Anyone question whether they need a 70-200.

So I picked up a second hand Canon 70-200 2.8 IS I a few weekends ago on the quick. I wanted a 70-200 for a wedding I was shooting and...well I wanted a 70-200. It's a great lens. Sharp as a tack, quick AF, you name it. I don't think I have to sell you guys on how good the lens is. My issue though is that I'm not a wedding photography, primarily...I stick to portraits and more so seniors. I use my 135L A LOT for my portrait work. I shot a senior this past weekend and I found myself reaching for my 135 instead of my 70-200 so it got me thinking...do I even really need a 70-200?

I've always wanted one, but now that I have it I find myself looking for a reason to shoot with it. Maybe it's because I've been using my 135 almost exclusively for the bulk of my work and now it's just habit. I'm now debating whether or not to sell the 70-200. It's big...it's heavy...it's taking up space in my bag...did I mention it's heavy? Anyone else question whether or not they even need a 70-200? I guess I'm just looking for piece of mind to say that I'm nuts for wanting to sell it, or that I'm not because I probably don't need it- and if I do I can rent it.

For all my senior shoots I've taken my Tammy 28-75 (that lens rocks!), my Canon 85, and 135L. I've hardly used the 85 on a shoot and usually just switch between the Tammy and 135L. Anything indoors I usually shoot with my 24-105L.

"Need" is a strong word for many, especially me --it's a hobby!. I just bought the 70-200 F4 IS, and I have used it, just not as much as I expected. I have managed to get several shots I really like -- two in particular with panning which is a perfect match for these lenses.

rivas8409 wrote in post #17553887
So I picked up a second hand Canon 70-200 2.8 IS I a few weekends ago on the quick. I wanted a 70-200 for a wedding I was shooting and...well I wanted a 70-200. It's a great lens. Sharp as a tack, quick AF, you name it. I don't think I have to sell you guys on how good the lens is. My issue though is that I'm not a wedding photography, primarily...I stick to portraits and more so seniors. I use my 135L A LOT for my portrait work. I shot a senior this past weekend and I found myself reaching for my 135 instead of my 70-200 so it got me thinking...do I even really need a 70-200?

I've always wanted one, but now that I have it I find myself looking for a reason to shoot with it. Maybe it's because I've been using my 135 almost exclusively for the bulk of my work and now it's just habit. I'm now debating whether or not to sell the 70-200. It's big...it's heavy...it's taking up space in my bag...did I mention it's heavy? Anyone else question whether or not they even need a 70-200? I guess I'm just looking for piece of mind to say that I'm nuts for wanting to sell it, or that I'm not because I probably don't need it- and if I do I can rent it.

For all my senior shoots I've taken my Tammy 28-75 (that lens rocks!), my Canon 85, and 135L. I've hardly used the 85 on a shoot and usually just switch between the Tammy and 135L. Anything indoors I usually shoot with my 24-105L.

A 70-200mm lens, especially the f/2.8 variety, over decades of interchangeable-lens photography extending back to the 35mm film era, has been proven to be one of the most versatile lenses available, useful for portraiture, sports and indoor low-light situations.

You'll possibly find that a not insignificant plurality of photographers will use a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens rather than carry separate 85mm and 135mm units. There's also a good chance that those who use a 70-200mm f/2.8 aren't concerned about its size because they also use longer and heavier lenses.

And those who dislike the mass of a 70-200mm f/2.8 from one of the three companies that currently manufacture one of those lenses can choose the smaller and lighter option of a 70-200mm f/4 unit.

If you want to see an overwhelming affirmative vote in favor of a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, wait until basketball season, when you'll see 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses in use at every significant game by deadline photographers - probably thousands of them at U.S. games on weekend nights.

It's a great lens. I tried one the other week for a day and it actually made me realize I will indeed break down one day and get one (actually hopefully soon-ish).

But I will not be selling either my 135L nor my 70-200 f4 IS. It is not a replacement for either of those, at least not for me.

You know the 24mm and 17mm TS-Es are also 'great' lenses. As is the new 100-400 and the 200 f2 and the.....

I have the same issue.
I'm a hobbyist but could not resist the new Mk2 version.
Sadly, after three weeks it's still not been out of the house/back garden and I'm wondering if I really need it.

