Do I "NEED" a 70-200 F4 L?

A local seller has a 70-200 F4 L for sale. I'm considering buying it, but I'm not sure if I "need" it. (I realize that if I don't use it I could resell it.)

I haven't found my photography passion, yet. (I don't do birds or sports photography.) I find that the 17-50 is my "default" lens. I rarely use the 100-300 that I have - which came with a film Rebel and I know it's by no means a quality lens.

Do I drop a moderate chunk of change on the 70-200 or maybe think about something like a 24-105?

from the way you're writing, you don't need it.

This is the 2nd most inappropriately overpurchased lens, second to the 50 f/1.8 II

imo the IS version is a far better proposition or even better the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, the 70-200 f/4L and 50 f/1.8 II are often quoted as good value but imo their versatility is so low, they are actually bad value lenses to get.

smorter wrote in post #8544205
This is the 2nd most inappropriately overpurchased lens, second to the 50 f/1.8 II

hey hey, what about the 17-40L? or the 70-200 F2.8 L IS?

smorter wrote in post #8544205
This is the 2nd most inappropriately overpurchased lens, second to the 50 f/1.8 II

haha i have the 50 1.8 and im thinking about getting the 70-200L f/4 non IS.
i dont think its inappropriate though.

if you need the focal range, and you want sharp images, get the 70-200

Since you don't use that range very much, it doesn't make a lot of sense to go out and spend that type of money on it. I will say, though, that since you don't seem to be that happy with the 100-300 you have, it still wouldn't hurt to upgrade it, but just not spend so much money. Perhaps something like a 55-250 IS would do the job and only cost you around $250 for a new one.

That 17-50 you have is a pretty nice lens, so if you're happy with it, there's really no need to upgrade it at this point. You mentioned the 24-105, so I'm left to wonder if you simply want more focal length; if that's the case and you have the cash for it, the 24-105 is an excellent walkaround/general purpose lens. Even on a cropped sensor, the FL range is very useful, as long as you don't need anything extra long or extra wide.

I took a look at the lenses in your sig and it looks like you've got a good bit of overlapping in focal lengths, so depending on what you decide to do in the way of upgrades, you might want to consider getting rid of the lesser quality lenses as you upgrade to better lenses. Here are some ideas:

--swap out 100-300 for 55-250 IS
--If you upgrade to a 24-105 (or 28-135), definitely get rid of the 28-80. To keep something wider handy, decide between either the 18-55 IS or 17-50. Later on, you might decide you want something wider, but you'll at least cover moderately wide until then.

HTH,
Heather

Need it? As in you'd die without it? No.

However my 70-200 f/2.8L is my most used lens and I understand the f/4 is a good lens from what I've read.

smorter wrote in post #8544205
This is the 2nd most inappropriately overpurchased lens, second to the 50 f/1.8 II

imo the IS version is a far better proposition or even better the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, the 70-200 f/4L and 50 f/1.8 II are often quoted as good value but imo their versatility is so low, they are actually bad value lenses to get.

I very much disagree. You are suggesting a $1600 70-200 f/2.8L IS to someone who is debating the expense of a 4L, and someone who hasn't found their photographic passion? The 4L is a GREAT value, with excellent IQ and performance in the focal length range.

Sued, if you can get a decent deal on the lens, I say go for it. See how it works for you. You may find yourself falling in love with it. Or not. Thing is, you don't know. I don't think you would find any fault in the performance. Worst case, you decide the focal length isn't for you and sell it. They hold their value exceedingly well, and you would most likely at least break even on it.

I know the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is expensive, but value is contingent on usage/$. The f/4 costs less $ yes, but it also is able to be used in much less situations...so is it better value than a 70-200 f/2.8L IS? That would depend on the photographer. imo for most people it would be worth getting the 2.8 IS and as such should probably save up for that and forgo the f/4L unless they absolutely need it in the interim

I'm not saying the lens is crap, it is a very nice lens, however it should not be an automatic purchase decision, just like the 50 f/1.8 II shouldn't be either. They are very good lenses for many people but they are overrepresented in their frequency of ownership imo.

lol oh yes I forgot about the 17-40L

rent it and find out if need it

www.lensrentals.com

There are many people perfectly happy with their 4L or 4L IS, with no need to waste the money on the 2.8 IS.

