Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
What do you have now?
The following suggestions assume starting from scratch.
You could go with one of the less expensive 70-200 f/2.8's (non IS or IS mark I). The difference in price would pay for the Tokina. The Mark I is awesome... it was my favorite and most used lens before the II came out. If you can do without IS, the cost would be even less.
If you could make do with a 200mm prime, you could save enough money to get the Tonkia and a really nice mid range zoom. Eg, I think you could get the Tonkia, a 24-105 and a 200 f/2.8 prime for the around the price of the 70-200 II.
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Jon, as absurd as it may sound all I have is the 300 f/4 prime. (I was a bird photographer before a photographer in general)
Maybe the original 2.8 IS is the way to go, but I only considered the II because of its improvements, and IMO it'd be a waste to get the original and then stop down. I might like the 24-105 at some point but right now (ironically) it's probably the least useful to me. The $570 price of the tokina is SO hard to pass up. The 200 2.8 prime is nice but what makes the 70-200 II great IMO is that it is versatile, fast, and sharp. Good luck finding another one of those lenses in the focal length range. If I pick any other lens I give one of those traits up.
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Right now it's looking like 70-200 II right now, Tokina later. I don't have more than $3000 to spend on lenses.
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
Maybe the original 2.8 IS is the way to go, but I only considered the II because of its improvements, and IMO it'd be a waste to get the original and then stop down.
I agree it would be a waste if you felt you had to stop it down (in that case, might as go for the f/4). But I used my f/2.8 mark I wide open much of the time and never found it lacking. When I stopped down, I did it to increase DOF, not because I was worried about IQ.
No question, however, the II is sharper still.
If it were me and I thought I was not going to have more money to spend on lenses soon, I'd get the I plus the Tonka, and if I had leftover I'd get a zoom to fill the gap between them.
If I thought I could get the II and still afford the other lenses before too much longer, I'd do that.
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
just thought i'd say i love the tokina 11-16mm. I had the lens for a few days and shot some amazing pictures with it. one example below.
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/710/img0655i.jpg
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
How about the EF-S 10-22 or EF 17-40 and 70-200 f/4 IS? Both combo should be cheaper than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
But I used my f/2.8 mark I wide open much of the time and never found it lacking. When I stopped down, I did it to increase DOF, not because I was worried about IQ.
I am an owner of the Mark I and I completely agree with Jon. I have a 12x18 picture of my son taken with my 5DII and 70-200 f/2.8 I that was shot wide open. He fills about 1/2 of the frame and you can count his eyelashes! That Mark II is brilliant but that doesn't make the Mark I any less amazing that it always was and continues to be. It is by no mean a "compromise" lens. I would consider that option if I were you.
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: small;"]
<div style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-image: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-position: initial initial; margin: 8px;"]
Hi Brendan,
Well, you probably know that when I had a budget of around $3K, I got theEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM (and a CF monopod and BlackRapid strap with some of the leftover). But, I already had multiple lenses spanning 10-400mm. As it turned out, I subsequently added a little to the leftover amount, and two days ago I bought theEF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]LIS USM for my outdoor walkaround lens (more rain coming this weekend, and a family outing planned for Saturday, and I've come to the conclusion that I really needed something general purpose and weather-sealed - outings with the 70-200 II showed me that 70mm isn't wide enough on a walkaround lens).
The 70-200 II really is an incredible lens - it's actually slightly sharper than myEF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LUSM prime lens. The 70-200mm range is really useful - although Bryan does place it second behind a general purpose zoom. Although he refers to the 70-200 II as his favorite and most-used lens, keep in mind he's shooting primarily with FF bodies (1DsIII, 5DII) - on a 1.6x crop, 70mm is pretty long. If you're going to use it indoors, 70mm will likely be too long for anything but portraits of a single person.
Now, about the Tokina 11-16mm - you've previously [url="/forums/p/3282/27074.aspx#27074]stated[/url], "I suggest Canon all the way. 3rd party lenses are never as good."Are you [i]sure[/i] you want a 3rd party lens? I don't have any, so I can't speak from experience. I do agree that the reviews of the Tokina 11-16mm are very good. I'm sure you've considered the EF-S 10-22mm - it's a great lens, and although 22mm is still wide angle, it's the longest end of a wide angle (35mm FF angle of view), meaning you can actually use it for some 'general purpose' shots. Small focal length differences at the wide end translate to big changes in angle of view - 22mm is noticeably longer than 16mm.
