Just a thought about getting the 70-200 II

[h_._jm]

<p>Heya photogs<br>

I just wanted to share my thought about lens changing and any recommendations about it. I have 7 lenses and want to cut down, both number/weight/cost. I have in case someone asks: 17-40,35l, 24-70, 70-200f4is, 85 1.8, 135L, 100 macro, 135l. I want to sell the 85 and 24-70.<br>

I use a 5D. I bought the 85 1.8 almost exclusively for indoor soccer/tennis and found that I haven't used it much in the last year. Like 3 times max! I intend to sell it.<br>

However I also have the 70-200 F4 IS and 135L. To be honest of them 3 the most useful one by far is the white lens. Also great quality. I love my 135L a lot too; definitely best bokeh by far and best lens i've used.<br>

I have a thought to sell the f4is,135l and 85/1.8 and get the 70-200 F2.8 IS II; any thoughts or suggestions or criticisms of such move?<br>

I'm thinking it will be better for sports, better for events photography and candid portraits, worse for posed portraits but by a tiny margin 135L vs 2.8 II; but just overall isn't it a good idea? Ohh and Ignore the 2.8 being heavy I don't go hiking with my lenses :)<br>

If I do that and sell the 24-70 which i don't like colours of I'm thinking the set will become: 17-40, 35l, 70-200 f2.8 is ii, 100 macro and that's IT!<br>

thanks for your input</p>

[chuck_parr]

<p>I keep thinging of selling my 70-200 f4 and upgrading to the 2.8, but I just can't part with the several hundred dollars difference for one f-stop, even for a used 2.8 I know it is a significant f stop, but i have honestly not ben in too many situations to miss a shot because i lacked 2.8. That's just me.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>If I do that and sell the 24-70 which i don't like colours of</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Something is wrong. I do catalog work with that lens and have no problems. You should not have any color issues. Post a link to some of your photos that have color problems with this lens.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I also have the 70-200 F4 IS</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Here's a suggestion. When you think you need the f2.8, rent it. You can do this online these days. I find I rent the 2.8 about three times a year, for a total of $75. It will take me the rest of my life to make up the difference between the f4IS (which I own) and the rental cost of the f2.8.</p>

[stp]

<p>Only you know what you want and need; we're happy to give opinions. The resulting lens lineup looks pretty good. If that were mine, I'd also consider (eventually) getting the Zeiss 50mm f/2 makro-planar, the best 50mm out there (IMO) for Canon and also will do macro. I hike on artificial hips, so I'd keep the 70-200 f/4 IS but I'd also get the 2.8 IS II. Finally, when the price comes down and after the reviews are out, I'd consider the 24-70 II. If I were to go out with only two lenses, they would be the 24-70 II (probably) and 20-200 f/2.8 II.</p>

[pto189]

<p>Keep your 17-40, 35 1.4, and 100 Macro. Sell all other lenses to buy the 70-200 2/8 II now and the 24-70 II later.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Sell: 70-200f4is, 85 1.8 and 135L.</p>

<p>Buy: Canon EF 70-200/2.8L IS II USM.</p>

<p>I sold the 70-200/4L IS and bought the 70-200/2.8L IS II. Best lens decision ever.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

I have 3 lenses in my kit

 

16-35 f2.8l USM II

24-70 f2.8L USM II

70-200 f2.8L IS USM II

 

I recently sold my 24-104, I do miss the overlap, but the IQ is way better with the 24-70

[John Crowe]

<p>I would not do it, but that is just me. I would be considering what else I could turn the 24-70, 85/1.8, and 100 macro into. Maybe the 100 L macro or 200 L Macro, or the 300/4 L (depending on what sports).</p>

<p>In my lonely opinion the 70-200/2.8 IS II is just not enough bang for big bucks. Perhaps a used 70-200/2.8 IS (original) for half the cost.</p>

 

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Couple of thoughts:</p>

<p>I've never felt the need to sell lens if I want to acquire others. I guess if money is tight, but what sort of money are you expecting on the sales? And, unless I absolutely never use a lens, I'm sure I'd be missing it.</p>

<p>Funny, I have the first gen. 70-200 f2.8 IS, and off and on am thinking about getting the f4.0: half the weight, more compact, a bit sharper. I guess the grass always looks greener on the other side.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>I would only consider this if you absolutely need the extra stop of the 70-200 f2.8 IS II. If you will be shooting stopped down at all, you're better off with your lighter, smaller 70-200 f4 IS (in my personal opinion).</p>

<p>I have both the 70-200 f2.8 IS (Mk I) and the 70-200 f4 (non IS) and probably use the f4 lens 90% of the time. It's a much nicer lens to use - easier to hand hold for extended periods and significantly less bulky. I originally bought the cheaper f4 version just for back up and redundancy, but I now use it in every situation where I am not needing to actually shoot at f2.8 and or requiring the IS. There is no IQ difference.</p>

<p>Oddly enough, the two lenses you are looking to get rid of - the 24-70 f2.8 and the 85mm f1.8 are two of my favorite lenses - however, everyones needs are different and only you know what you will use the most and what best suits the type of photography you do.</p>

[philip_wilson]

If your focus is fewer lenses and size and weight are not an issue then get the F2.8IS II. My personal approach is the

Non IS 70-200 F2.8 (sharper than the F2.8 IS MkI not quite as sharp as the MkII) and the F4IS for non sports use. If you

only need F2.8 for action sports (mine are hockey and ski racing) then you don't need IS so you can consider adding the

non IS lens and keeping the F4 IS although this does not reduce your lens count. If I were you I would keep the 85 and

135 as they are both great lenses - and I am a fan if primes. While zooms are undoubtedly useful ( I have the full set of

F2.8 and the 70-200 F4IS) I am a geat fan of primes and prefer shooting them. I find that zooms (especially standard and

wide angle) tend to make you a lazy photographer. Since I don't shoot basketball I cannot tell you if the extra stop is

necessary - for ice hockey I know it is but the rinks can be dark and the speeds are high (especially the puck)

[arthur_reyes1]

<p>Having just bought the 70-200 II last week, I would highly recommend it. I rented it twice before buying and have been amazed by it performance. Used it this past weekend for shooting gymnastics and at some family gatherings. Perfect focal length and the zoom provides flexibility. I can see how this will soon become my favorite lens.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>The rest of your plan sounds good, I just want to comment on 135L vs 70-200 f/4 or f/2.8... I find that when I want to use the 135L, I don't want to use the zoom, but there are times like for landscapes when the lack of IS just makes the 135L not a good choice for me (low light and slow shutter speed need). So while I would have use for the zoom year round, there would be some special periods of time when I would just totally want 135L.<br>

A good combination is either<br>

1) 135L (if you do use it and like it a lot) + 70-200 f/4 IS<br>

or<br>

2) 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, the bigger heavier choice for 70-200mm range.<br>

The choice of body can matter, your 5D is not bad but a 1D body weight + big zoom and lots of hand holding is not fun for a long time (like 4hours and more)<br>

I'm just a fan of 135L :).</p>

[robertbody]

<p>flare is also terrible when shooting into the sun with 135L as I reminded myself today, it's documented to be better on 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II (from the version I as well), and it is.<br>

What I didn't mention earlier was that I like 135L for the pets (dogs) and people shots, without the weight of the 70-200 II, especially on a 1D body, and I mean not 10 minutes of occasional shots, I mean a lot longer and holding the lens up or carrying it around.</p>

 

[h_._jm]

Thanks guys good advice.. I like how someone said the grass is always greener on the other side! So true