I'd love to have a Bentley GT Speed, and would certainly allow me to arrive at my destination more quickly and comfortably. Alas, my Nissan Maxima serves me quite well.

heatherwb wrote in post #8544341
Since you don't use that range very much, it doesn't make a lot of sense to go out and spend that type of money on it. I will say, though, that since you don't seem to be that happy with the 100-300 you have, it still wouldn't hurt to upgrade it, but just not spend so much money. Perhaps something like a 55-250 IS would do the job and only cost you around $250 for a new one.

That 17-50 you have is a pretty nice lens, so if you're happy with it, there's really no need to upgrade it at this point. You mentioned the 24-105, so I'm left to wonder if you simply want more focal length; if that's the case and you have the cash for it, the 24-105 is an excellent walkaround/general purpose lens. Even on a cropped sensor, the FL range is very useful, as long as you don't need anything extra long or extra wide.

I took a look at the lenses in your sig and it looks like you've got a good bit of overlapping in focal lengths, so depending on what you decide to do in the way of upgrades, you might want to consider getting rid of the lesser quality lenses as you upgrade to better lenses. Here are some ideas:

--swap out 100-300 for 55-250 IS
--If you upgrade to a 24-105 (or 28-135), definitely get rid of the 28-80. To keep something wider handy, decide between either the 18-55 IS or 17-50. Later on, you might decide you want something wider, but you'll at least cover moderately wide until then.

HTH,
Heather

Heather - thanks. Other than the 17-50 and the 50 1.8, my other lenses are kit or promo items. Any future purchases will be better quality glass. The IS of the 55-250 you recommended is appealing but I'm not sure that outweighs the higher quality of the 70-200 F4 L that I'm pondering. I know I've got some overlap - but better than nothing and selling them wouldn't get me enough to fund anything better than mediocre glass.

Guapo wrote in post #8544407
I very much disagree. You are suggesting a $1600 70-200 f/2.8L IS to someone who is debating the expense of a 4L, and someone who hasn't found their photographic passion? The 4L is a GREAT value, with excellent IQ and performance in the focal length range.

Sued, if you can get a decent deal on the lens, I say go for it. See how it works for you. You may find yourself falling in love with it. Or not. Thing is, you don't know. I don't think you would find any fault in the performance. Worst case, you decide the focal length isn't for you and sell it. They hold their value exceedingly well, and you would most likely at least break even on it.

Guapo - thanks and definitely agree. While I'm willing to spend $500ish on a better quality lens that I may or may not keep, I'm not willing to shell out the $1600 for the 2.8L IS.

I appreciate all the comments. I'm still undecided and will post back when I make up my mind.

I had the 70-200/f4L. Technically it was an excellent lens, tack sharp, great L contrast and color, and extremely fast focus, but found I didn't use it too often. On a whim I bought the 55-250IS and found it much more useful. I liked the 55-250IS so much I sold the 70-200/F4L. The IS is extremely helpful, I've gotten between 4 & 5 stops improvement in handholding. It allows me to use the lens in situations I could never have used the L. The extra range also means it can stay on my camera more. The extra 15mm on the wide side makes a big difference on a crop body.

stax wrote in post #8544492
rent it and find out if need it

www.lensrentals.com

+1, but rent it when you have the time to use it.

I agree with smorter above...

IMO the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is one of the most versatile and truly extraordinary lenses in the Canon inventory but, I didn'tget much use out of my non-IS model of that lens.

I was often a slave to lighting conditions with the non-IS model and needed either bright ambient light or flash to ensure sharp imagery; especially when using the longer side of this lens. However, with the IS model; I can get sharp imagery at 1/60 or even 1/30 second exposures. The IS capability combined with the ability of today's Canon DSLR cameras to achieve high quality imagery at high ISO settings, frees me from being a slave to ambient light.

I use my IS model 4-5 times more often than I ever used my non-IS model and the 70-200mm f/4L IS combined with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS on a pair of 1.6x cameras has become my go-to travel and general photography combination.