[quote=bburns223]I am looking to fill some gaps[/quote]
With only a 300mm prime currentlyI wouldn't say you're looking to 'fill some gaps' - 10-300mm is a chasm, not a gap. [:P]
Seems you're closer to Jon's suggestion that you're starting from scratch, except that you have the (relatively) long end covered with the 300mm prime. So, back to basics - it really all comes down the focal length you need, which is determined by what you're going to shoot.
What do you intend to shoot with these lenses you're going to buy? A tele-zoom plus an ultrawide angle seems like it's still leaving a pretty significant gap, right in the 'general purpose range', which you seem to be intentionally choosing to create.
A 'general purpose zoom' is just that for a reason - a versatile set of focal lengths useful for everyday shooting. I wouldn't take the 17-55mm off the table entirely, to be honest. As I stated in another post, if I had to give up all of my lenses except one, I'd keep the 17-55mm - it's that useful. 17mm on 1.6x crop is wider than you might think - here are two example images, [url="/members/neuroanatomist/files/Marsh-Sunrise.jpg.aspx]one at 18mm[/url] and [url="/members/neuroanatomist/files/Still-Water.jpg.aspx]one at 17mm[/url]. The 17mm shot was with the 17-55mm lens, but the 18mm shot was actually taken with the 10-22mm lens, and 18mm gave me the framing I wanted. Don't get me wrong - I like the 10-22mm, but it takes some work to shoot at the wider end of that range.
If you're going to shoot only 'artistic' photographs with your 7D - birds, sweeping landscapes, etc., that's one thing. But above you mentioned wanting the 70-200 2.8 for 'wildlife, portraits, sports, poorly lit venues, etc.' - that sounds a lot more general purpose to me. I'd really recommend considering a general purpose zoom (17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L, or 24-105mm f/4L IS). If you'd bought your 7D with the 28-135mm kit lens, you'd at least have something in that range (but I wouldn't recommend buying that lens now).
Ok, you asked for alternatives to the 70-200mm II, and in the under-$3K range. Here are some options, with pricing based on [url="http://www.canonpricewatch.com/]this price watch site[/url]:
<div style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-image: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-position: initial initial; margin: 8px;"]- EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS MkI ($2960) - f/2.8 IS coverage from 17-200mm with great IQ and still fitting your budget. As Jon and Mark said, the 70-200mm IS MkI remains a stellar lens, even if it's a little less sharp than the MkII.
- EF-S 10-22mm, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS, and EF 135mm f/2L ($2830) - great UWA, great general purpose zoom (you could swap the EF-S 17-55mm here for the same cost if you want f/2.8), and a fast and uber-sharp short telephoto.
- EF-S 10-22mm, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L, and EF 200mm f/2.8L II ($2870) - great UWA, great general purpose zoom, and a fast/sharp telephoto.
- EF 17-40 f/4L,EF 24-105mm f/4L IS, and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS ($3010) - the f/4 zoom 'holy trinity' which satisfies your L disease and fits your budget (you can probably find $10 under the couch cushions); as long as you don't mind using your 580EX II for indoor shots, this would be a great, versatile combination (and the f/4L IS version of the telezoom is just as sharp as the 2.8 II).
</div>
Of the above options, I think #1 would be the most useful for you.
Of course, you could just throw caution to the wind and 'get the II'.
Good luck with your decisions!
--John
</div>
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Elberson
I am an owner of the Mark I and I completely agree with Jon. I have a 12x18 picture of my son taken with my 5DII and 70-200 f/2.8 I that was shot wide open. He fills about 1/2 of the frame and you can count his eyelashes!
I, too, have a 12x18 taken with the mark I wide open. It looks awesome.
I have always thought of the mark I as a top quality zoom lens, and felt the IQ was far superior to what I needed.
