Lens help Again!!

Hardrock · Apr 2, 2010

So over the last couple of months I have beat this topic up and I am finally ready to make my purchase! But here is my delima I really want to get the Canon 70-200 f2.8 is usm I verison lens. I believe retail is $1899 and probally can get it locally for 1699 to 1799. So to my problem, for that much money I could settle for the 200mm f2.8 (which I think is a little sharper) and the 300mm f4 (which I really want to get in the future). I dont have any lens that has IS so I think the 200mm f2.8 would be a great lens but would I be kicking my self for not getting the 70-200 in the future??? I currently own the 17-40, 50mm,100mm, and the crappy 75-300mm. With the 200mm prime would I be really missing out on the 70-200? Also on a side note Im obviously not a professional and do not plan on using this for any type of business just addicted to nice glass.Thanks Again TPF!!!

Vinny · Apr 2, 2010

My advice is to get whatever you can't live without.

Personally, I like zooms due to their various ranges. I know that zooms may not be as good as prime lenses but it's the only type of lens that will help you compose, crop and take a few different shots at different focal lengths quickly. I don't like taking lenses on/off all the time so I live with their limitations. I recently bought a new DSLR and bought 2 zooms to be covered under most focal length requirements.

Would you be missing out on anything - who knows. How many times have you used the 75 - 300mm lens or would have used it had it not been crappy? This is how I would make my decision.

icassell · Apr 2, 2010

I've wrestled with the same thoughts. The Canon 200mm f/2.8 has an excellent reputation and is the "unnoticed" L lens. It is smaller and less obtrusive than the 70-200 and doesn't have that "Look at me I'm a white lens" character. If you don't need a zoom and have the wider focal-lenghts covered to your satisfaction, it might be a very good option. I wound up with my 100-300 mm f/4 for an insanely low price, so now I'm just looking at longer glass.

Derrel · Apr 2, 2010

The 70-200 zoom's biggest advantage would be its focal length flexibility in one,single lens, while the 200/2.8 is smaller and lighter and less-obtrusive, but lacks any focal length flexibility whatsoever. The value proposition would depend on how critical the 300mm f/4 is,paired with another lens. If buying the 70-200 means you cannot buy the 300, well, there goes the 300. I dunno...it depends on what and how you shoot photos,and what other lenses you have to back the 200 and 300 up, and you're doing great with the 50 then 100, doubling FL between those two, so a 200 would be logical.

Maybe there's another solution though. Have you thought about buying the 70-200, but buying the superb 135 f/2-L instead of the slower 200/2.8? That might be a better prime lens choice, especially if you shoot in any type of low light, or with a 1.6x body, or indoors; 135 is handier on 1.6x than 200 is, due to the FOV factor and actual working distances.

I dunno...everybody's different, but I'd be strongly tempted to go with the 70-200 over the 200/2.8,and then buy the 300mm f/4 when you can.

Hardrock · Apr 2, 2010

Thanks guys! So it sounds like I should really just get the 70-200! Im just so torn I can practically get both other lens for the same price as the 70-200. I guess the main advantage with the 70-200 is it covers a lot of ground compared to a prime and the only lens I have in that range is the 100mm. Decisions-Decisions :banghead:

Vinny · Apr 2, 2010

Does Canon make a multiplier? I know that Nikon does and I have one for my Vivitar lens. That may be a solution. I didn't use it much back then and have used it once a few years back so I can't say much about it. I only remember that I was not 100% happy but that could have been my own fault, trying to focus a lens I hadn't used in a long while or because the film processing was horrible, 1 hour photo labs aren't worth it IMO.

But that may be a way to get a 70 - 40mm lens without the addition cost of a lens.

Just a thought.

cnutco · Apr 2, 2010

I feel you. I was torn between lenses too. I ened up getting the 70 - 200 2.8. I have a few more lenses to pick up before I go past the 200mm focal length. I shoot school sports, but just can't shell out the $$$ for the 400 prime or the 400 - 600 zoom quite yet. Those things cost some serious mad money!

My question is why is Canon's 70 - 200 2.8 WAY less the than Nikon's?

den9 · Apr 2, 2010

most canon lenses are cheaper than nikons, like the 10-22 compared to nikons 12-24.

nikon has more expensive bodies though.

id get the 70-200 2.8 non is, and the 300mm.

cfusionpm · Apr 3, 2010

cnutco said:
I feel you. I was torn between lenses too. I ened up getting the 70 - 200 2.8. I have a few more lenses to pick up before I go past the 200mm focal length. I shoot school sports, but just can't shell out the $$$ for the 400 prime or the 400 - 600 zoom quite yet. Those things cost some serious mad money!

My question is why is Canon's 70 - 200 2.8 WAY less the than Nikon's?