looking for a second lens...

[cxr]

Hi guys!I just want to ask for your suggestions as I am looking to get a zoom lens in the 70-200department. I'm looking at the 70-200 f4 IS and read lots of reviews that this lens is one of the sharpest in this focal length and even sharper than the f2.8 IS Mark I. Then came the f2.8 IS Mark II whichI think is a great lens but the price is a bit of an issue fora zoom. I'm still leaning towards the 70-200 f4 IS but I also like the f2.8 IS Mark II, either of the 2 lenses will complement my 24-105 f4 IS. Is the f2.8 ISMark II worth buying for the price orjust stick with the f4 IS? Thanks!

[barba]

I would be inclined to go with the f/4 and either pocket the rest or buy a few other lenses.

[Brendan7]

Both are great lenses, but the f/2.8 II is worth twice as much. It is completely worth it. It's a no-compromises zoom and if you can handle the weight (man up!) it's close to a perfect lens. I'll be buying one in June.

[TucsonTRD]

Hi guys!I just want to ask for your suggestions as I am looking to get a zoom lens in the 70-200department. I'm looking at the 70-200 f4 IS and read lots of reviews that this lens is one of the sharpest in this focal length and even sharper than the f2.8 IS Mark I. Then came the f2.8 IS Mark II whichI think is a great lens but the price is a bit of an issue fora zoom. I'm still leaning towards the 70-200 f4 IS but I also like the f2.8 IS Mark II, either of the 2 lenses will complement my 24-105 f4 IS. Is the f2.8 ISMark II worth buying for the price orjust stick with the f4 IS? Thanks!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

A products value is determined by the buyer. If something is worth the asking price, then it is purchased. If the product is not worth the asking price to any given buyer, he or she won't buy it. From what I have read, I would LOVE to buy the f2.8 II. But I don't have enough extra cash laying around, so there are a couple other lenses I would purchase first. But that doesn't mean the lens isn't worth it's asking price to everyone.


If you can afford it and your photos will benefit from the f2.8, I'm sure you won't be disappointed. If you don't really need the f2.8 (you shoot outdoors in the middle of the day, etc), you would probably benefit from buying the f4.0 and another high quality lens (maybe the 100-400 for more reach, depending on your needs of course).


Ultimately, value (ie worth buying) is in the eye of the purchaser.


Good luck.


Braden

[cxr]

thanks guys! actually when you think about the price of thef2.8 IS mark II you can actually buy 2-3 lenses with that amount. in regards with the need of the f2.8, personally i think i don't really need it with what i do anyway but its nice if i could have it handy as i seeboth lenses are very good build quality &amp; image quality wise. again, i think it goes down to personalpreference. thanks!

[neuroanatomist]

You already have an f/4 zoom lens - so, you should have a pretty good idea if you need f/2.8 based on your experience with that lens.

[cxr]

actually when i'm using the lens indoors (24-105) i find it a bit slow but its ok with me..bump up the iso or use the 430EXII but having a f2.8 lens would be much better i suppose. another thing is i'm confused whether just get a 24-70 to replace the 24-105 or get one of the 70-200, either the f4 IS or the f2.8 IS mark II.

[Fast Glass]

I was at a wedding and the guy was using a 70-200mm f/2.8 I, that thing was a picture taking machine! It's versatility is unmached in aportriat situation.He only took it off once to use a 16-35mm.For group shotshe just standed back at the70mm end and gotsome nice bokeh inthe shot.If you can afford it, getthe II. You won't be disopointed.


He was using the 5D II. I said "Enjoying your 5d II?" and he responded"Oh Yeah!".


P.S. He had another photog use the 24-70mm, he he....[]


John.

[JJphoto]

I'm just curious about when will the price of the Canon 70-200 2.8II drop while the nikon's 70-200 2.8II is selling for about $300-$400 less.


thinking about other Canon prime lenses,


200mm 2.8L II, $700-$800,


200mm 2.0L, $4500-5000,


300mm 2.8 $4000-4500


135mm 2.0L $1000


it's just about the balance of speed, IQ, versatility, IS,and price


If I spend $2500 to buy this 70-200mm2.8L II, It will bother me every time I use it even though it gives you a lot of versatility and IS function. and then it's just my opinion.

[neuroanatomist]

I'm just curious about when will the price of the Canon 70-200 2.8II drop while the nikon's 70-200 2.8II is selling for about $300-$400 less.

True - but the Canon lens is better. [:P]


Don't expect the price to drop too much, or too fast. The EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS was released in November, 2009 at list price of $1050, and it's dropped about $100 since then. Most L lenses 'end up' at somewhere around $100-150 less than list price, though the superteles are discounted a bit more.

thinking about other Canon prime lenses,200mm 2.8L II, $700-$800,200mm 2.0L, $4500-5000,300mm 2.8 $4000-4500,135mm 2.0L $1000 -it's just about the balance of speed, IQ, versatility, IS,and price

Sure - it's always about the balance of speed,IQ, versatility, IS, and price. Always.

If I spend $2500 to buy this 70-200mm2.8L II, It will bother me every time I use it even though it gives you a lot of versatility and IS function. and then it's just my opinion.

If it will bother you, don't get it. Yes, it's expensive. But it can produce great images - it really is a first-class lens. You mentioned the200mm 2.8L II prime - the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II zoom @ 200mm is actually sharper than the prime (Bryan's ISO 12233 crops show that, and my real-world testing - I have both lenses - bears that out).





___________________

another thing is i'm confused whether just get a 24-70 to replace the 24-105 or get one of the 70-200, either the f4 IS or the f2.8 IS mark II.

First thing to do is determine the focal length(s) you require. Second thing to do is determine the aperture you need at that/those lengths. Third thing is to determine your budget, and there's a lens within that budget that meets the first two criteria, great. If not, I'd recommend to keep saving...


If you find the 24-105mm adequate and don't mind that it's 'a bit slow indoors' then I'd say you're set for that range. I can tell you that personally, I wouldn't find f/4 adequate indoors (thus, I use the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS indoors for the most part, if not the faster EF 85mm f/1.8). But, with a bounced flash, f/4 is just fine. But then again, I'm strongly considering the 24-105mm as an outdoor walkaround lens, for the longer focal length and weather sealing compared to the 17-55mm.


If you need longer than 105mm, then you're looking at a 70-200mm lens or a longer, fast prime. Personally, I prefer the flexibility of zooms, but supplement those with fast primes in the same range for specific purposes.


So, if you've decided that you do need 70-200mm, then use your shooting experience with the 24-105mm to determine if f/4 will be suitable. Will you be using the 70-200 zoom indoors (for tight portraits, or in event venues)? That would have me leaning towards the f/2.8 version. Likewise, if you want to combine it with a teleconverter/extender, the f/2.8 is a better choice. But, if you'll be ok with f/4 (shooting outdoors in daylight, mostly), then get the f/4 IS lens. Keep in mind that the 70-200mm f/4L IS + an excellent prime like the 135mm f/2L would still cost less than the f/2.8 IS II.


The f/2.8 vs. f/4 zoom debate is really about compromise - cost vs. aperture.