Closed123 Senior Member 512 posts Likes: 44 Joined Aug 2009 More info | Jul 28, 2014 07:55 | #1  PermanentlyHey all, Canon EOS 80D
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 28, 2014 08:05 | #2 Well it all depends on what you shoot mostly, and outdoors the F4 should not be any issues whatsoever even on a cloudy day, plenty of light. EOS R5 | EOS R6 | EF 8-15L | RF 15-35L 2.8 | RF 24-70L 2.8 | RF 85L 1.2 | RF 70-200L 2.8 | RF 100-500L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 28, 2014 08:12 | #3 PermanentlyOh I'm sorry, I meant to say that selling the 70-200 would ADD to my current budget. I mostly shoot portraits, general walk around pictures and some events and parties. Canon EOS 80D
LOG IN TO REPLY |
pictureman62 Senior Member  More info | Jul 28, 2014 08:19 | #4 Robin, Capture today, for everyone to enjoy tomorrow!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
kf095 Out buying Wheaties  More info | Yes, I do need to have tele from time to time and my 70_200 F4 L is just what I need. Old Site
LOG IN TO REPLY |
borismach Mostly Lurking  19 posts Likes: 1 Joined Apr 2014 Location: Hong Kong More info | Jul 28, 2014 10:45 | #6 Agree to replace it with 200/2.8L first...when you talking about 17-50 replacement, I can think of 17-40/4L or 16-35/2.8L...for me I enjoy my 17-40/4L very much... borismach
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 28, 2014 11:23 | #7 PermanentlyAh the 200 2.8 sounds like a great option, hadn't thought of that. Canon EOS 80D
LOG IN TO REPLY |
amfoto1 Cream of the Crop 10,251 posts Likes: 84 Joined Aug 2007 Location: San Jose, California More info | Jul 28, 2014 11:51 | #8 If the 70-200 doesn't work for you, by all means feel free to sell it off and put the money toward something else.  Within the last month, I've shot 12,000 images, many of which were with that lens. But I'm not you and you're not me, so your needs and wants are bound to be different. However, considering the limitations you find with the 70-200 f/4 lens now, I sure wouldn't go adding another f/4 lens like the 24-105. It would be heavily redundant with your other lenses, anyway. You might want to check out the 135/2L, instead, if you need more telephoto reach than your 85mm offers. IMO, the 135/2 is a "dream lens" on full frame. But it's also excellent on a crop camera such as your 60D (or my 50D in this case)... Here stopped down to f8 for depth of field:  Or used with a larger aperture to give a stronger background blur, here relatively close and at f4 (on 7D)...  And it's quite fast focusing, fully capable of sports/wildlife and other action photography (f5 on 7D)...  The 135/2L also works very well with a quality 1.4X teleconverter, for a 189mm f2.8, if even more reach is needed. If the 135/2L is "too much" in any way, an alternative is the EF 100/2.0 (not the macro lens, though that's yet another option, just slower focusing and f2.8 instead of f2.0). The 10-18mm (or an EF-S 10-22mm) makes a lot of sense to add to your kit, if you'll find uses for a wide angle lens. Most think the Sigma 17-50/2.8 is a pretty decent lens. I haven't used it. But if you want something better, one of the very best in this range is the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM. An alternative that goes a bit wider (in case you don't get one of the ultrawides that go to 10mm) is the EF-S 15-85 IS USM. This also has superb image quality and an excellent range of focal lengths for a walk-around lens, but since it's an f3.5-5.6 lens might be best if you have two or three fast primes, too. If you shoot a lot of low light/available light, you also might want to consider some other fairly fast primes such as the 50/1.4 and 28/1.8. These are smaller and less intrusive than many of the zooms, too, which can be nice for candid shots & street photography. Alan Myers
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jimewall Goldmember 1,871 posts Likes: 11 Joined May 2008 Location: Cleveland, Ohio More info |
Jul 28, 2014 11:59 | #10 Yes, you should get rid of it. Camera gear: Canon 5D Mark IV | Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L II | Lights: Elinchrom Ranger RX Speed AS
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 28, 2014 12:01 | #11 you already have the 17-40 ranged covered with a faster arguably better solution. The 24-105 does nothing you cant already do. Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Paulstw Senior Member 827 posts Likes: 2 Joined Nov 2012 More info | Jul 28, 2014 13:01 | #13 I got rid of my 70-200 2.8 mkII and it was thee single worst thing I ever done. I did follow through with a air biscuit once as a child, but getting rid of that lens was still worse.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jul 28, 2014 19:13 | #14 RobinSchouten wrote in post #17061066  Hey all, I'm debating to get rid of my 70-200 4L and use the money to buy something else. I don't seem to use lens at all and when I do, f/4 is just to slow to get any good shots when it's not very sunny outside. My 85 1.8 seems to be tele enough for me. But I do feel the we all need to have a telezoom lens...  I'm also looking to replace my Sigma 17-50 2.8 for something sharper, any suggestions? Selling the 70-200 gives me a fairly large budget. You are doing something else wrong if you can't get any good shots at f4 except in very bright light. I'd love to see examples of photos that went wrong because the lens was too slow. What are you shooting?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
SueGirl Member 46 posts Joined Jul 2014 More info | Jul 28, 2014 19:36 | #15  Permanent banSPAM PUT AWAY This post is marked as spam. |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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! |
| ||
| Latest registered member is BirdDog80 823 guests, 208 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
