Alternatives to a 70-200

[Brendan7]

OK guys,


I now have the money to be buying a couple more lenses but (same old, same old) I need help from all you out there (read: neuroanat, alexniedra, God, and everybody else). I am trying to cover as much ground as possible with as little money as possible.


I am looking to fill some gaps. The 70-200 II looked like a great choice because I get a fast telephoto for wildlife, portraits, sports, poorly lit venues, etc in one (albeit ginormous) lens. However, having nothing wider than 70mm didn't really seem like a swell idea. In my search for UWA lenses the Tokina 11-16mm dominated and at $570 with great IQ and L-like build it looked solid. Unfortunately the II and Tokina together would explode my budget bubble. Are there any ways I can cover wideangle and the fast telephoto-like-ness of the 70-200 for less? BTW the 17-55 is not really on the table here. Too long on the wide end and too short on the long end.


All and any suggestions are very much appreciated

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[Brendan7]

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.

[Brendan7]

Right now it's looking like 70-200 II right now, Tokina later. I don't have more than $3000 to spend on lenses.

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[canon-ball]

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.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

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

[Mark Elberson]

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.

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

[peety3]

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.