Am I foolish to even be considering this?

[sanjay_chugh1]

I've always wanted to have a 70-200 Lens.

Right now with the high Canadian dollar, the F4 non-IS version is $669 at Future

Shop (owned by Best Buy) of all places.

Plus Canon has a rebate of $75 and I might be able to double that to $150 (not

sure yet).

 

The price is very enticing.

I can never afford or justify the 2.8 versions and anyway the 2.8 IS is too

heavy for little old me. :)

 

The F4 IS is more then I want to spend now as it is $1300.

I don't understand why it's almost double the price.

 

Anyway, the thing is I already have the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS lens.

I am very happy with it and I like it a lot and I would keep it for low light

still situations or when I need the extra reach.

 

The price on the 70-200 is so enticing though.

Part of me knows I am being totally foolish and throwing my money away to even

be considering this.

 

The other irrational part is saying, "cool, I could have a real L series lens

for about $500-$600".

 

What to do? Be smart or foolish? Is it even being foolish to consider this purchase?

 

-- Sanjay

[shambrick007]

If you don't need it and are satisfied w/what your 70-300 delivers, save you're money. It's just a case of GAS (gear acquisition syndrome), it'll pass....

[shambrick007]

"your" that is...

[tdigi]

I say wait. But then again I can never make up my mind on what I want to get as far as lenses

go. But seriously if your happy with what you have I see no reason to change to something

so similar. If you where going to the 2.8 non IS I think that would make more sense since

that can be used as a portrait lens etc. but your not getting better low light and your getting

less reach.

 

At the very least give it a few weeks and see if you still desire this change.

[jcolwell]

Two of my friends have the 70-200/4L and one has the 70-300 IS. All of them are happy. None of them have both. OTOH, there's nothing wrong with experimenting, and I'm sure you'll like the 70-200 (I have the f/2.8 L IS; it's awesome). Anyway, after you get to like the 70-200/4L, you can sell the 70-300 IS for about one-third the cost of the 300/4 L IS that you'll want next. Then, you'll want to consider the pros & cons of the 24-70L vs. the 24-105L IS. Of course, if you're shooting a crop factor body, then the 17-55/2.8 IS and 17-40L are serious contenders, as well. Be careful! You're about to embark on the slippery road to L-coholism. Don't say nobody warned you :)

[mendel_leisk]

Mmm, this (and there are a lot of similar questions of this sort), strays outside of photography: and into credit counselling. Anyway:

 

If in doubt, I would just hang on. The Canadian rebates are not that big a deal: the current B&H price (without any rebate) is $579.95US, and with shipping to Canada ($31.00US) the price is $610.95. *Plus*, when importing a lens you will *only* pay GST, no PST.

 

I think you would be somewhat disappointed coming from your current IS zoom, to get a non-IS telephoto, L lens or not. I would wait a while, consider the US mail order option, and consider the IS version as well. It is very valuable if you are hand holding, and the IS version of the 70-200 is purported to be very effective.

 

I am thinking of the 70-200 f4.0, the IS version, and my position is even *more* unjustifiable: I currently have the 70-200 f2.8 IS version, which I purchased before the f4.0 IS came out.

 

The 70-200 f4.0 IS is a sought-after lens: it's slightly sharper than the 2.8 (though it's hair-splitting), an inch shorter, narrower, and half the (not inconsiderable) weight.

[oofoto]

I own the 70-200 f/4 non IS version and it is a very very nice lens. Because of the focal lengths you can achieve shallow DOF if required shoting at f/4 - I rarely shoot any other aperture with this lens but that depends on your usage. With the 5D body (for example) you can crank the ISO up in low light with little thought of doing so.

Mine is pretty damn sharp wide open (i don't pixel peep though) and it focuses like a racing snake.

Buy it, try it and if you don't like it sell it after 6 months and put it down to the cost of the hobby.

I've also owned a 70-300 lens (non IS). Wasn't impressed at all. I also own a 100-300 f/5.6L which is virtually unheard of now but it's also a nice sharp L lens. For me I noticed a difference when first trying an L lens...

[jcolwell]

You pay HST (13%) when importing photo gear into Nova Scotia.

[jon_worth]

I would say rent one and see what you think first. If you are into pixel-peeping, you can do some testing and compare the results to what you've been getting with your current telephoto.

 

Then again, you might just go ahead and buy one; the resale value on L lenses is 90%-plus. Might work out the same, cost-wise, as renting one, especially with the rebate factored in.

[peter_rowe]

I have both, or should I say I "had" both. I sold the 70-200 F4 and kept the 70-300mm IS. I think it is a very close call on image quality, it really comes down to the superior build of the 70-200mm F4 against the IS and extra reach of the 70-300IS. I'd say to stay where you are.

[donald_weston1]

another thought would be the 200mm L at 2.8 it is fast, sharp and light about same as the other zoom options, it is what I have in my kit opposite the 70-300 USM IS, fwiw....

