The 70-200 f/4 non-is is one of the best bargains in photography. I carry it, the 1.4x converter and an extension tube on walks. Lightweight, easy to carry and lots of fun.
Printable View
The 70-200 f/4 non-is is one of the best bargains in photography. I carry it, the 1.4x converter and an extension tube on walks. Lightweight, easy to carry and lots of fun.
Thanks for the input and great advice, everyone!
In this case, fate jumped in and helped with the choice - and it turned out to be a 'none of the above' sort of choice. Yesterday morning, anEF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color:red;"]LII USM was listed on my local Craigslist. Yes, it lacks the flexibility of a zoom (and lacks IS, but so does the 70-200 f/4 I was considering). But it has many of the attributes I was looking for (excellent IQ, wide aperture, easy to carry, and of course, immediate gratification!). I had actually considered that lens vs. the 70-200 f/4 non-IS, but the 200mm prime is more expensive in the new lens market. However, this used lens is in like-new condition, and for $425 it was just too good a value to pass up (an even better bargain than a 70-200 f/4 non-IS, even a used one, and as an added bonus, if I decide to sell it down the line, I will at least break even, and quite likely make a profit!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Excellent! You are going to love that lens, and what a deal!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Same here. I struggle to find uses for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Thanks, Sean and Keith. Makes me even happier with my choice. The 200mm prime, at that price, will be a great way for me to spend several weeks to evaluate my use and needs at that focal length. (Is it long enough? Do I find myself wanting to put on a shorter lens to frame a shot? Do I need IS? Do I usually shoot at f/4 or above?). By the time I have answered those questions, reviews of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS USM should be available, and I'll be well-positioned to decide on my next lens acquisition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Glad to help.
For what I shoot, I think the 135 2.0 is better suited for me than the 70-200. I'll probably sell it and pick up the 135.I'm a pretty steady shot, I don't think I'll miss the IS.I thought about 85 1.2II but I can't justify the price.
When I use to shoot editorial stuff I really felt the need to have zooms but now that I'm trying to bust into portraiture I want to get back to primes. I don't think I'll ever give up my 24-70 though.