Just tried a 70-200 2.8 IS, and am left AWSTRUCK. What do I do NOW?

Hey


I was on my way back from my cottage and my parents had to stop for gas. I quickly noticed a Henry's close by and stumbled in. There it was. It was beautiful - the 70-200 2.8 IS - the holy grail of all zooms. All of the months of Bryan's rave reviews of these zooms finally made sense - And I was diagnosed with L disease. This lens is AWESOME! I brought my camera with me (40D) and took some pictures with it. The bokeh - to die for - ... while, not to die for, but only something I've seen in Sports Illustrated. The clarity, saturation - absolutely stunning. And the build - Worthy of the red ring. In a nutshell - Puts my 55-250 IS to total shame.


The problem is, what do I do now?


I guess I should start saving [:D]...

haha same thing happened t me i have a crappy 70-300 and im in the same boat lol

What to do now?


Save and wait for the rebates.

re: The problem is, what do I do now?





Credit Card. 2nd Mortgage. First Born!!![:D]

How much can I expect to save with Canon's rebates?

It was $125 one of the times (about a year ago).


Its my favorite lens. I use it the most and get more of my favorite shots with it than any other. I'm sure you can scrape up the money by selling a kidney or two.

The rebates that ended in January, it was also $125.


The lens I want, the 16-35 II, usually gets $100 dollar treatment.

Just a thought.....


You could skip the IS, and get the non-IS. Same great lens, bokeh, clarity (some say slightly better than the IS version) and save yourself a few hundred bucks.


All depends on what you plan on using it for.

Great point...


I have plenty of time to think about it...


Money to save, pictures to take...

What are you planning to do with it? Would a prime do? The 135L will get you even better image quality and it's a lot cheaper...I rented one a couple of weekends ago and am horribly addicted, even having previously used a 70-200 f/2.8 IS...

I feel for you! I'm in the same boat, only with the 70-200 f/4 IS. I want that lens so much, and it's so far away from happening. Especially being without much money, one kid, and one on the way!

The first time I used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I felt like giggling.

Adam,


After reading the review of the 135L I am leaning toward it also, but having used the 70-200 lens it is very very tempting also, decisions, decisions.....lots of time to think this one out due to $$$$ like other posters here.

When friends buy their first DSLR, I tell them it is like owning a crack pipe.


And that first EF70-200MM L IS USM, won't satisfy the addiction. You'll realize you can't live without the EF300MM f/2.8 or it's brother the EF400MM, then some fool at a camera show will hand you the 1DMKIII and say, "just hold the button down and see what she can do."


The madness never ends.


As for the EF70-200MM f/2.8 L IS USM, it is my favorite lens. Ireally can't remember packing for any kind of shoot and not taking it along. My EF24-70MM L USM,travels nearly as much, but the 70-200is just a picture taking machine.

Dallasphotog,


I wish it were as easy as crack to break this addiction. At least you meet a lot of nice people doing this....better than crack.

not that I can say this with any certainty, but I'm sure you could meet a lot of nice people at crack houses too.... [:S]

A friend loaned me his 70-200mm 2.8 (what was he thinking!!??) to me for a few hours a few weekends ago.


Wow.


Dallasphotog got it right.

1. Save. Start with that.
2. Wait for a rebate or a good deal somewhere.
3. Sell something you do not need (wife and children excluded).
4. Check refurbished stuff frequently. They have them sometimes.
5. Find it second hand. In these economic distaster days, some people need cash and will sell.

Good luck!

Weird to say it, but I've already been doing this stuff!


1. Check! Worked and made good money yesterday. I'm putting that away.


2. The 70-200 is in my cart so I can check its price frequently - I've seen the price change like that.


3. Selling an old Leica M2 and two lenses, along with a Linhof Large Format kit.


4. I've been checking B & H's used section alot lately


5. Craigslist has always been a good friend

Awesome. Just sold an old Leica M2 for $1800.





This could happen sooner than I think [:)]

Consider purchasing used. Not sure where you live, but I use craigslist.org for all of my lens purchases. The 70-200 f2.8 IS is definately the workhorse in my bag and gets the most use. I personally won't by a lens with a focal length of 200+ without IS now. As a fall back you should look at the EF 135 f2.0 L. It is a remarkable lens and is so reasonably priced. I purchased mine used for $650.

It depends upon what you want to do. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is the "worst" of Canon's 70-200mm zooms from an image quality standpoint, but it may be the most useful for some purposes. If you want the best image quality and to save $600, get the 70-200mm f/4L IS, the best of the four. (Several reviewers have called the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS the "best zoom lens," period--any size, any manufacturer.)


The f/2.8L IS lens has some good features (relatively wide aperture, reasonably good, though not great, IS), but it is VERY bulky and heavy. (Believe me, I carried one around all day last Friday at a horse show. For that purpose, I didn't have a lot of choice, though. The show was indoors and I made good use of the f/2.8 aperture.) Whether it's best for a particular person would depend upon what she/he wants to do with it. Sports and portraits would favor the f/2.8 lens (for faster shutter speeds and better blurred background, respectively), while landscapes, wildlife, flowers, etc., would favor the f/4 lens (sharper, better contrast, lighter weight, much better IS).


I have both the f/2.8L IS and the f/4L IS lenses. (Well, I also have the f/4L non-IS, but it's destined for eBay.) I bought them used on eBay, but saved only $374 on the f/2.8L IS and $166 on the f/4L IS, compared to the prices on B&H. Like Ken Rockwell, I've found that I can handhold the f/4L IS lens at a SLOWER shutter speed than the f/2.8L IS, despite the aperture advantage. (At 200mm, I can get good results (better than 50% keepers) down to 1/15 sec on the f/4L IS, but have to go to 1/25-1/30 with the f/2.8L IS.) That's because the f/4L IS has a better IS system. The lighter weight also makes it easier to hold. The f/4L IS is ergonomically better--one can easily zoom with one finger of the right hand, for example.


Consider how often you would use the f/2.8 aperture (realizing that the lens is not spectacularly sharp at that aperture) and whether that would be worth $600 (new) or $400+ (used).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kitaoka

The 70-200 f2.8 IS is definately the workhorse in my bag and gets the most use. I personally won't by a lens with a focal length of 200+ without IS now.



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

IS makes a lens way more useful, for sure, though I'm not looking to ditch my 400 f/5.6 because my 100-400 zoom has IS and the same aperture at 400mm. If you've got light, and something steady to brace yourself on, or can deal with a tripod, or just press it against a tree, or lay down on a rock, or whatever.... But yeah, IS would be a fantastic addition. If there was an IS version, i'd totally be looking to trade in...