Alternatives to a 70-200

[Brendan7]

OK guys,


I now have the money to be buying a couple more lenses but (same old, same old) I need help from all you out there (read: neuroanat, alexniedra, God, and everybody else). I am trying to cover as much ground as possible with as little money as possible.


I am looking to fill some gaps. The 70-200 II looked like a great choice because I get a fast telephoto for wildlife, portraits, sports, poorly lit venues, etc in one (albeit ginormous) lens. However, having nothing wider than 70mm didn't really seem like a swell idea. In my search for UWA lenses the Tokina 11-16mm dominated and at $570 with great IQ and L-like build it looked solid. Unfortunately the II and Tokina together would explode my budget bubble. Are there any ways I can cover wideangle and the fast telephoto-like-ness of the 70-200 for less? BTW the 17-55 is not really on the table here. Too long on the wide end and too short on the long end.


All and any suggestions are very much appreciated

[Jon Ruyle]

What do you have now?


The following suggestions assume starting from scratch.


You could go with one of the less expensive 70-200 f/2.8's (non IS or IS mark I). The difference in price would pay for the Tokina. The Mark I is awesome... it was my favorite and most used lens before the II came out. If you can do without IS, the cost would be even less.


If you could make do with a 200mm prime, you could save enough money to get the Tonkia and a really nice mid range zoom. Eg, I think you could get the Tonkia, a 24-105 and a 200 f/2.8 prime for the around the price of the 70-200 II.

[Brendan7]

Jon, as absurd as it may sound all I have is the 300 f/4 prime. (I was a bird photographer before a photographer in general)


Maybe the original 2.8 IS is the way to go, but I only considered the II because of its improvements, and IMO it'd be a waste to get the original and then stop down. I might like the 24-105 at some point but right now (ironically) it's probably the least useful to me. The $570 price of the tokina is SO hard to pass up. The 200 2.8 prime is nice but what makes the 70-200 II great IMO is that it is versatile, fast, and sharp. Good luck finding another one of those lenses in the focal length range. If I pick any other lens I give one of those traits up.

[Brendan7]

Right now it's looking like 70-200 II right now, Tokina later. I don't have more than $3000 to spend on lenses.

[Jon Ruyle]

Maybe the original 2.8 IS is the way to go, but I only considered the II because of its improvements, and IMO it'd be a waste to get the original and then stop down.

I agree it would be a waste if you felt you had to stop it down (in that case, might as go for the f/4). But I used my f/2.8 mark I wide open much of the time and never found it lacking. When I stopped down, I did it to increase DOF, not because I was worried about IQ.


No question, however, the II is sharper still.


If it were me and I thought I was not going to have more money to spend on lenses soon, I'd get the I plus the Tonka, and if I had leftover I'd get a zoom to fill the gap between them.


If I thought I could get the II and still afford the other lenses before too much longer, I'd do that.

[canon-ball]

just thought i'd say i love the tokina 11-16mm. I had the lens for a few days and shot some amazing pictures with it. one example below.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

How about the EF-S 10-22 or EF 17-40 and 70-200 f/4 IS? Both combo should be cheaper than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II

[Mark Elberson]

But I used my f/2.8 mark I wide open much of the time and never found it lacking. When I stopped down, I did it to increase DOF, not because I was worried about IQ.

I am an owner of the Mark I and I completely agree with Jon. I have a 12x18 picture of my son taken with my 5DII and 70-200 f/2.8 I that was shot wide open. He fills about 1/2 of the frame and you can count his eyelashes! That Mark II is brilliant but that doesn't make the Mark I any less amazing that it always was and continues to be. It is by no mean a "compromise" lens. I would consider that option if I were you.

[neuroanatomist]

<span style="font-family: Times; font-size: small;"]

<div style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-image: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-position: initial initial; margin: 8px;"]


Hi Brendan,


Well, you probably know that when I had a budget of around $3K, I got theEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM (and a CF monopod and BlackRapid strap with some of the leftover). But, I already had multiple lenses spanning 10-400mm. As it turned out, I subsequently added a little to the leftover amount, and two days ago I bought theEF 24-105mm f/4<span style="color: red;"]LIS USM for my outdoor walkaround lens (more rain coming this weekend, and a family outing planned for Saturday, and I've come to the conclusion that I really needed something general purpose and weather-sealed - outings with the 70-200 II showed me that 70mm isn't wide enough on a walkaround lens).


The 70-200 II really is an incredible lens - it's actually slightly sharper than myEF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LUSM prime lens. The 70-200mm range is really useful - although Bryan does place it second behind a general purpose zoom. Although he refers to the 70-200 II as his favorite and most-used lens, keep in mind he's shooting primarily with FF bodies (1DsIII, 5DII) - on a 1.6x crop, 70mm is pretty long. If you're going to use it indoors, 70mm will likely be too long for anything but portraits of a single person.


