Which 70-200 is the best value for money

Along these same lines...just a thought/question... would shooting with the 5D Mark III or 6D affect your lens recommendation? Could one get away with the 70-200 F4 IS, given the great ISO performance of those cameras?

Just trying to learn...thx.

The 70-200 F2.8 II is really one of a few lens that just has a wow factor about almost every shot you take with it. I haven't regretted paying the premium for it once. The only complaint I have is how gigantically large the lens is. It attracts mucho attention, but at a wedding thats not a problem.

only one answer

70-200 Mk II

I'll look into importing one and see what the final savings might be. Here's another question.

7d + 70-200 IS mkii or
5d2 + 70-200 non IS

Milutiche wrote in post #15595504
I'll look into importing one and see what the final savings might be. Here's another question.

7d + 70-200 IS mkii or
5d2 + 70-200 non IS

5D2 + 70-200 IS mkII

No seriously, slowly work your way up. Since you are using a 7D now, get the lens first then upgrade the body after.

If you can't afford the Canon mk II yet, then I would not hesitate with the mk I. Mine gave me great results that I had no complaints about. I don't know if the 3rd party options are better or not, but if so, then you can't go wrong.

It's just that the mk II is noticeably better.

Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC....also, and I'll probably get a lot of flame for this from butt hurt fanboys, but I prefer the way it renders the image better than the Canon 2.8 IS II.

I think the obvious answer for best VALUE is the sigma 70-200 OS. I occasionally read some folks getting that lens for 1K... which is a really good price for what it is. If the tamron drops down to 1200, I think that would be best value. It's really really close to sharpness of the 70-200 mk2, which is pretty much the gold standard.

I got my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM for $750, in excellent condition. A paid event shooter was upgrading to the Canon version II. His employer paid for the Sigma and was paying for the Canon. He just wanted to sell it and move on. Nice deal for both of us. I am completely happy with it.

Lucky you. I paid double here in Canada, tax in. But, I am happy with the lens.

If you are on a tight budget, get a used 70-200 2.8 IS v1. After all, it was the go to lens for weddings up until about 1 year ago. All those wedding shots must have been crap before the v2 came along.

I was debating the Sigma OS new vs. the Canon non-IS when my CL deal presented itself. That would be a tough choice if you have to pay new price for both of them. I only mount the lens when I am shooting some sort of sports, so the IS isn't really useful. Nice to have anyway. I am sure my lens will get more action on my newest toy, the 5D, when I get a chance to use it. I think the 70-200 is a better fit for FF, although I haven't tried it much yet.

Who knows a good place to buy a 70-200 mk2 online that would ship to New Zealand?

sircanon wrote in post #15592455
Look around, locally and on this forum the 70-200 F4L can be had for $500. The IS version for about $900. Those prices you posted are a little steep.

I think the numbers he are quoting is in NZ, presumably in NZ dollars.

Muskett32 wrote in post #15594820
Along these same lines...just a thought/question... would shooting with the 5D Mark III or 6D affect your lens recommendation? Could one get away with the 70-200 F4 IS, given the great ISO performance of those cameras?

Just trying to learn...thx.

I have the F4LIS, it would probably be the first lens I recommend to anyone. If you want to stop motion, then no question F2.8 is better. If you shoot at wedding/churches yes F2.8 is better.

For me F4L IS great, I used it to during my brothers' wedding, some of my pictures are better than the hotshot photographer who showed up. Framing, light control and the moment are essentials of photography often ignored.

Just my 2 cents and good luck