Alternatives to a 70-200

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[JJphoto]

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[]

[neuroanatomist]

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.