Heya,

I bought one, then sold it. I didn't need it. I think it's worth exploring if those focal lengths are your bread and butter. But you have to compromise some where, often times, it's going to be weight. For me though, I found I certainly didn't need 70mm, nor 150mm, etc. I used it at 200mm basically all the time. So for me, that was not a useful lens in general. I instead, now use a 200 F2.8L prime. Smaller, lighter than the zoom versions with F2.8, all black, and cheaper to boot. I generally use an 85mm or 200mm for telephoto portrait. I also use my 200 prime for wildlife and birding, with a TC. Still light weight and fast.

If I couldn't swap lenses, I'd probably keep a 70-200 around.

But since I can swap lenses and have several cameras, I'd rather have faster primes for my purposes. I generally take two cameras with the two focal lengths I want to use. And I like having 85 F1.4 and 200 F2.8 as options, rather than 70 F2.8 as the other option, or even 35 F2 or 58 F2, etc. I just didn't jive with the rest of the focal range at F2.8 or slower on the 70-200, but again, that's for my purposes (portrait, mostly outdoor).

Very best,

DC Fan wrote in post #17553953
You'll possibly find that a not insignificant plurality of photographers will use a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens rather than carry separate 85mm and 135mm units. There's also a good chance that those who use a 70-200mm f/2.8 aren't concerned about its size because they also use longer and heavier lenses.

I was at an indoor sports event a few weeks ago and looked up during a timeout. There were four of us at this rather small event, on the floor, with 70-200 f/2.8 IS attached to our cameras. For some types of events you just don't have time to switch cameras or lenses during play and any prime will be the wrong lens about 80% of the time.

Rivas.
For me it would be tough to be without the 70-200 range. Full frame or a 1.6 crop sensor. My most used lens.
If you love the range but hate the weight, I can strongly recommended the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS. I have both the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. Why both? The f/4 really shines when I want to travel lighter when f/4 or ore will be fine. The f/2.8 IS is my go to lens. Hands down. As the years go by, the f/4 L IS is getting more and more use when the situation calls for it. Really sharp results.
Plus I have a great back up when needed.

It's my most used lens. If I could only have one lens forever it would be the 70-200ii.

I never had a 70-200 when I shot film. Somewhere along the line I acquired a 70-200 OS while shooting apsc bodies. When I first mounted that focal length on full frame, I was hooked. Only thing is the f/2.8 version was too big and heavy to cart around all the time. I sold it for an EF f/4 IS USM, and am much liking the 70-200 range on full frame. But now I wish I'd never sold my 135L. Just for the record, 200mm is borderline unusable for me without IS.

I've shot quite a few events with it, and personally, I dont need it. I keep it around because depreciation is fairly negligible.

the "Versatility" of the zoom is a bit overstated. It's my least used lens, too big, not fast enough.

Don't have one, and don't miss owning one, but most people I know own one, and seem to find reasons to use it whether it's appropriate or not.

I've got a 100mm prime, a 135, and a 200, that does me for the occasions I want that length, which is very rare, personally I find myself needing wide angle more than telephotos, hence why I'm building up the courage to buy a new 24-70, but if I was to shoot a wedding, I'd hire a 70-200 immediately, then send it back afterwards.

I think because this sector is so hotly contested the 70-200 lenses are on the whole probably the highest quality zooms segment out there, so people naturally want to own one as they're so good, then perhaps think afterwards what they could use it for. Funny old hobby this, I love my 100L macro, but hardly ever use it, exactly the same thing

I too just sold mine a couple weeks ago. It is a great lens but I just was not using it enough to warrant keeping a $1400 lens in the closet. I ended up getting the Panasonic FZ-1000 which has a slightly longer reach comparatively and so far seems to be a nice replacement for that lens. I plan on using it in conjunction with my Canon 5D Mark II at my nieces wedding in June. I'm hoping the long end of that camera will make the replacement a good choice.

Kind of a difficult question... back when cameras were small on sensor size and low on pixels, the 70-200 was my best friend and also the only reasonable way to get 8 to 10 megapixels of resolution to render anything decent was to get close up, and while I continued to use it when I moved to using a 5D2 I started to see the value in wide lenses more. Right now I'm using a camera with a sensor larger than full frame and even a 150mm lens feels long.

If you forced me to pick between a 24-70 2.8 II or 70-200 IS 2.8 II, I'd pick the former every time... maybe my tastes changed over time?

I had a f4 non-IS up until recently. Bought a 70-300 L and sold the 70-200. Just found the extra 100mm reach was more important than the fixed f4. Had been tempted by a 2.8 non-IS but couldn't find one as sharp as the f4 I had.

A