70-200 2.8L IS II - Only for pros?

Everyone wants to get better, they may even find success in photography where they can leave a secure career, but for the rest of us not quite ready to take the plunge is it wrong to buy the best of gear because we can afford to?

I want IQ better than my Tamron 70-300 VC. Faster AF and I want to put good glass in front of my 7D. I want to shoot portraits, and editorial stuff coupled with it being a walk about street type longish focal length.

For me the options were the 70-200 f4, then I went up to the f4 IS to the point where I've just said to myself I'm going to get the 2.8L IS II. Not because I'm buying it for the sake of it. I want to produce images of the best quality.

I have a few indoor functions to photograph in the coming autumn months (Scotland) so I reckon the 2.8 IS will help out there.

I've read so many times its the best there is, so why not?

When I was 18 I bought a Gibson Les Paul Standard. My guitar skills increased so much that within 4 weeks I had learned the whole Appetite for Destruction album by Guns n Roses. I've always believed if you want to be your best you use the best of gear. Something I've read to the contrary with photography, but just wanted to get your opinion as seasoned pro's

Thanks

Paul

Not that many of us on here are "seasoned pros", just dedicated amateurs. There are several who are using 1Dx's and all the latest supertelephotos, not because they "need" to, but because they want the best and can afford it. The 70-200/2.8 IS II is a great lens - I have a friend who really is a seasoned pro and she loves hers. If you can afford it, go for it: the chances are you'll love it too.

Paulstw wrote in post #16216415
Everyone wants to get better, they may even find success in photography where they can leave a secure career, but for the rest of us not quite ready to take the plunge is it wrong to buy the best of gear because we can afford to?

I want IQ better than my Tamron 70-300 VC. Faster AF and I want to put good glass in front of my 7D. I want to shoot portraits, and editorial stuff coupled with it being a walk about street type longish focal length.

For me the options were the 70-200 f4, then I went up to the f4 IS to the point where I've just said to myself I'm going to get the 2.8L IS II. Not because I'm buying it for the sake of it. I want to produce images of the best quality.

I have a few indoor functions to photograph in the coming autumn months (Scotland) so I reckon the 2.8 IS will help out there.

I've read so many times its the best there is, so why not?

When I was 18 I bought a Gibson Les Paul Standard. My guitar skills increased so much that within 4 weeks I had learned the whole Appetite for Destruction album by Guns n Roses. I've always believed if you want to be your best you use the best of gear. Something I've read to the contrary with photography, but just wanted to get your opinion as seasoned pro's

Thanks

Paul

Tisk, Tisk, the 7D isn't quite up to standard either. Going by the philosophy above, a 1Dx is needed or else the photographs are never going to be "Best Quality". Well, lest take it a step further then.... 1Dx is so called "full frame", but it still doesn't quite measure up to the detail and quality of a "Medium Format" camera, so dump the Canon gear and get a 26 thousand dollar (US) Hasselblad.

"Best Quality" when it comes to photography is completely "subjective". Best quality or the most expensive equipment doesn't always = the best photographs. The best possible gear certainly helps, but doesn't guarantee a great career in ANY field. You should know that as you're also a musician. I guarantee Steve Vai will blow your doors off playing a cheap Fender Squire vs. you playing a 12 Grand Les Paul. It's the same with photography.

davidc502 wrote in post #16216464
Tisk, Tisk, the 7D isn't quite up to standard either. Going by the philosophy above, a 1Dx is needed or else the photographs are never going to be "Best Quality". Well, lest take it a step further then.... 1Dx is so called "full frame", but it still doesn't quite measure up to the detail and quality of a "Medium Format" camera, so dump the Canon gear and get a 26 thousand dollar (US) Hasselblad.

"Best Quality" when it comes to photography is completely "subjective". Best quality or the most expensive equipment doesn't always = the best photographs. The best possible gear certainly helps, but doesn't guarantee a great career in ANY field. You should know that as you're also a musician. I guarantee Steve Vai will blow your doors off playing a cheap Fender Squire vs. you playing a 12 Grand Les Paul. It's the same with photography.

Steve Vai so happens to be one of my fave guitarists Along with Andy Timmons, however, while he could possibly spank me with a Squire strat I doubt it would be a nice experience for him.

I should have meant best quality based on the body I had. I'm not in the position to get FF or a 70D as I see its a fail with the lenses I have.

