrote in post #10844337 (external link)
I don't think I will be too concerned about the weight or size. I would like to think that I not that shallow to hinge my decision on the color... but shoot, I have to admit, that status is cool.

Heh, don't worry, it has nothing to do with being shallow! I personally hate the white lenses for normal use because they make you stick out like a sore thumb.


Fuji X100 / Sony NEX-7 / Contax G 45mm f/2 / The ghosts of 3 Canon bodies past / A meagre amount of talent
My weak lil' 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ingraman
Member
169 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Sep 03, 2010 13:37 as a reply to  @ cptrios's post |  #33

Easily the Sigma 2.8, especially since you're comparing non-IS lenses. Image quality difference is negligible, and since it's not IS every bit of speed counts.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gembobs
Member
215 posts
Likes: 6
Joined May 2008
Location: UK
     
Sep 03, 2010 13:40 |  #34

cptrios wrote in post #10844379 (external link)
Heh, don't worry, it has nothing to do with being shallow! I personally hate the white lenses for normal use because they make you stick out like a sore thumb.

I have to agree with that!

I was very reluctant to buy a Canon 70-200 because of it! I ended up with a Tamron 70-200 f2.8, because it was (at the time) £50 cheaper brand new than the Canon F4 non IS, and I like to save money!!

I don't shoot motorsports, but have managed to shoot an F15 in flight which flew over head while I was shooting some seals at a fairly close focus.

It seems to get a bad rap on here for being slow to AF, whilst I will agree it isn't as fast as the canon, it is certainly good enough for me:

both with 1.4x TC:

IMAGE: http://gembobs.smugmug.com/Travel/Bots-2010/Kori-Bustard-BIF/988752561_bjUQP-S.jpg

Not a great shot, but you can see that I was shooting through branches, and the eagle is in focus.

IMAGE: http://gembobs.smugmug.com/Travel/Bots-2010/Fish-Eagal-BIF/991235125_BW4Kq-S.jpg

Gear List
My Smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MOkoFOko
nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
Avatar
19,889 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Sep 03, 2010 13:41 |  #35

You really can't go wrong with the Canon 70-200's... their prices will almost NEVER go down. Even more than a decade after it's been discontinued, it'll hold a good value... at least until they switch mount types again.

Unfortunately, discontinued 3rd party lens will plummet in value--investment wise, go Canon.


My Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Sep 03, 2010 13:46 |  #36

itzcryptic wrote in post #10844304 (external link)
That's probably on the low end. I paid $450 for mine, but it was a local deal...no shipping/insurance/pay​pal involved.

I have seen them go for around $450 , but prices on lens have gone up . Still at $500 , i'd still be thinking save a little more and buy new.


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Sep 03, 2010 13:49 |  #37

MOkoFOko wrote in post #10844485 (external link)
You really can't go wrong with the Canon 70-200's... their prices will almost NEVER go down. Even more than a decade after it's been discontinued, it'll hold a good value... at least until they switch mount types again.

Unfortunately, discontinued 3rd party lens will plummet in value--investment wise, go Canon.

Not if you're buying used , the 3rd party lens have already taken a hit . So you are really getting a better deal then the Canon . And like some have said, the f/4 lens will never do 2.8 , but the 2.8 can do f/4 :lol:


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cptrios
Goldmember
Avatar
1,744 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Boston, USA / Burgundy, France
     
Sep 03, 2010 13:51 |  #38

MOkoFOko wrote in post #10844485 (external link)
You really can't go wrong with the Canon 70-200's... their prices will almost NEVER go down. Even more than a decade after it's been discontinued, it'll hold a good value... at least until they switch mount types again.

Have to agree with that. Take the Drainpipe in my sig as an example. It's the granddaddy of the current 70-200 lenses, and by all accounts is sharper than all of them except the new f/2.8 IS II and, perhaps, the f/4 IS. Most of them are around 20 years old! When I bought it, maybe 2 years ago, nice ones were going for $750 or so. Recently I've seen a few (in admittedly fantastic shape) go for $850-$900. So they're actually APPRECIATING in value!


Fuji X100 / Sony NEX-7 / Contax G 45mm f/2 / The ghosts of 3 Canon bodies past / A meagre amount of talent
My weak lil' 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monst0r
Member
237 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: New Jersey
     
Sep 03, 2010 14:08 |  #39

You can also look into the 80-200 2.8L for that price.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
twoshadows
Liquid Nitrogen
Avatar
7,060 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3322
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Between the palms and the pines.
     
Sep 03, 2010 14:14 |  #40

johnandbentley wrote in post #10844033 (external link)
doesnt the canon focus much better, thus providing many more keepers?