Now, about the Tokina 11-16mm - you've previously [url="/forums/p/3282/27074.aspx#27074]stated[/url], "I suggest Canon all the way. 3rd party lenses are never as good."Are you [i]sure[/i] you want a 3rd party lens? I don't have any, so I can't speak from experience. I do agree that the reviews of the Tokina 11-16mm are very good. I'm sure you've considered the EF-S 10-22mm - it's a great lens, and although 22mm is still wide angle, it's the longest end of a wide angle (35mm FF angle of view), meaning you can actually use it for some 'general purpose' shots. Small focal length differences at the wide end translate to big changes in angle of view - 22mm is noticeably longer than 16mm.


[quote=bburns223]I am looking to fill some gaps[/quote]


With only a 300mm prime currentlyI wouldn't say you're looking to 'fill some gaps' - 10-300mm is a chasm, not a gap. [:P]


Seems you're closer to Jon's suggestion that you're starting from scratch, except that you have the (relatively) long end covered with the 300mm prime. So, back to basics - it really all comes down the focal length you need, which is determined by what you're going to shoot.


What do you intend to shoot with these lenses you're going to buy? A tele-zoom plus an ultrawide angle seems like it's still leaving a pretty significant gap, right in the 'general purpose range', which you seem to be intentionally choosing to create.


A 'general purpose zoom' is just that for a reason - a versatile set of focal lengths useful for everyday shooting. I wouldn't take the 17-55mm off the table entirely, to be honest. As I stated in another post, if I had to give up all of my lenses except one, I'd keep the 17-55mm - it's that useful. 17mm on 1.6x crop is wider than you might think - here are two example images, [url="/members/neuroanatomist/files/Marsh-Sunrise.jpg.aspx]one at 18mm[/url] and [url="/members/neuroanatomist/files/Still-Water.jpg.aspx]one at 17mm[/url]. The 17mm shot was with the 17-55mm lens, but the 18mm shot was actually taken with the 10-22mm lens, and 18mm gave me the framing I wanted. Don't get me wrong - I like the 10-22mm, but it takes some work to shoot at the wider end of that range.


If you're going to shoot only 'artistic' photographs with your 7D - birds, sweeping landscapes, etc., that's one thing. But above you mentioned wanting the 70-200 2.8 for 'wildlife, portraits, sports, poorly lit venues, etc.' - that sounds a lot more general purpose to me. I'd really recommend considering a general purpose zoom (17-55mm f/2.8 IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L, or 24-105mm f/4L IS). If you'd bought your 7D with the 28-135mm kit lens, you'd at least have something in that range (but I wouldn't recommend buying that lens now).


Ok, you asked for alternatives to the 70-200mm II, and in the under-$3K range. Here are some options, with pricing based on [url="http://www.canonpricewatch.com/]this price watch site[/url]:
<div style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-image: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: #ffffff; background-position: initial initial; margin: 8px;"]

1. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS MkI ($2960) - f/2.8 IS coverage from 17-200mm with great IQ and still fitting your budget. As Jon and Mark said, the 70-200mm IS MkI remains a stellar lens, even if it's a little less sharp than the MkII.
   
   
2. EF-S 10-22mm, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS, and EF 135mm f/2L ($2830) - great UWA, great general purpose zoom (you could swap the EF-S 17-55mm here for the same cost if you want f/2.8), and a fast and uber-sharp short telephoto.
   
   
3. EF-S 10-22mm, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L, and EF 200mm f/2.8L II ($2870) - great UWA, great general purpose zoom, and a fast/sharp telephoto.
   
   
4. EF 17-40 f/4L,EF 24-105mm f/4L IS, and EF 70-200mm f/4L IS ($3010) - the f/4 zoom 'holy trinity' which satisfies your L disease and fits your budget (you can probably find $10 under the couch cushions); as long as you don't mind using your 580EX II for indoor shots, this would be a great, versatile combination (and the f/4L IS version of the telezoom is just as sharp as the 2.8 II).

</div>


Of the above options, I think #1 would be the most useful for you.


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


Good luck with your decisions!


--John
</div>

[Jon Ruyle]

I am an owner of the Mark I and I completely agree with Jon. I have a 12x18 picture of my son taken with my 5DII and 70-200 f/2.8 I that was shot wide open. He fills about 1/2 of the frame and you can count his eyelashes!

I, too, have a 12x18 taken with the mark I wide open. It looks awesome.


I have always thought of the mark I as a top quality zoom lens, and felt the IQ was far superior to what I needed.