70-200 f/2.8 IS - Buy or Rent?

[TwilitLens]

Hey guys. Major buying decision ahead for a dyed-in-the-wool canonista, and I could use some advice.

As an event photographer on a currently somewhat thin budget, I've nevertheless had my eye on that allegedly gold standard lens but have held off because of the (to me) heavy price tag. There are places to rent lenses online of course, but at what point does renting become impractical?

I've read that some clients won't even take you seriously unless you show up with this lens in your bag. But is the gold standard really the only thing that gets you business? Honestly I've gotten great results with lesser lenses.

 

[tirediron]

I've never had a client question my gear, aside from the odd 'Uncle Bill' who wants to tell me how good his Yongnuo triggers are, how much money I wasted buying PW, or similar. Occasionally a client will ask if I have the equipment to do a particular job, to which I respond 'Yes', or 'No' as appropriate, but I've never had anyone ask if I have this or that lens in my bag.

All of that said, IMO, the 70-200 is invaluable tool for event work, and your investment in it would be well worth it, particularly if you save a few dollars by buying used.

 

[pixmedic]

you could always go with a third party offering.
I have the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 and love it.
along with my Yongnuo flashes and radio triggers.

 

[Overread]

The MII is a fantastic lens - but very pricey. You could get one of the original versions - the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L second hand and it would certainly do all that you need (the new is better, but the original is still pro standard). That said Sigma and Tamron both have some new very good 70-200mm f2.8 lenses which I hear do very well against the original Canon (in fact I think they beat it).

The Canon MII certainly rules, but the 3rd party offerings and the Canon previous version are no slouches and will do all the pro work you need from them.


Certainly a 70-200mm is a fantastic range for event work. A real work-horse of a lens.

I would say that renting is good for situations which are rare. Where you have to have something specific but you don't need regular use of it. If you need regular use of the item then it would be as best to save up and buy it.

I know some rental companies do run a scheme where you can keep renewing the rental and eventually pay-off the lens. Another option would be to rent, but set-aside money from each job with a view toward permanent purchase.



If you are at the stage where you're not sure then I would suggest renting for one or two events could be viable. It would give you a taste without the full-cost. Downside is that it is then eating into your savings for purchase.

 

[TCampbell]

If you think you'll just need the lens for one event... rent it. If you think you'll need it frequently... buy it.

It is perhaps my most-used lens (I changed the partitions in my bag to make room so that this is now the lens that just lives on my camera body most of the time.) I own the original. The II is a little better.

 

[GlennT]

I'm purely a hobbyist, but I have a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS that I bought new about 5 years ago, and I use it very frequently. It was undoubtedly one of the best purchases I've made, and I don't make any money with my shots. The Canon is simply a pleasure to use. I do sometimes wish I had an IS version, but not often. The f/4L IS is a nice option too, if you don't need f/2.8.

I originally purchased the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, which wasn't quite as nice 5 years ago. It had the old noisy AF motor with no full time manual focus, and certainly no VC. I wasn't a huge fan of how you had to shift the focus collar back and forth to switch between autofocus and manual. I also got a bad copy that wouldn't talk to my camera body consistently, and that was enough to go with the no-regrets Canon option. It was otherwise very impressive, and it seems they have improved it by putting in their ultrasonic drive, with full time manual, and added VC. I don't know if the AF improved or not, but I had more out of focus shots than I expected with the Tamron, so that would be something to watch out for.

 

[fjrabon]

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II L is, simply, the best lens I've ever used in terms of versatility and complete excellence no matter what you ask it to do. It's near perfect from f/2.8 to f/16 and from 70mm to 200mm. The thing has literally no weaknesses, IMHO it's as perfect of a workhorse zoom lens as has ever been made. And its build quality is unsurpassed by any other lens I've seen as well. That single lens is literally the only reason I kept a Canon camera for a couple of years. I love my Nikon 80-200 f/2.8, but that Canon IS II L blew the doors off of it.

That being said, I don't think you will lose any work or get any work because you do or don't have it. Most of the ways in which is it are good are more things that you will notice and things that will make your life easier, as opposed to things your clients will notice. That lens will mean you simply don't have to think about its limitations, simply because it doesn't really have any. But any fast tele zoom will "do the job" it's mostly a question of how effortless do you want it to be.

TO sum it up:
Will you notice the difference between this lens and whatever else you are comparing it to? Absolutely
Will this lens make your life easier? Absolutely
Will your clients notice the difference? Almost certainly not

 

[manaheim]

The only time I had a client question my gear is when I only had a 6MP camera, and even then they just wanted bigger images. Very few clients are going to even know what your various lenses are.

I think the primary measure of rent vs. buy is just how often you need the lens, how instantly you need the lens when you need it, and how screwed you would be if you didn't have it.

If you need it once or twice a year, rental might make sense.

 

[runnah]

I haven't seen or heard anything about the canon version that makes it worth the extra $1000 over the tamron.

If clients expect certain level of gear then they can pay a premium for it.