Save up or buy cheaper?

IDLaxStar · Oct 25, 2010

I know the short answer is save up. But I am talking more about buy a canon 70-200mm 2.8 first edition or save up for the second? Or saving for the 50 1.2 or 1.4 instead of the 1.8? What is your guys opinion on these types of decisions?

MohaimenK · Oct 25, 2010

probably 1.4 imo over the other two. i bought 1.8 but if i had to do it again, i'd go 1.4
I just couldn't justify the price for 1.2 imo

Neil S. · Oct 25, 2010

This is something that I think most people here probably have to consider from time to time.

I think that if you really want something its good to save and get it, within reason of course.

For example I want a 400mm 2.8 IS II but the amount of time that it would probably take me to save for it simply is not pratical. The same thing goes for the 200 f/2 which I really want too.

Also I have to consider how much other gear I could get for the price of those lenses.

My 70-200 2.8 II and the new 2x TC III (when I get it) should be pretty descent, and it will have to do. The 5.6 max aperture is not ideal though...

Another question that I ask myself a lot is if it is better to wait for the new model to be released.

This is what I am facing right now when deciding if I should get a 5D mk II and 24-70 2.8L or wait for their replacements.

I have pretty much decided to wait on the replacements for both because I dont really need them (especially right now).

I am not a pro and photography is just a hobby for me. I had fun with it when I only had a 30D and the kit lens. Every upgrade is just a bonus for me.

Derrel · Oct 25, 2010

The original version is pretty decent on FF, less so on APS-C, yet still amply good enough for most uses.

IDLaxStar · Oct 25, 2010

So in my situation I have an olympus e-410 but am going to be buying a 40d here pretty soon. I want to shoot sports so when looking at a lens for it. Should I buy the first edition of the 70-200 right away or wait like 5 months to save up for the 2nd. I would obviously have to wait and wouldn't be able to go out and shoot sports right away but in the long run i would be happy after i get the 2nd edition.

Overread · Oct 25, 2010

I've not met an unhappy owner of the second edition nor the first - the only real complaints of the first edition being that its not as sharp wide open as some would like and it loses to prime lenses on sharpness overall (though with most zooms that is expected).

Overall it was the pro lens of choice for many and still is today - the newer is better there is no getting around that fact; but is it 5 months better for you? That is a hard question to answer because its very difficult to say yes or no to. I would say try to get to a shop and see if you can't use both for a bit - get a feel for them and how they differ. That way you can make the better choice.

I do greatly think that whilst one should always save for the best one can afford that we have to factor time into the scale - 5 months saving isn't (in my view) too long to save for provided that you don't need that lens urgently during those 5 months. When it comes to the super expensive lenses (like the mentioned 400mm f2.8) and people start thinking in years in terms of saving then I say its best to get a good cheaper option for the now rather than wait all that time -because it a significant amount of time without the use of that focal range.

Also on the 50mm front consider the Sigma 50mm f1.4 as most reviews I've read pit it as the superior choice over the canon 1.4. In addition the canon f1.8 50mm whilst cheap is generally only popular for its cheapness and sharp optics - its build is cheap and tacky and overall there is a lot of room for improvement - if you want that range for serious use it is well worth saving for the f1.4 versions.

IDLaxStar · Oct 25, 2010

Thanks for the advice overread. I really appreciate it. I will definitely look into the sigma 50 1.4 too.

GooniesNeverSayDie11 · Oct 25, 2010

I would go with the 50 1.4 since its a good price for a mid point between the two. I also don't think the 1.2 would be much benefit given that its so shallow ( even the 1.4 was pushing it to me ) of course DOF on full frame is different so who knows in that case. As for the 70-200, obviously the new one is better, but the MK1 is a great lens and has been used for years by many pros. I bet if they did a study of the most sold pro level lens it would be that one ( or atleast Canon lens anyway ).

Also, I have a theory on the new L lenses being released. They are supposed to be razor sharp, which I think is a good indicater of the next camera. I think the new 5D will have such a resolution that it will require higher quality glass or else pros would be disappointed in their current glass and possibly dislike the camera when it is finally released. They get people to upgrade now so that a good majority of pros sell off their old and get the new, and then they drop the bombshell of the new 5D and everyones happy. Depending what body you are shooting with, I don't see why you would spend $2500 on a Mark2 70-200 when you can get a really good used mk1 for around $1300 right now. You could buy another L lens with the left over cash.