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburns223
The $570 price of the tokina is SO hard to pass up.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Don't buy because it has a good price. Buy because it's a good value or because it'll hold its value (whatever price tag that is) while you own it.
I have to admit, this sounds a little fishy: "I really like the 70-200. Oh wait, I really like the 11-16." Nothing like a ~10x difference between two lenses, and then to hear that the 17-55 is out.
Honestly, I think the 17-55 should be high on your consideration list. It's wide, but certainly not ridiculously so. It's long (88mm EFL), but a reasonable magnitude less than your 300/4. Two reasons lead me to the 17-55: there's no substitute for a wide-enough lens, but (almost) nobody uses an 11-16 as a general-purpose lens.
I started with a 24-105, and three weeks later rented 16-35, 70-200, and 100-400 for a cycling trip, sailing trip, visit to SeaWorld, and a golf tournament. I walked away from the post office knowing that I loved the 70-200, liked the 16-35, and wasn't crazy about the 100-400. 70-200 came eight weeks later, 16-35 came eight months after that. Now I want the 24-70 in place of the 24-105, then I'll probably do the 10-22 and then primes, probably a 300 to start. Yeah, I'd like something seriously telephoto for my sailing trips and some other stuff, but I can make do with cropping.
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
Don't buy because it has a good price. Buy because it's a good value or because it'll hold its value (whatever price tag that is) while you own it.
I agree with the first part, certainly - that's why there's not a nifty-fifty in my bag (you can't beat that price!). But I disagree with the second part - I'd say, buy because it's the lens you need, and fits your shooting requirements. The nifty-fifty's opposite - 50mm f/1.2L - is not a good value, but if you need a 50mm lens for extreme low-light and with weather/dust sealing, that's the lens to get. But the 50mm f/1.4 - that's a good value, and I think the 85mm f/1.8 is an even better value.
Personally, I don't think the EF-S 17-55mm lens is really a great value either - over $1000 for a non-L lens (and Canon doesn't even throw in the hood!)? But, even though it's not a great value, it is a great lens.
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Now, about the Tokina 11-16mm - you've previously
stated, "I suggest Canon all the way. 3rd party lenses are never as good."
Okay. I meant Sigma and Tamron. I wasn't talking about Tokina, Zeiss, or other 3rd party manufacturers of quality that people rarely bring up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
With only a 300mm prime currentlyI wouldn't say you're looking to 'fill some gaps' - 10-300mm is a chasm, not a gap. [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]
I understand this. Wildlife photography was my main concern so a 300 prime was my first lens. I can't afford to just buy another lens everytime I have a gap (or many gaps, like here).
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
What do you intend to shoot with these lenses you're going to buy?
Everything. Alternative #1 on your list is looking like a very good idea. Thanks for the suggestion!
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Of course, you could just throw caution to the wind and 'get the II'.
Which may be what I do, I'm not sure. I'm traveling to Canada in June and I'll rent the Tokina for that and check it out along with the 17-55mm (which I have not rented yet).
Thanks John for your help!
brendan
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Word on the web is more rebates are coming soon. I don't know if the 70-200 mkII will be one of the lenses but you may want to wait a bit and see. With a rebate you may be able to get it and afford the Tokina too.
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Word on the web is more rebates are coming soon.
Word on the web is no rebate on the 70-200 II (but yes on the f/2.8 non-IS and the f/4 IS, among other lenses). Seems like demand is still outpacing supply on that one - at least, Amazon can't seem to keep it in stock.
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Hmm... I may be compiling together things people already said here, but here it goes:
First of all I OWN both the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS (mark 1) and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 UWA. Both lenses are SUPERB but, of course, for completely different things. I really think you should have an all-purpose zoom (mine is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM - which is a fantastic lens... in the reviews on this site it was said that it's equal or sharper at all comparable apertures/focal lengths as the 24-70 f/2.8 L)
Enough there though, the debate seems most between the mark II 70-200 or not. I have no experience with the MKII 70-200 but it's been getting amazing praise/reviews! Having said that, I must remind you, as someone else on here did already, that the original is a fantastic lens and you WON'T be sorry if you get it. You WILL, however, have a ton of money left over to buy another lens. If I were you, I would definitely get the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS (mark 1). PERIOD.
