Should I?

[cwcaesar]

I am considering acquiring the 70-200mm VRII while it it on sale. I am selling a 12-24mm DX lens. To make this work I would sell my 70-300 and my 24-85 lenses as well. I also have a prepaid credit card coming to me for $600-$700. Should I? I would lose the rang from 200 to 300, and the short end from 50 to 24, but I may try to find a wide prime for landscapes later. I would have the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.8, and add the 70-200. Thoughts?

 

[The_Traveler]

Buy it, sell stuff.
Who cares?
Will it help your photography or hurt it?

We sure don't know what your life is like and I can't imagine anyone but your dearly beloved caring about this.

Stop perseverating about equipment and take pictures.

 

[tevo]

Don't think, just do it. Spend as much money as possible and your photography will improve. Pretty much every notable photographer in history achieved their prestige by throwing hideous amounts of cash into gear.

 

[Nikanon]

There is NO comparison in IQ or build quality of the 70-200 2.8 VRII compared to what you have right now. Sure you might lose the 200-300 range but you can always get a TC for it and the IQ of the 70-200 2.8 VRII will still trump the 70-300.

 

[DCerezo]

Buy it, sell stuff.
Who cares?
Will it help your photography or hurt it?

We sure don't know what your life is like and I can't imagine anyone but your dearly beloved caring about this.

Stop perseverating about equipment and take pictures.

I hope this was said with tongue in cheek.

 

[Solarflare]

No, I'm sure he's dead serious ! :lmao:

On a more serious note: good photographers get what they really need - which CAN mean quite expensive equipment !

Henri Cartier-Bresson might only have had a single 50mm lens - but he had a Leica camera and a Leica lens. Very expensive and very high quality.


To the OP: Personally I think the 70-200mm f2.8 VR2 is now simply superflous to everyone but sport photographers (professional and those amateurs who just have too much money) who need the last bit of brightness in bad light situations. The new 70-200 f4 VR3 tests optically even slightly better, is much cheaper, weights only half as much, and offers the same build quality and AF speed.

And nobody can really tell you what you need to get. That depends upon what you want to photograph and how your habits are.

 

[Mike_E]

If the f4 works for you then get it.

I have the f2.8 and it is 'all of that'. Big SOB though!

 

[TheLost]

If i could only have one lens... it would be the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII.

99% of the year i keep only a 50mm f/1.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 in my bag... that's all i need. It all depends on what you like, and what you like to shoot.

 

[cwcaesar]

I have considered the f/4, but it does not have any discounts currently, and it does not have a tripod collar, so that $1000 difference in price is really only $500. Plus I have thought that I may shoot footbal games under the lights, or dance recitals in a gymnasium, or a wedding at some point, and I would regret not having the 2.8. So for the only a $500 jump, I think I may make the leap to the 2.8, even though I have heard that the f/4 is a bit superior optically. I also think that if I add a teleconverter, I may REALLY need the extra light.

I do understand the snarky comments about throwing money at photography and I will improve. I do appreciate the sentiment, but that is not what I am trying to do. I take photos all the time, and I feel like I am improving. I am not trying to get better by buying better glass, I just appreciate fine tools for my craft. I am improving by taking pictures, by reading about lighting,taking pictures, learning about off camera flash, taking pictures, observing the world around me and analyzing angles and lighting conditions; oh, and taking pictures.

 

[Mike_E]

If you're not happy with the 2.8 Vll then you really need to sort out your priorities.

It's a great lens, get it!

 

[JaronRH]

It's all based on what you need. My most-used lens is the Sigma 85mm because if fits my shooting style the best. However, I did have to get the 70-200 VRII because I ran into too many cases where my foot-zoom either wasn't fast enough or was severely limited (weddings/events and shoots with small kids who are running around but not old enough to take any sort of direction). If I didn't need it, I would have never put the money down for it as it is BIG and HEAVY! If you have to get a zoom in that range and don't need the f/2.8, go for the f/4 version.

 

[cwcaesar]

Okay, I have decided to hold off on this purchase for now. I don't NEED to have a 70-200 right now. I have the focal length covered. I just didn't want to miss out on the price cut. I have not seen one used for less than the price of a new one with the discount. I will keep what I have right now until I can demonstrate an absolute NEED for the upgrade. In the mean time, I will just bump the ISO.

Thanks for the opinions!