Best Value vs "The Right" 70-200 for me

I am finally taking the 70-200 plunge and not sure which way to go with it. Here are some of the deals out there. A couple of them are a stretch financially, but I just wonder if I need it - all are Canon lenses:

f4 non-IS: $500.00 - cheap, sharp, just not the fastest in the stable

f2.8 non-IS: $1000.00 - can get one for $900 but the guy will not meet in a public place.

f4 IS: One listed for $850, this would be an optimal value. More realistically this is a $950 - $1000 lens

f2.8 IS I: Lowest I found is $1300 for a UV date code.

f2.8 IS II: Found one for $1675. Great deal. Emailed the seller but no response. Kinda glad - I can do this but it would verge on irresponsible!

I use my 17-55 and 30mm for indoors. For outdoor I use the 85mm at times, and even it can seem short. Got a 55-250 just for some longer shots, but IQ is good only in really optimal conditions. The 70-200 would be partly for reach, and partly for outdoor portraits and glorified snapshots. Any of them would be fine I am sure, but personally, I like the idea of 2.8 for the potential Christmas/dance recitals, or concert type shooting, but thought feedback from similar shooters with experience with these lenses might help.

Basically I keep rationalizing the $300-400 jump between each lens (the f4 IS and f2.8 non-IS being basically the same price point), and I want to decide on one and hone in on finding a viable purchase unit. I jsut keep pulling myself in different directions!

Thank you in advance...

Shop CL. In July I got a mint condition Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM for $750. It is arguably better than the Canon version 1, and as good as the Canon non-IS and the Canon II. With the notable exception of a tad bit of softness at 200mm and f/2.8. It sharpens up nicely at f/3.2 and is as good as the Canon II by f/4. I am more than happy with it. I got OS (IS) and f/2.8 for less than the Canon f/4 IS.

Hi there,

after using a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for many years, I later opted for a 70-200mm f/4L without IS.

The reasons were for carry weight for long belly dance shows, and becuase IS doesn't help with fast-moving subjects. In the case of belly dancers, IS only keeps the viewfinder less jumbly when panning around; the viewfinder is less jumbly though from better hand-hooding technique; better hand-holding technique is much easier with a lighter super-zoom like the f/4.

If you intend to photograph people who are moving, particularly outdoors, f/4 has relatively sufficient aperture. It also works well for indoor stage shows when they are well-lighted, or have professional lightng. The rest in that situation is mainly Tv, for which IS helps almost none.

If your application was outdoors, but potentially modestly still subjects, like distant hills, or some wildlife, or for dusk or dawn light, then IS could be a tremendous advantage, and f/4 would still work.

If you need interior low-light capability at distance, the f/2.8 works superbly, but it's a heavy beast. Fast-moving people, IS not too much help; still scenes, and really dim light, great use for IS.

In passing, esp, if your application is outdoors, and as you have a 1.6x FoVCF camera, you might take a look at the Nifty Two Fifty, the EF-S 55-250mm f/3.5-f/5.6 IS. It's a shockingly good lense for the price, I've been very surprised at how well it works. I have used it for daylight telephoto, sky and aircraft fotos, and astronomy applications. Fabulous lens.

Good luck, whatever you end up with!

I would jump on a cheap 70-200 f/4. Great IQ, great build, and light weight. If you need a faster lens for low light shooting, your 85 f/1.8 is a better choice. Don't be shy, get close. If you find that you still need more reach AND speed, you can later pick up a 135 f/2L for ~$800, which will put you well under the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II price tag.

Definitely pass on anyone who won't meet in public.

If you plan on keeping the 55-250, I'd go for one of the 2.8 models. Most people complain about the weight, but if you keep the 55-250, you can still travel light. My vote would go for the 2.8 IS II, but the f4 IS is also a pretty good deal.

$850 for the f4 IS is a good price. Thats about what I value a used one at. I would not pay full price for that lens after having owned it for a while and getting to know it.

Alternatively, the sigma 70-200 OS is the best buy of all the 2.8 70-200's IMO, thanks to price/performance. Unless you need weather sealing.

Pass on the guy who refuses to meet in public place.

With your 7D, you can push the ISO rather high to compensate for the loss of the additional stop of aperture of the f/4 versus f/2.8 version. I am actually able to use my 70-200 f/4 IS to shoot indoor ice hockey with the 7D by pushing the ISO to 6400 so I can maintain a fast shutter speed.

