Would You Buy This Deal? Time is of the essence with this one.

Hey everyone,

i am brand new to this forum because I have a question. I love shooting nature and birds and such really need a longer lens option so....

I have been kicking around the idea of getting the - "EF 70-200 f/ 2.8L III IS USM "for a while but can't seem to make the final decision to drop the nut and buy it...
which I think is good because this happened..


I had my 80D out at a family function and a relative told me he bought a lens and 2x extension tube for his canon camera a few years back and now has no use for them.
He used them for 2 seasons when his kid was in wrestling so I know the items have been used indoors only and probably not even that often.

The lens is an EF 70-200 f/ 2.8L IS USM ( typed just as the box stated - not a II or III)
I know the II and III designate the glass used inside but i have no clue of what the differences are. and the one he has should be cheaper because it's older and not a II or III

The 2x converter is an EF 2X II

STORED IN THE ORIGINAL BOXES SINCE HE STOPPED USING THEM I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM YET BUT HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THEY ARE IN ANYTHING LESS THAN MINT CONDITION.

He is asking $1300 for both.

WOULD YOU?

The Mk II has different coatings on the lens elements which reduces flare and improves contrast (compared to the Mk I). But Canon has been pretty good with optics already so is there a huge difference? What's probably(?) more significant is the Image Stabilization. IS is newer and Canon was improving IS with each generation: Mk II, Mk III.

With really good light (and therefore shutter speeds) you might not be as concerned with an earlier generation of IS (Mk I) compared to what you might get with the next generation. The 70-200 is often used handheld so that's worth considering. (I mention this because a friend of mine was shopping for a 300/2.8 but in his situation always used a tripod. He found a model without IS that was significantly cheaper.) If you think that you might have to deal with lower light, then IS becomes more important.

Beyond that, I've not used the Mk I lens. I have a Mk II lens and Mk III adapter and use that combination quite a bit.

Welcome to the forum. The lens seems to be priced about right and when you toss in the converter, it looks like a pretty decent deal. Might offer $1100 and see it the relative bites. That would make it a great deal.

This is assuming that it is a V2 or V3 lens. If it's the original, those seems to be going for ~$800 to $1k.

The short answer is to get the MKIII.

The MKII is indeed a significant upgrade from the MKI in every aspect. I haven't used the MKIII, but on paper it doesn't seem like it is as big of an upgrade as going from MKI to MKII.
The MKII also plays much nicer with the 2x TC. You may not be thrilled with the image quality of the MKI + 2x TC.

Personally, I wouldn't be considering the MKI unless it was being sold for an insanely low price, and even then, I'd worry about the condition of the lens and internals being that its an old lens. Bite the bullet and get the MKIII. It's very easy to later find a used 2xTC at a discounted price.

Seems a little high for a version 1 lens and TC. I bought a MKII 70-200 f2.8 last year for $1100. I bought a 1.4 MKII TC also for ~$200. I would keep an eye on several Buy/Sell forums here and on FM to check prices, also look at KEH and MPB to check their prices for the lenses.

I agree with the comment see if he will go to $1,000 to $1,000. I think $1,300 is too high for a MKI lens. Still a good lens but pretty old.

Price seems high. It's pretty easy to find used copies of that lens for less than $700 and the teleconverter for less than $200. Maybe it's in extra-nice shape and you know the pedigree. That's worth something, but it still seems a little high.

That was a popular lens that's been upgraded a couple of times. There are a bunch of used ones out there.

I have that lens and use it often. It produces great photos. I have tried it vs a MKII and didn't see enough improvement to upgrade.

I'd say three things. In my experience it does not take the 2X extender well. I would use it with a 1.4X but not with a 2X. Focus action is slow and sharpness goes down a noticeable amount. But I don't use a TC with that lens very often anymore because I have a 100-400 that covers those focal lengths.

I think $1300 is high for those two items. I'd value the lens at $800-900 and the 2X at $175-250. One sold here recently for $175.

If your goal is bird photography there may be better lenses to look at in that price range. There is a Sigma 150-600 for sale here for $775. It won't be as versatile for general photography but 600 is better for birds.

I'd pass on the deal. Having said that, since he's a relative he should have no problem letting you borrow the equipment to evaluate before you buy. As another poster suggested, I would look at the Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | C. You could borrow the Canon rig, rent the Sigma at the same time and compare them back-to-back.

thanks for the input..... after reading your suggestions I have counter offered , I told him of the newer models, the fact I would prob never use the 2x and that they have updated the IS a few times since then and some of those newer ones are out there cheaper used but since he took care of this one and the fact that it has never seen rain I would do 1000.

All in all I feel it's a good deal and now I have the 70-200 range covered where as before I did not....

Thanks for your input and even though it still may be a lil pricier...I feel it's better than $2300 for the III alone.

Thanks again

I just sold my Ex+ condition 70-200/2.8LIS for $800 so I would look up eBay items for the x2 and go from there.

I'd ask what country the lens is in, because $1300 could be quite a bit different depending on the answer.

70-200 is a good range for landscape, but too short for wildlife photos, especially birds (I own the 70-200 f4). I've been looking around for something a little longer, and affordable, I'm finding that's kind of a hole in the Canon lens lineup, unless I'm missing something.

patrick j wrote in post #19360919
70-200 is a good range for landscape, but too short for wildlife photos, especially birds (I own the 70-200 f4). I've been looking around for something a little longer, and affordable, I'm finding that's kind of a hole in the Canon lens lineup, unless I'm missing something.

Siggy 150-600. Excellent lens especially for the cost. A bit heavy but then you get 600mm.

I'd pass. Not much of a combo.
I think the MKII 70-200 was a significant upgrade.
Same with the Teleconverter. 1.4TCII and 1.4TCIII very little difference while the 2XTCIII was noticeably better than 2XTCII.

70-200 MKII and either 1.4TCII or 1.4TCIII should be possible for similar money.