Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 23 Dec 2013 (Monday) 19:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

New Prices on the lengendary L

 
Keedo
Senior Member
355 posts
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Chicago IL
     
Dec 23, 2013 19:34 |  #1

Hey guys, so the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II USM is now around 2200, and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L I USM is around 1,500. Me coming from a Canon 55-250 will make a huge difference either way. Is it worth the price difference for the Second Generation?

I shoot automotive right now, I WILL be doing portrait work as well, low light, and random shots, sports, and whatnot.


6D -- Canon 24-105 -- 50mm f1.8 -- Canon 16-35 f/4 -- Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II -- Canon 85 1.8
Flickr (external link)FaceBook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
lens ­ pirate
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Aug 2008
     
Dec 23, 2013 19:35 |  #2

Yes, the 70-200 MK2 is just about the finest zoom lens ever made.


INSANE GEAR LIST
Sun flare.... the new selective color. JUST SAY NO

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,361 posts
Gallery: 1718 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10832
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Dec 23, 2013 19:37 |  #3

Heya,

Go for a used one. Refurb or something. Get the in between price. Ask yourself if it is worth 10 to 15 times what the 55-250mm does. Yes, it's better. But $2.2k? Even 1.5k? If you're shooting at 200mm, almost exclusively, have you considered perhaps the prime 200mm f2.8? It's half the cost of the MKI. Just something else to consider.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Keedo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
355 posts
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Chicago IL
     
Dec 23, 2013 19:39 |  #4

MalVeauX wrote in post #16550089 (external link)
Heya,

Go for a used one. Refurb or something. Get the in between price. Ask yourself if it is worth 10 to 15 times what the 55-250mm does. Yes, it's better. But $2.2k? Even 1.5k? If you're shooting at 200mm, almost exclusively, have you considered perhaps the prime 200mm f2.8? It's half the cost of the MKI. Just something else to consider.

Very best,

I see where you're coming from. I would need the range though, it would serve me much better as I will be in different locations around tracks constantly.


6D -- Canon 24-105 -- 50mm f1.8 -- Canon 16-35 f/4 -- Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II -- Canon 85 1.8
Flickr (external link)FaceBook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Dec 23, 2013 19:41 |  #5

Keedo wrote in post #16550078 (external link)
Hey guys, so the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II USM is now around 2200, and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L I USM is around 1,500. Me coming from a Canon 55-250 will make a huge difference either way. Is it worth the price difference for the Second Generation?

I shoot automotive right now, I WILL be doing portrait work as well, low light, and random shots, sports, and whatnot.

A 70-200mm f/2.8 has long been established as a very useful portrait and sports lens. In your case, the big question is how much you need the money that you would spend for the more expensive version. If money is a factor, you may want to consider the equivalent stabilized 70-200mm f/2.8 Tamron  (external link)and Sigma lenses (external link).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Keedo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
355 posts
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Chicago IL
     
Dec 23, 2013 19:53 |  #6

DC Fan wrote in post #16550102 (external link)
A 70-200mm f/2.8 has long been established as a very useful portrait and sports lens. In your case, the big question is how much you need the money that you would spend for the more expensive version. If money is a factor, you may want to consider the equivalent stabilized 70-200mm f/2.8 Tamron  (external link)and Sigma lenses (external link).

The only other thing I have in mind is a 5Dmkiii, but from the ooks of this lens, I can hold this body (t3i) for another year then by the quality of this lens


6D -- Canon 24-105 -- 50mm f1.8 -- Canon 16-35 f/4 -- Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II -- Canon 85 1.8
Flickr (external link)FaceBook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chris_holtmeier
Goldmember
Avatar
2,173 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2484
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Omaha
     
Dec 23, 2013 19:58 |  #7

I find 70-200 to be an awkward range on crop for portraits.



https://www.facebook.c​om/FotonFoto (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dodgyexposure
Goldmember
2,874 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 234
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
Dec 23, 2013 20:08 |  #8

Keedo wrote in post #16550117 (external link)
The only other thing I have in mind is a 5Dmkiii, but from the ooks of this lens, I can hold this body (t3i) for another year then by the quality of this lens

I have a 600D (T3i). About 6 months ago, I bought a 70-200 IS II. Lovely lens, great for indoor dance recitals and school concerts. However, never really wowed me on the 600D.

It's an awkward length on a crop. I now have a 6D, and find 70-200 a much more useful range. And the images are very nice.


