70-200 a daft idea ?

[Crafty_]

I already have:
7D
10-22
24-105
50 1.8
100-400

I guess I'm missing a couple of things:

1) Fast stuff - everything is up around f4 bar the 50mm.
2) Flexibility over the 100mm mark. The 100-400 is great, but I do sometimes find I need to lens swap, the other thing is the 100-400 is big and heavy - so I don't always take it.

If I add a lens I was thinking of a cheap prime - the 85mm 1.8 or even the 100mm 2.8.
For similar money (ish) I could get a 70-200 non IS.

I don't use the 50mm that much, so not sure on how much use I'd get from a prime, especially one with a longer focal length.
The 70-200 is lighter and smaller, so I would take that when I left the 100-400 at home. Only concern is its "more of the same" in terms of aperture. It does seem to be a very sharp lens though..

Thoughts ?

[SMB]

which 70-200 are you looking at ?

the 2.8 will be similar weight/size to the 100-400. the f4 is lighter and easier to carry.

I like you had the wide angle, 24-105 covered and a 100-400 , but when traveling found the 100-400 too much. So I got a 70-200mm f4, and a 1.5x extender obviously some loss of quality when extended but at least i had a lighter travel option.

[DibblyDobbler]

I bought an f4 non-IS a few months back - lovely lens

Sold it shortly after - not a useful focal length on a crop sensor imho. Too long for a walkabout and too short to be long

[Crafty_]

I was thinking of the same one you have, f4 non IS.

The push behind this is I've got some amazon vouchers, that combined with the cashback means I can get that lens new for less than the cost of a secondhand one.

I was considering a macro lens but I don't think I'd use it, not interested in bugs and the like.

[Simpo Two]

Crafty_ said:

I need to spend some money and hoped you guys would give me the go-ahead. Thoughts?

Yep, carry on

[DibblyDobbler]

I've a 100L which is again lovely but I haven't used it that much (I do my macro stuff with the mpe-65)

So I guess it depends what you're thinking of doing with it

[2slo]

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and I couldn't recommend it highly enough. It will take a 2X TC and give you a 400mm f/5.6 with 2 stage IS. The images I've seen from this combination are still extremely good. It is heavy as a walkaround but well worth having. Very fast AF too.

[pwduncan]

2slo said:

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and I couldn't recommend it highly enough. It will take a 2X TC and give you a 400mm f/5.6 with 2 stage IS. The images I've seen from this combination are still extremely good. It is heavy as a walkaround but well worth having. Very fast AF too.

+1.
I have the same combo and love it.

[Crafty_]

If money was no object I'd get a 2.8 mk2, but as it is thats nearly 5 times the cash outlay I'm looking at with the f4. Even if I sold the 100-400 the mk2 with a converter is still going to be well in to four figures.

Simpo Two said:

Crafty_ said:

I need to spend some money and hoped you guys would give me the go-ahead. Thoughts?

Yep, carry on

Does sound a bit like that doesn't it!

I just thought adding a lens would give me a bit more flexibility, I've got tripod / filters / flash and all the other bits and bobs that you seem to collect.

If I buy books/CDs etc I'll get moaned at by family when inevitable "what do you want for xmas" thing starts. I don't think I'd get away with a £1700 lens either!

[Seight_Returns]

Your line up isn't miles away from mine

I have

7D
400D
10-22
18-55 IS
15-85
70-300L
35f/2
50f/1.8
85f/1.8
430EX
S100

I like the 85 but it's not an everyday lens. Minimum focusing distance is quite long and I realise how much I've come to take IS for granted when using it at lowish shutter speeds.

By far the best value piece of kit I've bought has been the S100.

If I had the luxury of starting again - I'd have had the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with x1.4 and x2 TCs instead of the 70-300L and 85/1.8 - I read that the Kenko TCs are very close to the Canon ones optically and much cheaper.

My next and last (famous last words) purchase will be an EF-S 55-250 to give me a "take anywhere" kit of 400D, 18-55, 50/1.8, 55-250 for when I don't want to take the good stuff.

Edited by Seight_Returns on Wednesday 24th October 21:31

[binliner]

DibblyDobbler said:

I guess it depends what you're thinking of doing with it

Exactly, I think sometimes we put too much thought into covering all focal lengths without really thinking about what we want each lens for

[SMB]

Crafty_ said:

I was thinking of the same one you have, f4 non IS.

The push behind this is I've got some amazon vouchers, that combined with the cashback means I can get that lens new for less than the cost of a secondhand one.

I was considering a macro lens but I don't think I'd use it, not interested in bugs and the like.

So as others say it depends if you would use a 70-200mm , and what sort of pictures you want to take. If the f4 speed is enough the basic f4 non IS is a nice sharp lens. We managed for years without IS , so just look to improve your technique. The lighter weight of the f4 makes it a better travel companion.

As others have said the 2.8II is a lovely lens but you do trade 40mm at the bottom end if you use it as a 2x. I've been surprised how many airshow pictures I have taken on the 100-400 at the low end. So would miss that 40mm.

[JimmyTheHand]

I am impressed with my F4 IS version (if I was to rebuy though I'd have the 2.8 MKII) - even with 1.4x on it still produces good shots. There was one on the UK Cannon ebay outlet the other day - might be worth seeing if comes around again.

[richwig83]

I had the 70-200 2.8IS and it was a belting lens. I believe that the F4IS version is even better in terms of image quality.

It all depends on your intended use. You have the 100-400 which does everything from wildlife to motorsport etc etc. Maybe the 70-200 would be a bit of a waste, unless you are doing a lot of low light stuff like live concerts where a 70-200 2.8IS would come into its own.

Edited by richwig83 on Friday 26th October 16:14

[S47]

Standard Canon 70-200 'L' F4 - a fantastic lightweight lens at a bargain price - A no brainer IMO, All Eos users ought to own one, so buy one NOW
The other Canon 70-200's offer nothing that you can't obtain elsewhere cheaper, lighter, and faster aperture lenses for less money - the F2.8's are a Joke IMO, Too expensive, and too Huge in comparison to the standard F4 70-200.
Plenty beleive the 70-200 F2.8 to be a good lens, clearly these users havent tried the fabulous Canon 'L' prime alternatives.
Plenty are gonna dis-agree, but that's OK with me.
Hope this gives you some food for thought.

[toasty]

Crafty_ said:

I already have:
7D
10-22
24-105
50 1.8
100-400

Me too.

I've also just added the 100 2.8L Macro which works well on smallish things and also makes a good portrait lens.