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 06 Jul 2011 (Wednesday) 03:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Would like an opinion

 
jusjee
Junior Member
Avatar
29 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Jul 06, 2011 03:04 |  #1

Hi guys. I got some good feedback on the last question I asked so I figured I'd ask another one.

I've got $1150 right now and was looking to buy a 17-40L + 580 EX II (both used).

Doesn't seem like a tough call, but someone has proposed that I sell them my 70-200 f4 (non-IS) since they know I love this lens and want the IS now.

I am selling the non-IS for $500 as that's what I bought it for so that leaves me with $1650. My options are:

-Keep the non-IS (which I love) and stick with my original plan
-Sell the non-IS and buy just the 17-40 and the 70-200 f4 IS
-My friend has proposed me selling the non-IS + the $1150 for his 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk1

I have not used the 17-40, but I like the focal range to complement my 70-200 as the only other lens I have now is a nifty fifty 1.8. I have also been contemplating getting into using at least one flash so the 580 EX II is a tempting option as well.

Is the 70-200 f4 IS the same IQ-wise as the non-IS? I really love the sharpness and contrast of this lens I have now. Also, how does the 2.8 IS Mark I compare? Is it really worth another $600 if I am going to be using it with a flash if I'm in low light anyway?

Sorry for the crazy scenario, but this is why I come to this forum, you guys are such a great help! :D


50D | Gripped XTi | EOS 3 | 50 f1.8 | Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-VC) | Tokina 50-135 f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
cfvisuals
Senior Member
866 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
     
Jul 06, 2011 03:16 |  #2

jusjee wrote in post #12711761 (external link)
Hi guys. I got some good feedback on the last question I asked so I figured I'd ask another one.

I've got $1150 right now and was looking to buy a 17-40L + 580 EX II (both used).

Doesn't seem like a tough call, but someone has proposed that I sell them my 70-200 f4 (non-IS) since they know I love this lens and want the IS now.

I am selling the non-IS for $500 as that's what I bought it for so that leaves me with $1650. My options are:

-Keep the non-IS (which I love) and stick with my original plan
-Sell the non-IS and buy just the 17-40 and the 70-200 f4 IS
-My friend has proposed me selling the non-IS + the $1150 for his 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk1

I have not used the 17-40, but I like the focal range to complement my 70-200 as the only other lens I have now is a nifty fifty 1.8. I have also been contemplating getting into using at least one flash so the 580 EX II is a tempting option as well.

Is the 70-200 f4 IS the same IQ-wise as the non-IS? I really love the sharpness and contrast of this lens I have now. Also, how does the 2.8 IS Mark I compare? Is it really worth another $600 if I am going to be using it with a flash if I'm in low light anyway?

Sorry for the crazy scenario, but this is why I come to this forum, you guys are such a great help! :D

If you aren't using a full frame, there isn't much of a point of getting 17-40L. And I don't know you have full frame or not, you don't have a signature.

If you like flash, you stick with the 70-200 f4's, if you don't you can go with the 2.8, there isn't much of a point of getting the 2.8 if you are flashing all the time. It's personal preference.

IS version has more aperture blade, which makes better bokeh in comparison to the non-IS. It is better in image quality wise, but not WAY better. Non-IS is already sharp enough. The extra IS is good but isn't needed if you are planning to use flash.
The 70-200 2.8 MK1 is sharp but not as good as MK2, but most people can't tell by simply looking at a photo. People can't just immediately see the picture and say "Oh it's MK2" "Oh.. it's MK1"
The image quality shouldn't be much of a concern here. It's all about do you need the extra stop or not, do you need the IS or not.

Actually there's so many different things that ppl can't decide for you.

People can tell you their own opinions and their own preferences, but not yours.


flickr (external link)
5∞ portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jusjee
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
Avatar
29 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Jul 06, 2011 03:43 |  #3

Thanks for the response. I'm not looking for anyone to make my decision, but the information you've given in your post allows me to look at it from different perspectives which is why I like to ask these types of questions.

I don't believe I need the extra stop, but I would like to be able to handhold my 70-200 f4, so I think I will go with that.

I am on a cropped sensor, but why do you say the 17-40L is pointless there? Doesn't this give me a good semi-wide to normal range, very similar to a 24-70 or 18-55 on crop (two of the more popular lenses)? If you don't suggest a 17-40L, what other options are out there as I value build quality along with IQ (seems I'm stuck with L). I am also eventually planning to buy a 1D, but that is much further down the road for me - but this rules out EF-S lenses for me although the 17-55 f2.8 seems to be very popular.