[jason_hall4]

>>>>"Anyway, the thing is I already have the 70-300 F4-5.6 IS lens. I am very happy with it...

 

The price on the 70-200 is so enticing though. Part of me knows I am being totally foolish and throwing my money away to even be considering this....

 

The other irrational part is saying, "cool, I could have a real L series lens for about $500-$600"."<<<<

 

Seems to me you know what you should...or should not do. :o)

 

If you are happy with the current lens, what do you think the "L" will do. I have two L lens, but that is because I was not happy with what my old lens did for me. I was tired of not getting the results I needed and wanted and I had tried EVERYTHING else. Only then did the L seem like the real solution.

 

Jason

[john_bellenis]

I have mixed feelings about this... One the one hand I think that you should buy new

equipment in response to a defined need, to solve a problem or make your life easier. As you

say you are happy with your current gear and really have no need for this lens, then it would

seem, on the face of it, that you may be being a little foolish.

 

On the other hand, it's a short life and if you really want something, can afford it and it will

make you happy... why not?!

[cnhoff]

In my opinion, there is no room for both of them.

 

I have had the 70-200 f/4 non-IS - great lens. Recently changed it for the IS version - even better lens. I had contemplated buying the 70-300 instead, but have gone the L-route. Owning both makes absolutely no sense to me.

[arie_vandervelden1]

You can buy this lens from a real camera shop for $694 CAD - see www.thecamerastore.com. Yes it's $24 more, but a real camera shop will deal with Canon on your behalf if you run into warranty issues. I imagine McBains and Henry's and Saneal will have prices similar to The Camera Store.

 

You'll have a real L series lens for $700, not $500-600.

[sanjay_chugh1]

I have to agree with Mendel. This thread is probably more about credit counselling. :)

I understand the pros and cons of IS vs non-IS etc etc, so I wasn't really looking for advice on that front. Just if it's "worth-it" considering what I already have. At least for a little while until I can save up more money.

 

I was just getting lured by the price. I've already spent (a few months ago) $1200 on the ef-s 17-55 and I don't want to spend that much money again at least for a while. I've got my needs covered.

 

It's just the call of the "L". :)

 

The irrational/irresponsible part of the brain is trying to convince me "it's not a lot of money and until you can afford the IS version it should work!".

 

Thanks for the replies. I think I will take a deep breath and focus on my trip to Mexico which starts this Friday, and figure out what lenses I want to pack. I have a very bad habit to pack more then I need.

I think I might need a new bag as well.

 

-- Sanjay

[trebor_navilluso]

These two lenses are almost redundant. The only functional advantage the 70-200 has is it's easier to use with a polarizer. If you don't do that oftern don't buy anything. If you do and really want the "L" thing, then sell the 70-300 and get the L but with IS.

 

There's really not much reason to have both.

[Andy Collins]

I understand the desire to acquire an L-series lens, and if it fits your budget then do so. Getting the best glass is important and ultimately contributes greatly to the quality of your pictures. If, however, your current lens performs to the degree that you wish, save your money for the next lens you'll inevitably want. I moved from the much older 75-300 lens to the 70-200 f/2.8IS, a lens that I continue to be impressed by. If I were able to have only one zoom from Canon, it's the one I'd choose, but I got it because it was such a huge improvement over what I had in the 75-300. Right now if I were you, I'd pack the 17-55 and the 70-300 and focus on enjoying your trip. Both of those lenses should grab lots of keepers. I hope you share some pictures when you get back!

[jkmackenzie]

Check the fine print of the Canadian rebate...

 

"This promotion is not valid at the following retailers: Future Shop, Best Buy, Costco, Sam?s Club, Wal-Mart or Canon E-Store"

 

Just to throw that out there.

 

BTW, in case it hasn't been mentioned above (sorry, it's late), Henry's has the 70-200 f/4 non-IS on ebay very regularly for a reduced price. Check out their ebay store.

[jkmackenzie]

Forgot to add this: new lenses purchased through Henry's ebay store do qualify for the Canon rebate. On the last round on rebates I purchased the 17-40 through ebay and got my refund without questions asked.

[keith_lubow]

The 70-200 f/4 is a great lens. It's a sharp 70-200 in a very small package. Same reason I love the 300 f/4.

 

However, the IS lens you have is also very good, and technically, if you use it properly, you will be able to hand hold it in lower light than the 70-200.

 

Go for the 70-200 if you need an extra shutter speed for a lot of what you shoot. Otherwise, I would say you are covered by what you have.

 

Keith

[photo_dark]

I have the 70-200L f4.

 

I say wait... simply because you are losing both the IS and the extra 100mm at the end.

 

The 70-200 is a FANTASTIC lens. Sharp, f4 is quite usable in most situations, and great build quality.

 

But I've used the 70-300 IS, and it's also a great lens... so you really arn't gaining anything 'usable' with the 70-200L.

 

Why don't you look into the 17-40L f4 instead? I also own that one and it's fantastic for the money.