Having tried the experience, I would not now buy another lens in this focal range without IS. I used to own a 70-200 f2.8 non-IS, and ended up selling it (1) because of the weight and (2) because of the lack of IS. I replaced it with a f4 IS model, and have been very happy with it. The f4 IS is an outstanding lens in every respect, and my keeper rate with this lens, even in low light conditions, is better than it was with the f2.8 non-IS. The f4 IS does a wonderful job for outdoor portraits and family photography, and it's small enough and light enough to carry everywhere.

Given that your main use of the lens will involve static subjects (portraits), I'd strongly recommend getting an IS version, either the f2.8 or the f4. If you haven't yet handled the lenses, I'd also recommend doing that before making your choice. There's a very considerable difference in size and weight between the two, and while that doesn't matter to some people, it did matter to me.

Good luck with your choice!

I think this is great advice from klr.b.

Also, do you find yourself needing the IS on your 55-250? With the added weight of the f/4 or f/2.8, you may need IS depending on how much you use that feature.

I was trying to make the same decision as you earlier this year, and I ended up getting the 2.8 IS mkI. As you go up the chain, you gain versatility. The mkII, as I understand it, you can get even closer to your subject.

I predominantly photograph my kids, and outdoors, it is either this lens, or my 17-55 that I bring. It has also been valuable in situations that you describe, ie., recitals and concerts, where you are not up close and in low light.

Attached is a picture of Luther Dickinson of the North Mississippi Allstars. Here, I was probably 15 ft away, standing on a chair at the back of the venue. I was at f/2.8, ISO 1600, 1/125. I have a T2i, so I am not sure how an f/4 would have done at a higher ISO or slower shutter speed. The IS helped because it was hand-hold only.

In addition, I think the f/4 would be redundant with your 55-250, to the point where you might actually sell the latter after using the f/4 for a while. With the f/2.8 you could have both depending on the situation: you could haul out the tank for serious use, or keep it simple if you know you'll be socializing and pictures are a secondary concern.

In any case either sounds like a great addition to your arsenal! I love mine, and it gets used frequently. You can't go wrong with those lenses.

ps. If you can get the mkII at that price, go for it. I've never seen it that low, and you could easily turn around and sell it if you change your mind.

klr.b wrote in post #14958639
Definitely pass on anyone who won't meet in public.

If you plan on keeping the 55-250, I'd go for one of the 2.8 models. Most people complain about the weight, but if you keep the 55-250, you can still travel light. My vote would go for the 2.8 IS II, but the f4 IS is also a pretty good deal.

I got the Tamron 70-200 2.8 for $400.

Excellent PQ, at f/3.2 it matches my 70-200 IS II at f/2.8. AF is a bit slow, but no problem for portrait or candidt shots, just not fast enough for birding, which you don't seem to shoot much anyway.

It's also quite a bit lighter than other 70-200 2.8 lens. Weighs 1150g, roughly the same as 70-300L,
more than 300g less than other 70-200 2.8 optical stabilized lens.

Thanks all for your comments...

In the end, I just got off the line with a CL seller who is moving and looking to sell a nice bit of kit quickly. Getting a deal I am very happy with, on a f2.8 IS Mk I. Willing to meet in a public place, and seemed very nice over the phone.

I have seen sample images from this lens on this site, and I feel this lens would exceed my needs.

Looking forward to getting hands on it!

Congrats! This is the one I have, and I love it. If I go on a trip or visit that I have no idea what I'll be shooting, this one always comes along either on the camera or in my pack. Bright light, low light, close ups, far away shots, you can get it with this lens.

javig999 wrote in post #14960110
Thanks all for your comments...

In the end, I just got off the line with a CL seller who is moving and looking to sell a nice bit of kit quickly. Getting a deal I am very happy with, on a f2.8 IS Mk I. Willing to meet in a public place, and seemed very nice over the phone.

I have seen sample images from this lens on this site, and I feel this lens would exceed my needs.

Looking forward to getting hands on it!

I think you'll find that you'll have new ideas and inspirations with your new weapon!

Boo, you went the responsible route.

Enjoy the lens.

I did not want to jinx my deal, but it was legit! UT date code 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk I for $1000! Very clean example...and I am super stoked!

That's an amazing price!

Verify that it's the IS version!

javig999 wrote in post #14961888
I did not want to jinx my deal, but it was legit! UT date code 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk I for $1000! Very clean example...and I am super stoked!