Cheers, Damien

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Dec 23, 2013 20:50 as a reply to  @ dodgyexposure's post |  #9

Just to add to what has switched to a discussion of the shortcomings of a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens: I went back in and reviewed some pictures from a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens that were taken with a Canon 60D "crop" camera. They're kind of portrait framing, but what was interesting was that I didn't feel awkward or have any trouble taking the pictures.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …-28a-1347_zpsaf9fddda.jpg (external link)

Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 60D
Lens: 70-200mm
Image Date: 2012-12-28 10:49:25 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 200.0mm
Aperture: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 0.0016 s (1/640)
ISO equiv: 5000
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Manual
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …-28a-1557_zpsba88511f.jpg (external link)


Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 60D
Lens: 70-200mm
Image Date: 2012-12-28 10:59:40 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 200.0mm
Aperture: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 0.0020 s (1/500)
ISO equiv: 6400
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Manual
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i1174.photobuck​et.com …-28a-1601_zpsd524a775.jpg (external link)


Camera Maker: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 60D
Lens: 70-200mm
Image Date: 2012-12-28 11:02:42 (no TZ)
Focal Length: 154.0mm
Aperture: f/2.8
Exposure Time: 0.0025 s (1/400)
ISO equiv: 2000
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: shutter priority (semi-auto)
White Balance: Manual
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB

Instead of feeling awkward, I rotated the lens' focal length ring and got what seemed like useful framing, either tight images of eyes or frame-filling images of race cars. I once thought these were fairly decent images, but now I learn I should have been awkward because I used a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens on a "crop " camera. What went wrong?



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Membrain
Member
130 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Dec 23, 2013 20:59 |  #10

The 70-200 is mkii can be bought from B&H for $2100 - $300 rebate for a final cost of $1800! I went for the deal and sold me sigma, it was a great upgrade and Xmas present to myself. You may want to jump on the great deals going on now as well.


6D-lovin the GAME...
Full Gear List
Beyond The Lens (external link)
Mr. Beard Butler (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bpalermini
Goldmember
Avatar
1,397 posts
Gallery: 94 photos
Likes: 712
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Ashland, Oregon
     
Dec 23, 2013 21:01 |  #11

Just get the II, or buy my I so I can get a II. You will never regret buying the best.


Bob Palermini
1DX, 5DIV, 14 Rokinon, 16-35L II, 24-70L II, 100L, 70-200 IS 2.8L, 100-400L II, 400mm 2.8 IS II, 1.4xIII, 2xIII, 580EXII, YN560IV, RRS TVC23 + BH55, LRCC, Fuji X-E2, Fuji X30
My Web Site (external link) | My Sports Portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chris_holtmeier
Goldmember
Avatar
2,173 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2484
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Omaha
     
Dec 23, 2013 21:22 |  #12

DC Fan wrote in post #16550190 (external link)
What went wrong?

Nothing went wrong. I simply stated I felt the focal range was awkward for portraits. For sport shooting, the added reach of crop helps. The OP stated he planned to use the lens for portraits, so I related my experiences.



https://www.facebook.c​om/FotonFoto (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,922 posts
Gallery: 148 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4058
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Dec 23, 2013 21:29 |  #13

chris_holtmeier wrote in post #16550125 (external link)
I find 70-200 to be an awkward range on crop for portraits.

Could you clarify what you meant by "awkward"?

Do you mean that the wide end, 70mm, usually resulted in tighter framing than what you wanted?

Or did you mean that the long end, 200mm, was usually not long enough for the portraits you wanted to make?


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chris_holtmeier
Goldmember
Avatar
2,173 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2484
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Omaha
     
Dec 23, 2013 22:07 |  #14

112mm (70mm on APS-C), for me, is the long end of what I like to use for portraits. So a 70-200 on crop starts long, and just gets longer.

In comparison, on full frame 35mm, 70 is good for 3/4 length and 135-200 is good for headshots.



https://www.facebook.c​om/FotonFoto (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
huntersdad
Goldmember
4,655 posts
Likes: 232
Joined Nov 2008
     
Dec 23, 2013 22:29 |  #15

I'm with Chris on this one. I love the range on FF but not on a crop. Not wide enough inside and I use mine a good bit indoors.

OP, I'll second looking at the new Tamron. Cheaper than the MkII and about 95% of it. The VC system is spectacular.


Facebook (external link)

http://WWW.BLENDEDLIGH​TPHOTOGRAPHY.COM (external link)
1DxII x 2 / 24-70L II / 70-200L II / 85 1.4L / 300 II / AD600Pros

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,847 views & 0 likes for this thread
New Prices on the lengendary L
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is rsturboguy
838 guests, 334 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.