I may just end up upgrading to the IS version of the 70-200 f4 and getting a 580 EX II, but that leaves me with that and the nifty fifty, two fairly long lenses on crop sensor. Still unsure, but at least you've helped me to eliminate one of my options. :)


50D | Gripped XTi | EOS 3 | 50 f1.8 | Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-VC) | Tokina 50-135 f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ukcyberboy
Senior Member
Avatar
613 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Liversedge
     
Jul 06, 2011 04:14 as a reply to  @ jusjee's post |  #4

Have you any plans on upgrading body? It maybe possible to get the 1d mkii if you can sell the body.
I would keep the 70-200 and look at something like the 24-70l, and a flash, but this would depend on what you intend to shoot.


Body | Canon 6D |
Lens | Yongnuo 50mm 1.8 |
Lens | Canon 28-70 2.8 L |
Lens | Canon 70-200is F4 L |
Lighting | Yongnuo YN600RX |
Accessories | Various Bits |​

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cfvisuals
Senior Member
866 posts
Joined Mar 2011
Location: San Diego
     
Jul 06, 2011 04:30 |  #5

jusjee wrote in post #12711817 (external link)
Thanks for the response. I'm not looking for anyone to make my decision, but the information you've given in your post allows me to look at it from different perspectives which is why I like to ask these types of questions.

I don't believe I need the extra stop, but I would like to be able to handhold my 70-200 f4, so I think I will go with that.

I am on a cropped sensor, but why do you say the 17-40L is pointless there? Doesn't this give me a good semi-wide to normal range, very similar to a 24-70 or 18-55 on crop (two of the more popular lenses)? If you don't suggest a 17-40L, what other options are out there as I value build quality along with IQ (seems I'm stuck with L). I am also eventually planning to buy a 1D, but that is much further down the road for me - but this rules out EF-S lenses for me although the 17-55 f2.8 seems to be very popular.

I may just end up upgrading to the IS version of the 70-200 f4 and getting a 580 EX II, but that leaves me with that and the nifty fifty, two fairly long lenses on crop sensor. Still unsure, but at least you've helped me to eliminate one of my options. :)

Well you can always plan ahead, but if it's way too ahead then maybe it doesn't worth it. First off, a $300 bucks Tamron can beat 17-40L on image quality and give you an extra stop. This is why it's "pointless" on crop, because you can find cheaper and better alternative. However the lens isn't pointless, it's the best value UWA for full frame. It's up to you, if you think you can live with the f4 as general purpose and feel good with holding red rings in your hand, i don't think I have any rights to criticize your decision. I don't like how others strongly oppose one's decisions even though the money isn't theirs.


flickr (external link)
5∞ portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,642 posts
Likes: 132
Joined Dec 2010
     
Jul 06, 2011 08:06 |  #6

jusjee wrote in post #12711761 (external link)
I am selling the non-IS for $500 as that's what I bought it for so that leaves me with $1650. My options are:

-Keep the non-IS (which I love) and stick with my original plan
-Sell the non-IS and buy just the 17-40 and the 70-200 f4 IS
-My friend has proposed me selling the non-IS + the $1150 for his 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk1

If I got this, you'll have $1650 when you sell your non-IS lens. The Canon refurb store sell the 70-200 2.8 MKII for just under $2k, you're about $300 short of getting the MKII. If you go this route - sell a lens you love and "move up" I'd save up the additional cash and go for the MKII.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Jul 06, 2011 09:31 |  #7

If it were me, I'd sell the 70-200 non-IS, and with the money I then had, I'd buy the 70-200 f4 IS (fantastic lens), plus a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Speelite. The Tamrons are great lenses (I have the 28-75 and it's an outstanding performer).


Gear: Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 24-105L f4, Canon 70-300L, Canon 60 macro f/2.8, Speedlite 580 EXII, 2x AB800

Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thestone11
Goldmember
Avatar
1,203 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
     
Jul 06, 2011 09:46 |  #8

Sell your 70-200 non IS and get the IS. There is a reason why so many users upgrade to the IS version. The IS is for sure useful for hand held shots, especially at 200mm. The IS is sharper due to its redesign optics as well.


Canon 5D MK II | Fuji X100 | Canon T2i | Canon 100mm macro f/2.8 | Canon 135L f/2 | Canon 50mm f/1.2 L | 17-40mm f/4 L | 24-70mm f/2.8 L | 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM |Canon 430EX II Flash X2 | Pocketwizard TT5 & TT1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
runninmann
what the heck do I know?
Avatar
8,156 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 150
Joined Feb 2006
Location: Michigan-U.S.A.
     
Jul 06, 2011 11:06 |  #9

"My friend has proposed me selling the non-IS + the $1150 for his 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk1"


It seems 70-200 f/4 are recently selling for around 550-575 (675 new at B&H) and f/2.8 IS Mark I for around 1500-1550. Your friend seems to put a value of 1700 or so on his Mark I.


My Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jusjee
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
Avatar
29 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Jul 06, 2011 12:29 |  #10

Thanks for all of the responses guys.

I'm pretty sold on upgrading my 70-200, but all these posts in favor of the 2.8 have me thinking. I think I will be happy with the f4 IS though. I plan to be using the 70-200 for most of my shooting and would like something not extremely huge/heavy that I can take on travel with me.

For the other lens, I'm looking for a solid general purpose lens that will be good and convenient, but also built well and non-EF-S for when I upgrade my body (I plan to upgrade to a 1D mk3). The reason I'm looking at the 17-40 is that I'm not too concerned with the middle range as I can fill that with primes (eventually want to get the 50 1.4, but the 1.8 will suffice for now).

Any suggestions for something better than the 17-40 are appreciated. Thanks again!


50D | Gripped XTi | EOS 3 | 50 f1.8 | Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-VC) | Tokina 50-135 f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GregoryF
Goldmember
Avatar
2,322 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Bella Vista, AR
     
Jul 06, 2011 12:55 |  #11

The 70-200mm f4 IS is a steller lens. Second sharpest of Canon's 70-200mm L's only out done by the new MKII. If you want wide, L, and will be upgrading soon then the 17-40L will do the trick. If you do not mind non ettl (manual) flash look at the yongnuo 560 or for ettl the yongnuo 467,468 as inexpensive options for a flash for the time being.


6D, 5D, 7D, Eos R and too many lenses, flashes and aux. gear to list!:cool:
A simple hobby gone horribily wrong

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kbColorado
Goldmember
Avatar
1,263 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 745
Joined Aug 2010
     
Jul 06, 2011 13:17 |  #12

jusjee wrote in post #12713646 (external link)
Thanks for all of the responses guys.

Any suggestions for something better than the 17-40 are appreciated. Thanks again!


You have not said a word about the kind of shooting you do. "General Purpose Lens"
means quite a few different things to different shooters.


Paul
deep greens and blues are the colors I choose ...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jusjee
THREAD ­ STARTER
Junior Member
Avatar
29 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
     
Jul 06, 2011 13:27 |  #13

The general purpose lens reference wasn't in reference to what I prefer to shoot, this is merely for the times I want to bring around a camera to just walk around and take pictures of my GF and her dog, or friends and family. The dog as well as my nephews take up a majority of this and so faster AF is definitely a plus.

I like to shoot kind of voyeuristic. Candid photos on the street. However, I don't like it to be too wide as I prefer to capture the person in the moment over the surroundings.

Thanks for asking the questions as I didn't even think to provide that information.


50D | Gripped XTi | EOS 3 | 50 f1.8 | Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non-VC) | Tokina 50-135 f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ceegee
Goldmember
2,320 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Montreal, Quebec
     
Jul 06, 2011 14:28 |  #14

jusjee wrote in post #12714017 (external link)
The general purpose lens reference wasn't in reference to what I prefer to shoot, this is merely for the times I want to bring around a camera to just walk around and take pictures of my GF and her dog, or friends and family. The dog as well as my nephews take up a majority of this and so faster AF is definitely a plus.

I like to shoot kind of voyeuristic. Candid photos on the street. However, I don't like it to be too wide as I prefer to capture the person in the moment over the surroundings.

In that case, I'd recommend something in the 24-28/75 or more range as being much more useful than the 17-40 range. Being "voyeuristic" involves a certain amount of distance, and you're not going to get that at 17 mm, especially on a full-frame camera. This opens up a wealth of possibilities: Canon 24-70, Canon 24-105, Tamron 28-75, etc., all of which will work on a full-frame camera when you eventually upgrade. I love my Tamron 28-75 for all the kinds of photography you mention (kids, dogs, general candids); it's a very versatile focal range IMHO. This lens is an excellent performer, so I have no desire to change it. If I did, it would be for the 24-105, just to get the extra length. As you seem set on an "L" lens, this might be one to consider. If you can live without the red ring, the Tamron is hard to beat.


Gear: Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24 f/4, Canon 24-105L f4, Canon 70-300L, Canon 60 macro f/2.8, Speedlite 580 EXII, 2x AB800

Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
18,514 posts
Gallery: 47 photos
Likes: 1577
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Jul 06, 2011 14:38 |  #15

Regardless of the other things, I'd find one of the paths that adds an external flash to your kit. It's amazing how nice it is to have one of those when the time comes that you need to add some light to your shot.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

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

1,570 views & 0 likes for this thread
Would like an opinion
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 Jimstir2020
4260 guests, 280 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.