No.


xgender.net (external link) Miss Julia Grey (she/her/Miss)
OST, API, PPP & MLI explained (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cptrios
Goldmember
Avatar
1,744 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Boston, USA / Burgundy, France
     
Sep 03, 2010 14:33 |  #41

monst0r wrote in post #10844634 (external link)
You can also look into the 80-200 2.8L for that price.

Not for $500 in any kind of decent shape. Well, unless you find one from someone who doesn't know what it's worth (which, actually, is quite possible). I'd say that $700 would be a good 'low end estimate' on a forum or eBay. KEH.com has 4 of them right now; one for $889, two for $849, and one for $819 that doesn't even have a tripod ring. A bit overpriced in my opinion, but buying from KEH you know it's going to be in great shape. But I definitely second your opinion...the 80-200L blows both of the lenses being discussed here out of the water. (And yes, glad you asked, I MIGHT be selling mine soon! "Might" being the operative word!)


Fuji X100 / Sony NEX-7 / Contax G 45mm f/2 / The ghosts of 3 Canon bodies past / A meagre amount of talent
My weak lil' 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CountryBoy
"Tired of Goldmember label"
Avatar
5,168 posts
Joined May 2006
Location: Okie
     
Sep 03, 2010 14:37 |  #42

cptrios wrote in post #10844772 (external link)
Not for $500 in any kind of decent shape. Well, unless you find one from someone who doesn't know what it's worth (which, actually, is quite possible). I'd say that $700 would be a good 'low end estimate' on a forum or eBay. KEH.com has 4 of them right now; one for $889, two for $849, and one for $819 that doesn't even have a tripod ring. A bit overpriced in my opinion, but buying from KEH you know it's going to be in great shape. But I definitely second your opinion...the 80-200L blows both of the lenses being discussed here out of the water. (And yes, glad you asked, I MIGHT be selling mine soon! "Might" being the operative word!)

But just hope it doesn't ever need repairs !


Hi

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Sep 03, 2010 14:43 |  #43

I don't see why you would get a 80-200L, sorry if I am offending any owners. It's got no USM, sells at inflated prices and cannot be serviced by Canon any more. So what's it provide you over even the Tamron, much less the the ring AF newer Canon and Sigma options.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cptrios
Goldmember
Avatar
1,744 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Boston, USA / Burgundy, France
     
Sep 03, 2010 14:46 |  #44

CountryBoy wrote in post #10844791 (external link)
But just hope it doesn't ever need repairs !

Shh! Don't jinx me! :lol:

Actually though, it'd be more accurate to hope that it doesn't ever need parts. I bought mine for a song because the rubber zoom grip was loose, the zoom ring was a bit "catchy" (likely from a screw underneath sticking out a bit), and there's a faint hairline scratch on the front element (a complete non-issue in my book). It's currently being fixed at Midwest Camera Repair; they're giving it a full cleaning, fixing the zoom ring snag problem, and cutting/regluing the zoom grip, all for $150 plus shipping. Not bad if you ask me! My local camera repair place wanted $230 for the same job.

tkbslc wrote in post #10844820 (external link)
I don't see why you would get a 80-200L, sorry if I am offending any owners. It's got no USM, sells at inflated prices and cannot be serviced by Canon any more. So what's it provide you over even the Tamron, much less the the ring AF newer Canon and Sigma options.

It provides superior sharpness and color rendering, for one thing. And even though it lacks USM the focus is actually quite fast - definitely faster than the Tamron. But no, I definitely wouldn't pay $889 for one.

I'll also admit to getting a big "intangibles" kick out of walking around with a legendary lens that has probably taken loads of interesting shots in its long lifetime.


Fuji X100 / Sony NEX-7 / Contax G 45mm f/2 / The ghosts of 3 Canon bodies past / A meagre amount of talent
My weak lil' 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
themadman
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
18,871 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Northern California
     
Sep 03, 2010 16:03 |  #45

MOkoFOko wrote in post #10844485 (external link)
You really can't go wrong with the Canon 70-200's... their prices will almost NEVER go down. Even more than a decade after it's been discontinued, it'll hold a good value... at least until they switch mount types again.

Unfortunately, discontinued 3rd party lens will plummet in value--investment wise, go Canon.

Good thing I buy lenses to take pictures and not as investments or as a gear whore trading method. Otherwise, I'd be screwed since pretty much all my lenses are Sigma.

Also, as CountryBoy has mentioned, just buy used, then the original owner has taken the depreciation hit and dealt with calibration issues =)


Will | WilliamLiuPhotography.​com (external link) | Gear List and Feedback | CPS Member | Have you Pre-Ordered Your 3Dx Yet? | HorusBennu Discussion | In honor of Uncle Steve, thanks for everything! 10-5-2011

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,849 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which 70-200mm for about $500 (used)
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is elkaboing
801 guests, 172 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.