I went to Jacobs to test an F4IS against a F2.8 whilst getting a Nikon J1 for my GF. They never had an F4 so I put an F2.8 on my 7 D and went outside to try it out. I was immediately amazed by everything about it. Handed over the cash there and then. Great glass is everything with a 7D.
I make no living with my camera and have no wish to either, but like to fund my hobbies if I can........

Paulstw wrote in post #16216473
Steve Vai so happens to be one of my fave guitarists Along with Andy Timmons, however, while he could possibly spank me with a Squire strat I doubt it would be a nice experience for him.

I should have meant best quality based on the body I had. I'm not in the position to get FF or a 70D as I see its a fail with the lenses I have.

Camera's aside for a moment...


Steve Vai "Coud possibly spank me?" Sorry, I can't take what you said seriously. I certainly hope you don't believe it. If you do believe it, please go right to the bathroom, and look yourself straight in the mirror, and ask your self, with a straight face, the same question.

For those of you who may not know Steve Vai

** ADD EDIT **

You have good lenses -- Go out and shoot.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Steve_Vai

For the love of God (that's the name of the song). If you haven't heard this song before --- Just Listen to the entire thing.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=9IrWyZ0KZuk

Sorry for ranting a bit. I can get a bit passionate about music at times.

My take...

If you can afford it and want it, buy it...

It won't magically make you a better photographer, but it will give you a nice place to start becoming one, yes?

T.

davidc502 wrote in post #16216531
Camera's aside for a moment...


Steve Vai "Coud possibly spank me?" Sorry, I can't take what you said seriously. I certainly hope you don't believe it. If you do believe it, please go right to the bathroom, and look yourself straight in the mirror, and ask your self, with a straight face, the same question.

For those of you who may not know Steve Vai

** ADD EDIT **

You have good lenses -- Go out and shoot.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Steve_Vai

For the love of God (that's the name of the song). If you haven't heard this song before --- Just Listen to the entire thing.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=9IrWyZ0KZuk

Sorry for ranting a bit. I can get a bit passionate about music at times.

Actually think tender surrender is his best song but each to their own. I'm rather passionate about my guitar too been playing it twenty years now. However vai would still spank me, I can live with that truth.

Paulstw wrote in post #16216656
Actually think tender surrender is his best song but each to their own. I'm rather passionate about my guitar too been playing it twenty years now. However vai would still spank me, I can live with that truth.

Oh yea.... Tender Surrender.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=Yw74sDWPH7U

Cheers,

I love how this turned into being about Tender Surrender. ****ing awesome song!!!

Oh. And I just bought the 70-200 2.8L IS II. I have a full-time job that has nothing to do with photography and occasionally second-shoot for weddings. That being said, I wanted this lens and now I have it, and I certainly don't feel bad just 'cause I'm not a 'professional'.

And while we're talking guitars, I play maybe a couple of times a month, but when I do, I use my Martin.

I am a mediocre photographer shooting the best equipment I can afford. Which is why I am happy with my 28-135 and 20-35. I spend big money on glass when I want something specific, which usually means a prime. However, if I had the money lying around, I'd happily shoot a 70-200 2.8 IS USM II. If you can go the dough, get it.

I'm certainly not a pro and never plan to be, but I really really love this lens and the amazing sharp gorgeous photos I can take with it. Of course it won't on its own improve your composition, lighting etc - but you might find that you love it so much you'll be inspired to shoot more than you are now and develop better skills as a result.

It's bulky and heavy to lug around but I don't mind that, considering what it's capable of. If you think it's right for what you shoot and you can afford it then go for it!

If you really want the lens and can see yourself using it, go for it.. It's your money and if it makes you happy who's to say its wrong.. personal preference...

the 200 f2, however would be more arguably for pros

The 70-200 f/4L IS is just so mind-bogglingly sharp, especially for a zoom and for its price ($850 used), that I can't imagine upgrading to anything else on the basis of IQ alone. If you really need f/2.8, though, then go for it. Personally, the wider aperture would not be worth the major increase in size and weight.

DanAnCan wrote in post #16217127
If you really want the lens and can see yourself using it, go for it.. It's your money and if it makes you happy who's to say its wrong.. personal preference...

the 200 f2, however would be more arguably for pros

I beg to differ because I have the 200L IS and it doesnt make me more of a pro than any other hobbyists