Do I need my 70-200 f/2.8L IS?

I'm on a selling spree. I'm getting rid of a bunch of stuff that's been sitting around and trying to buy a set of lights.

I've had my 70-200 f/2.8L for quite a while now and I used to use it a lot when I did just general shooting, but not that I've narrowed it down to portraiture, concert, and automotive photography (stationary or rig shots, not race track), I feel that I personally haven't used it in probably about a year. I think the last time I remember using it may have been in March or April for a model shoot outdoors. That money would go a good ways toward helping me get my setup, but I'm wondering if I should get rid of a lens that's rarely ever used that I may need one day, or sell it and hope the need for it doesn't come up until I've made enough money for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS MKII.

I could also sell it and pick up a 70-200 f/4 if needed. IS is never an issue as I'm shooting with lights and I'm using a 5D MKII so I can boost the ISO when needed.

My other lenses:
17-40 f/4L
24-70 f/2.8L
15 f/2.8 FE
85 f/1.8

I'll trade ya my f4 for it!

70-200 f2.8. I use that almost exclusively for portraits, I have the 85 1.4, I still use the 70-200.

That lens at 200mm for portraits is hard to beat. Also an amazing lens for sports.

If you don't use if for either of those then no point in having the money tied up..makes sense.

If you don't use it why would you be saving money to buy a new more expensive version..Hmmmm?

It's all personal choice. I sold mine and purchased a 100L Macro, a twin flash and a sigma 120- 400. Was a great move for what I shoot and have not looked back once. You Will have to decide for yourself which will give you the most for what you shoot. Don't Forget they are just tools to be used as needed. You may sell something today and then find that you need it again next year. So goes the addiction

Shockey wrote in post #11053032
70-200 f2.8. I use that almost exclusively for portraits, I have the 85 1.4, I still use the 70-200.

That lens at 200mm for portraits is hard to beat. Also an amazing lens for sports.

If you don't use if for either of those then no point in having the money tied up..makes sense.

If you don't use it why would you be saving money to buy a new more expensive version..Hmmmm?

Down the road, eventually. It would be from photography related income, and not day job related income. Because we all know, it's nice to have and not need instead of need and not have.

Most my portraiture is done with the 17-40 and 24-70. I do a lot on the wide end. Lights are the most important thing to my shooting.

alann wrote in post #11053062
It's all personal choice. I sold mine and purchased a 100L Macro, a twin flash and a sigma 120- 400. Was a great mood for what I sheet and have not looked back once. You Will have to decide for yourself which will give you the most for what you shoot. Don't Forget they are just tools to the used as needed. You may sell something today and then find that you need it again next year. So goes the addiction

I'm looking at a set of profoto lights for shooting at home or on location.

Alann pretty much sums it up. I am in the same boat with almost the same gear, I seriously considered selling mine too but it does make an outstanding portrait lens so I am hanging on to it for now.

Curious why you would consider the 2.8 IS version if you don't use this one.

Tommydigi wrote in post #11053148
Alann pretty much sums it up. I am in the same boat with almost the same gear, I seriously considered selling mine too but it does make an outstanding portrait lens so I am hanging on to it for now.

Curious why you would consider the 2.8 IS version if you don't use this one.

Down the road, eventually. It would be from photography related income, and not day job related income. Because we all know, it's nice to have and not need instead of need and not have.

Most my portraiture is done with the 17-40 and 24-70. I do a lot on the wide end. Lights are the most important thing to my shooting

If thats the case then sell it and get what would help you now, you can always re-buy it down the road if needed. I tend to shoot more on the long end so that's why I kept mine.

I say sell it. No law says you can't re-purchase in the future. I seem to recall Ronald S. Jr. has gone thru at least 50 bricks

I figured I'd take it with me to do a mini food shot this evening. I ended up using my 85 f/1.8 instead and that was even a bit too long for my taste. Looks like it may be going into the profoto fund.

If you are doing outdoor portraits I would keep the 70-200 f2.8 IS unless you are upgrading to the MK II version. This lens is great on full frame for outdoor portraits. Inside for studio work, the 24-105 makes a nice lens since you usually stop down for this type of work and this focal range covers full body to head / shoulder shots reasonably well on both crop and full frame.

I sold my 85 f1.8 as I didn't like to deal with the purple fringing.

I would say either hand onto it or swap it for either a 70-200mm f4 (thus letting you make a bit more money toward the lights you want) or change it for the M2 as you just expressed an interest in it. That however will cut into your lights money that you are trying to raise.
That or try changing it for at least one longer prime - like a 135mm L for example

I would be disinclined to sell it to fund the lights if you are planning/expecting to want/need the M2 since it means you've still got to reach that higher price point to replace the lens and focal range.

Sell it. Once a year isn't really all that worth it. If not yeah just get a f/4 version or when you feel you might need it rebuy a used MKI or a used/new MKII version. If you need the lights and know you don't need the lens (at this moment), sell it.

It sounds like you need the lights more than the lens, just do it.
BTW nice choice in Profoto.