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

[barba]

The 70-200 f/4 non-is is one of the best bargains in photography. I carry it, the 1.4x converter and an extension tube on walks. Lightweight, easy to carry and lots of fun.

[neuroanatomist]

Thanks for the input and great advice, everyone!


In this case, fate jumped in and helped with the choice - and it turned out to be a 'none of the above' sort of choice. Yesterday morning, anEF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color:red;"]LII USM was listed on my local Craigslist. Yes, it lacks the flexibility of a zoom (and lacks IS, but so does the 70-200 f/4 I was considering). But it has many of the attributes I was looking for (excellent IQ, wide aperture, easy to carry, and of course, immediate gratification!). I had actually considered that lens vs. the 70-200 f/4 non-IS, but the 200mm prime is more expensive in the new lens market. However, this used lens is in like-new condition, and for $425 it was just too good a value to pass up (an even better bargain than a 70-200 f/4 non-IS, even a used one, and as an added bonus, if I decide to sell it down the line, I will at least break even, and quite likely make a profit!).

[Daniel Browning]

anEF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LII USM was listed on my local Craigslist.

Excellent! You are going to love that lens, and what a deal!

[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.