EF 70-200 f/4L non-IS now, and/or 70-200 f/2.8 IS later?

[iND]

I started with the 70-200 non IS f4 due to cost. It is a great lens. For aperature only I bought the 70-200 f2.8 nonIS. I think both lenses are great. I just have not needed the IS in either case. The 2.8 lets me do more indoors. I use the 2.8 at weddings to shoot from the back of the church with no flash. When I traveled to Alaska this year I took the f4.0 and was pleased with ever shot ( I knew I would not need the extra f stop). The f4 takes great photos and is a great value. So I find a place for both in my collection. I never have considered selling any of my lenses.

I am waiting to hear the advantages of the new 70-200 II.


I you can only get one lens then get the 2.8 if you need one now at a lower cost then get the 4.0. If you end up with both you will sleep a happy man.


Frankly I think IS is overrated.

[Keith B]

Frankly I think IS is overrated.

WATCH OUT!


I don't disagree with you entirely. People have been begging for IS on the 24-70 for a while. Some chose the 24-105 over it just for the IS. I don't think it is necessary for shorter lenses but I do think on the 70-200 it is pretty important.


As far as the OP, I think you should buy what you can afford now and sell later in order to upgrade. You generally don't lose too much of the original value if the lens is kept in good condition.


You may want to consider a used 2.8 or a 4.0 IS also.


I could see a use for both the 2.8 IS and the 4.0 non-IS in one kit. The 4.0 is substantially lighter and is very sharp. On nice days in good light the 4.0 is a great, great lens.

[Sean Setters]

Why don't you buy a used 70-200 f/4 on KEH now and a mid-grade monopod and quick release right now. That will suffice for your trip. In the short term, you'll have the focal length. You'll also find out if you need a faster lens in that focal length. If you do, you'll likely be able to sell the f/4 on ebay for what you paid for it (possibly more).





Keep in mind, I own the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and it hasn't seen the light of day in almost 2 months...

[Keith B]

Keep in mind, I own the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and it hasn't seen the light of day in almost 2 months...

Same here. I struggle to find uses for it.

[neuroanatomist]

Same here. I struggle to find uses for it.

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.

[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.

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.