Now, for the other money. The EF-S 17-55 will run you about a grand and is a GREAT lens. 17mm is quite wide. However, for that REALLY exaggerated, awesome (in my and many people's opinion) look, 11, 12, 13mm is much nicer. If you're just looking for a nice landscape lens, I'd go with the EF 17-40 f/4 L or preferably, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Both are great landscape lenses and make great general purpose lenses, especially the latter with it's tack sharpness, L-like build and f/2.8 aperture (and IS!). But if you want something UNIQUE and don't really need a general lens right now (the 70-200 at 70mm takes nice portraits....) then you SHOULD in my opinion get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I think it's the the best kept secret in UWA lenses right now! I was worried for months before I got it (you might remember my posting on here about it) if it was the right lens etc... but WOW is it nice! (attached picture was taken this past Sunday night in Vienna with that lens on a 7D... granted I edited it a bit). You're running a.... 7D if I remember right? I am too and it's a nice combo! I am envious of your EF 300 f/4 but with that being your oNLY lens, it's time to get some killer gear. If you really don't need a general purpose lens, skip it and save for one in the future. As I said, 70mm takes great portraits, and even some decent landscapes if you're far, and the Tokina takes nice landscapes if you're close. If you're far, the Tokina just makes everything in the distance too small so I'd recommend using the 70-200. Anyhow, enough blabbering.. that's my thought!
- Jordan
www.freshphotohawaii.com
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peety3
Don't buy because it has a good price. Buy because it's a good value or because it'll hold its value (whatever price tag that is) while you own it.
I agree with the first part, certainly - that's why there's not a nifty-fifty in my bag (you can't beat that price!). But I disagree with the second part - I'd say, buy because it's the lens you need, and fits your shooting requirements. The nifty-fifty's opposite - 50mm f/1.2L - is not a good
value, but if you need a 50mm lens for extreme low-light and with weather/dust sealing, that's the lens to get. But the 50mm f/1.4 - that's a good value, and I think the 85mm f/1.8 is an even better value.
Personally, I don't think the EF-S 17-55mm lens is really a great value either - over $1000 for a non-L lens (and Canon doesn't even throw in the hood!)? But, even though it's not a great value, it is a great lens.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
this morning when I was looking at the FredMiranda.com, I found there was a guy selling all his Canon gears because he wants to be "out of this game", I think as an amateur, I don't really "need" any L lens, someday, I might be like this seller, wake up and get out this game too. so when I buy lens, I want to get as cheap as possible and also to see if this lens will hold more value. like Nate and Peety3 have mentioned, resell value is an important consideration when buying a lens, cause I know one day I'll resell it. if you be patient( sometimes you just need to wait a lit longer till the price drop) and search the web carefully, you can buy the 17-55mm new for less than $ 850 and the 24-105L new for less than $800.I didn't mean to upset anybody here who has paid higher price(I understand they have the reasons), i just want them to buy cheaper so they can resell cheaper to me later[:)]
Re: Alternatives to a 70-200
In general, L-series lenses hold their value pretty well (at least in part due to rising retail costs of the lenses - meaning quick sales aren't financially wise). Non-L lenses, not so much. I tend to buy new lenses, and I choose which lenses I buy carefully, knowing I'm buying them to keep. If I'm unsure whether or not a lens exactly suits my needs, or debating between two lenses, I might buy a used copy if the price is right - and I mean, really right. I did that with the 300mm f/4L IS - I thought I'd want the flexibility of the 100-400mm zoom, but I wasn't sure. A great deal came up on the 300mm prime locally on Craigslist, so I bought it and used it for a few weeks, coming to the conclusion that I did, indeed, want the flexibility of the zoom. So, I sold the prime for $150 more than I paid for it (that's what I mean by a 'really right price' [:#] ), and I bought a new copy of the 100-400mm zoom.
I'm an amateur as well - but I enjoy photography for me, having good equipment makes a difference. My philosophy is that if I ever stop enjoying it, I won't really care about resale value - if I want to 'get out of the game' I believe I'll have gotten the value from actually using the gear.
