Before I do something stupid like sell my 70-200 II

Second time I have owned this amazing lens and second time I am thinking about selling it. First some background.... we are at the the very last part of completing our third international adoption with two teen bio kids already in the house, needless to say, i spend far more time shooting my kids sports than I do shooting for hire these days. In fact, its been a few years since I have shot in a professional or NCAA sports venue on assignment and frankly, I have turned down enough assignments that unless I start seeking them out, I probably won't be asked back. It's all good and I wouldn't have it any other way as my life has just taken such a different turn and its been a blessing beyond words.

That all said, it gets me thinking about my gear from time to time. I've sold my long glass a while ago and have been getting by for my kids sports (and less frequent, wedding, engagement, family pic opportunities) with the 70-200 MKII and 1.4x tc. Still, my kids play field sports and I am always looking for some additional reach it seems. Got me thinking. Maybe it makes sense to sell the 70-200 in favor of a non OS Sigma 120-300. Pick up some reach at fast aperture and pocket a few bucks that I can spend on other things. I am sure it wouldn't measure up to the 70-200, even with the tc probably but for what I am now doing sports wise, maybe its good enough.

Whatcha all think of something like that? I still have the 24-105 for everyday use but even that is seeing less use now that I picked up an Olympus OM-D which has blown me away in terms of what it can do. So much so that I am using it over the 1D3 and 24-105 for a family shoot tomorrow afternoon. Anyway, back to sports and whatnot...sell the 70-200 II and buy an older Sigma 120-300 while pocketing some loot or leave it alone and deal with the shorter reach and lighter wallet?

I haven't used the Sigma, but I would keep the 70-200 II and 1.4X.

I prefer top image quality, so I'd keep the 70-200

I would not do it. 70-200 is way more useful than 120-300 in my opinion especially for portraits. Seems like the om-d puts the 24-105 more at risk than the 70-200. I would much rather walk around town with a om-d and a 14mm than a 1d with 24-105. Guess that is why I bought a X100s this year.

Keep it.

Talley has made some interesting purchases regarding the 70-200s and the sigma 120-300 sport model. I think he has decided to stay with the 120-300 currently. Although his choices tend to change pretty rapidly. However, joking aside, he chose the new tamron 70-200 over the Canon due to price and nearly indistinguishable image quality and now he has chosen the sigma due to reach and image quality. Read up on his reviews. I personally think he isnt biased in any direction and just chooses based on his needs and comparative quality of the lenses rather than brand name.

(Of course im speaking on behalf of Talley so I could be mistaken. Better to get it out of the horses mouth)

elitejp wrote in post #16825172
Talley has made some interesting purchases regarding the 70-200s and the sigma 120-300 sport model. I think he has decided to stay with the 120-300 currently. Although his choices tend to change pretty rapidly.

I wonder if he is married ??

namasste wrote in post #16825005
It's all good and I wouldn't have it any other way as my life has just taken such a different turn and its been a blessing beyond words.

Statements like this one brighten my day.

agedbriar wrote in post #16825873
Statements like this one brighten my day.

and knowing it did brightens mine. blessings!

I've yet to hear anyone dissent and say sell the 70-200 II which is pretty compelling. Still, I just keep thinking that with the 1D3 (not a great low light performer), that extra stop equals 100mm in reach and that's huge. Once the light is gone, its simply asking too much (imho) to expect that 200mm gets you what you need for field sports and the tc won't work since the ISO performance on the 1D3 is not strong enough to support f/4. My thought is that the 1D3 is going to be mainly used as a sports body only and the OM-D will see more use in day to day shooting. If that's the case, does it change any minds??

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16825826
I wonder if he is married ??

If my gear changed around like that, I wouldn't be.

Someone needs to grab you by the hair and slap you! Sell the 70-200.....don't be an idiot. Now focus (ha ha, pun get it) on getting good pictures and smarten up.....dummy.

If I wasn't shooting daily as a professional, I'd probably own a 7D, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, and Canon 70-200 II, especially if I was shooting my kids' sports. The 70-200 II is a necessary lens if you shoot sports, professionally or personally.

FEChariot wrote in post #16826908
If my gear changed around like that, I wouldn't be.

Why not?

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16825826
I wonder if he is married ??

Married with 4 kids (11mo, 4, 6 & 12) with two dogs, two cats and one lazy ass lizard

elitejp wrote in post #16825172
Talley has made some interesting purchases regarding the 70-200s and the sigma 120-300 sport model. I think he has decided to stay with the 120-300 currently. Although his choices tend to change pretty rapidly. However, joking aside, he chose the new tamron 70-200 over the Canon due to price and nearly indistinguishable image quality and now he has chosen the sigma due to reach and image quality. Read up on his reviews. I personally think he isnt biased in any direction and just chooses based on his needs and comparative quality of the lenses rather than brand name.

(Of course im speaking on behalf of Talley so I could be mistaken. Better to get it out of the horses mouth)

I've never not had a 70-200. It's always been my goto lens for everything.I used it a ton on crop and was always at one end or the other and some in the middle. When I moved to FF it became a great birthday party type lens. However Christmas came around and I got tired of the higher ISO limited by 2.8. I picked up Bobbyz Sig 85 and fell in love. It's a great focal length for many things I need it for and use it alot at 1.4-1.8 This helps me on the ISO and creates a better background. I noticed that I was only grabbing the 70-200 when I needed the longer end. I then picked up the 135 in a trade when I sold the Canon 70-200mk2 I got a trade deal for a UB 135 plus cash. The 135 covered the longer end and was lighter and more fun to use than the 70-200.

After 3 months and not once picking up the 70-200 I started to think hmm.... Then My daughters cheer started and I pull out the 70-200 and felt I needed longer. Behold the 300. Then was limited by a prime.... got the 120-300 and works amazing for cheer. I also know that for choir and dance recitals being in the back that 300 will be perfect for my needs.

So for these reasons I knew I have no need for a 70-200 since on the wider end I much much more perfer the 85 and on the longer end when I don't mind the weight I have now the 120-300. The 135 is just a pure toy for me. It's redundant but beautiful and has a home. The F2 will come in handy for indoor karate/gymnastics and such.

Now I'm looking at the 24-70.... Might sell it.

One thing I know is the 120-300 is sharper at 120-200 than the Tamron I had and the Tamron tested to be very close to the Canon MK2. This told me that the Sigma 120-300 I have is on par with the Canon MK2.

My kit has come together nicely. But between November and now I did have alot of swapping around to fulfill my current needs.

I picked up a Think Tank street walker pro and now carry the 120-300, 35, 84 and either 135 or the 24-70 along with a flash. The bag is comfortable and I don't mind the weight even with my messed up shoulder.

Staszek wrote in post #16826961
If I wasn't shooting daily as a professional, I'd probably own a 7D, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, and Canon 70-200 II, especially if I was shooting my kids' sports. The 70-200 II is a necessary lens if you shoot sports, professionally or personally.

I beg to differ.

The 120-300 and 400 2.8 IS would be my choice.

Sell the 24-105 and TC to help fund a 300mm.