Going To Get A 70-200 f/4 L

I am going to get a 70-200 f/4 L non IS. I can not afford the IS right now and did not think I could afford this model as well. I was looking at the 55-250 IS. I am getting it for $380.00 I think that is a good price? What do you think? It is a friend of a friend. He said it is in excellent condition. It comes with original box and hood. He said the date stamp was US1005. Does that mean it was made in Oct. of 05? Is that considered old?

Also if I am going to use this on a tripod do I need to get the tripod mount ring for the lens?

Thank You

jcsurfn wrote in post #6915703
I am going to get a 70-200 f/4 L non IS. I can not afford the IS right now and did not think I could afford this model as well. I was looking at the 55-250 IS. I am getting it for $380.00 I think that is a good price? What do you think? It is a friend of a friend. He said it is in excellent condition. It comes with original box and hood. He said the date stamp was US1005. Does that mean it was made in Oct. of 05? Is that considered old?

Also if I am going to use this on a tripod do I need to get the tripod mount ring for the lens?

Thank You

I would wait and get the IS version honestly.... if you plan on doing any kind of semi low light to heavy low light shooting, your gunna want the IS

Date code of US1005 is October 2004. See:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …ses/canon-lens-aging.aspx

$380 seems like a great deal! If you don't end up liking it, you could probably make money reselling it.

agchiu wrote in post #6915749
Date code of US1005 is October 2004. See:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …ses/canon-lens-aging.aspx

$380 seems like a great deal! If you don't end up liking it, you could probably make money reselling it.

Thank You for that link. Very helpful. I thought the 10 was the mount, which I was right but I thought the 05 was the year. I knew it could not be that easy. Is that kind of old? or not?

I was thinking the same thing about the money. At least I could get my money back if it does not work for me. Most of the time I should have good light. I would really like IS but was to much on the L for me right now and I thought this price was maybe to good to pas up if it is what he says it is. A little worried that I might not be able to use it at 200mm or close to without IS or tripod, but I will try it out.

Thank You

jcsurfn wrote in post #6915703
I am going to get a 70-200 f/4 L non IS. I can not afford the IS right now and did not think I could afford this model as well. I was looking at the 55-250 IS. I am getting it for $380.00 I think that is a good price? What do you think? It is a friend of a friend. He said it is in excellent condition. It comes with original box and hood. He said the date stamp was US1005. Does that mean it was made in Oct. of 05? Is that considered old?

Also if I am going to use this on a tripod do I need to get the tripod mount ring for the lens?

Thank You

that's a great price. i'm not sure about the date code but you don't need a tripod ring.

ed rdare

ed rader wrote in post #6915834
that's a great price. i'm not sure about the date code but you don't need a tripod ring.

ed rdare

So no tripod ring. Thank You. I just mentioned the date code because I see that on here a lot. It was made in Oct. of 04

Thank You

jcsurfn wrote in post #6915867
So no tripod ring. Thank You. I just mentioned the date code because I see that on here a lot. It was made in Oct. of 04

Thank You

you're getting the lens $100 cheaper than the going rate for used. so provided that it's in good condition and works properly i'd say it's a great deal.

the tripod ring would be nice if you use a tripod alot....i seldom do with this lens....especially in portrait orientation.

good luck!

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #6915886
you're getting the lens $100 cheaper than the going rate for used. so provided that it's in good condition and works properly i'd say it's a great deal.

the tripod ring would be nice if you use a tripod alot....i seldom do with this lens....especially in portrait orientation.

good luck!

ed rader

A tripod would be nice to use in some cases. So if I use a tripod and use the tripod mount that mounts on the bottom of the camera that should be alright? I do not know if that lens needs to be supported at all as the lens would only be attached to the camera body and the camera body to the tripod.

Thank You

jcsurfn wrote in post #6915953
A tripod would be nice to use in some cases. So if I use a tripod and use the tripod mount that mounts on the bottom of the camera that should be alright? I do not know if that lens needs to be supported at all as the lens would only be attached to the camera body and the camera body to the tripod.

Thank You

you'll be all right. the lens is very light ... in fact a shorter zoom like the 24-70L is alot heavier.

the tripod ring does give you better balance, a bit more stability and the ability to easily rotate your camera into portrait orientation.

so i'd say try it without the tripod ring first and see what you think.

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #6915973
you'll be all right. the lens is very light ... in fact a shorter zoom like the 24-70L is alot heavier.

the tripod ring does give you better balance, a bit more stability and the ability to easily rotate your camera into portrait orientation.

so i'd say try it without the tripod ring first and see what you think.

ed rader

Thank You again for the info. It is greatly appreciated.

Thank You

Great info great board. Thank You all.

Thank You

I have the 70-200L non IS and it's a great lens. I have other lenses that I use in low light, so for me serves it's purpose. I don't use long lenses that often, and when I do it's usually outdoors in plenty of light. You won't regret it as I think it's the best value L lens out there.

I have the F/4 and I do love it, but there has been times where i wish it was the 2.8. Thinking about selling it to fund the 2.8 non is