Alternatives to a 70-200

[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.

[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.

[Brendan7]

Now, about the Tokina 11-16mm - you've previously stated, "I suggest Canon all the way. 3rd party lenses are never as good."

Okay. I meant Sigma and Tamron. I wasn't talking about Tokina, Zeiss, or other 3rd party manufacturers of quality that people rarely bring up.

With only a 300mm prime currentlyI wouldn't say you're looking to 'fill some gaps' - 10-300mm is a chasm, not a gap. [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

I understand this. Wildlife photography was my main concern so a 300 prime was my first lens. I can't afford to just buy another lens everytime I have a gap (or many gaps, like here).

What do you intend to shoot with these lenses you're going to buy?

Everything. Alternative #1 on your list is looking like a very good idea. Thanks for the suggestion!

Of course, you could just throw caution to the wind and 'get the II'.

Which may be what I do, I'm not sure. I'm traveling to Canada in June and I'll rent the Tokina for that and check it out along with the 17-55mm (which I have not rented yet).


Thanks John for your help!


brendan

[Keith B]

Word on the web is more rebates are coming soon. I don't know if the 70-200 mkII will be one of the lenses but you may want to wait a bit and see. With a rebate you may be able to get it and afford the Tokina too.

[neuroanatomist]

Word on the web is more rebates are coming soon.

Word on the web is no rebate on the 70-200 II (but yes on the f/2.8 non-IS and the f/4 IS, among other lenses). Seems like demand is still outpacing supply on that one - at least, Amazon can't seem to keep it in stock.

[Jordan]

Hmm... I may be compiling together things people already said here, but here it goes:


First of all I OWN both the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS (mark 1) and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 UWA. Both lenses are SUPERB but, of course, for completely different things. I really think you should have an all-purpose zoom (mine is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM - which is a fantastic lens... in the reviews on this site it was said that it's equal or sharper at all comparable apertures/focal lengths as the 24-70 f/2.8 L)


Enough there though, the debate seems most between the mark II 70-200 or not. I have no experience with the MKII 70-200 but it's been getting amazing praise/reviews! Having said that, I must remind you, as someone else on here did already, that the original is a fantastic lens and you WON'T be sorry if you get it. You WILL, however, have a ton of money left over to buy another lens. If I were you, I would definitely get the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS (mark 1). PERIOD.


Now, for the other money. The EF-S 17-55 will run you about a grand and is a GREAT lens. 17mm is quite wide. However, for that REALLY exaggerated, awesome (in my and many people's opinion) look, 11, 12, 13mm is much nicer. If you're just looking for a nice landscape lens, I'd go with the EF 17-40 f/4 L or preferably, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Both are great landscape lenses and make great general purpose lenses, especially the latter with it's tack sharpness, L-like build and f/2.8 aperture (and IS!). But if you want something UNIQUE and don't really need a general lens right now (the 70-200 at 70mm takes nice portraits....) then you SHOULD in my opinion get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I think it's the the best kept secret in UWA lenses right now! I was worried for months before I got it (you might remember my posting on here about it) if it was the right lens etc... but WOW is it nice! (attached picture was taken this past Sunday night in Vienna with that lens on a 7D... granted I edited it a bit). You're running a.... 7D if I remember right? I am too and it's a nice combo! I am envious of your EF 300 f/4 but with that being your oNLY lens, it's time to get some killer gear. If you really don't need a general purpose lens, skip it and save for one in the future. As I said, 70mm takes great portraits, and even some decent landscapes if you're far, and the Tokina takes nice landscapes if you're close. If you're far, the Tokina just makes everything in the distance too small so I'd recommend using the 70-200. Anyhow, enough blabbering.. that's my thought!





- Jordan


www.freshphotohawaii.com

[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.