Is 1 stop worth $1200 to you?

Started May 10, 2013 | Discussions
tonyjr
tonyjr Veteran Member • Posts: 5,282
Re: Is 1 stop worth $1200 to you?

Sorry , I have the 7 D .

 tonyjr's gear list:tonyjr's gear list
Canon EOS 400D Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF-S 10-22mm F3.5-4.5 USM Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +14 more
Hank3152
OP Hank3152 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,499
Re: You should get everyone going with that one.

jitteringjr wrote:

Hank3152 wrote:

I sold the mkII for $2100 and bought a mint, used 6 month old 135f/2 for $800 which made more sense to me since it is an often used range and f/2 made a difference..........and put $1300 back in the bank......

When you factor that $1300 back into the 70-200/4 IS that you are also keeping in addition to the 135/2, you are back to pretty even on cost to the II though.

Right, but each lens serves a more specific purpose, and I did not look forward to lugging that f/2.8II for a day's outing when used handheld......I preferred the f/4IS for it's ease of use and balance and my 135 was better suited for portraits and indoor sports.........

I currently have the 70-200/4 IS and I had convinced myself before that the 135/2 would be my next lens.  Now I am not so sure.  I kind of feel that the 135/2 wouldn't get used that much.

After I bought the 100f/2.8L macro for my 7D my 135 on my old 5D was seeing less use and therefore sold both body and lens

There are times I have found the f4 wasn't fast enough, but I kind of feel that I would probably not carry both the 70-200/4 IS and the 135/2 around with me if I went out and since the 70-200 is much more versitile, it would be the one I did grab most of the time.

For me the f/4IS is generally my preferred outdoor sporting event lens since I mostly shot at f/4 or f/5.6 and was a pleasure to carry

So the question I am asking myself is would I rather have the 2.8 II and always deal with the weight of two lenses in one, but in a lens that would see a lot of use.  Or go with the pair as you have opted for.  For me, I would see a lot of use on one and less on the other, dealing with more lens changes, but gaining the 2.0 boost in the middle.  I do also have the 85/1.8, but the extra range of a 135/2 or maybe a 200/2.8 would really be nice.

The 135 is an optically superior lens but aft

Could you write a little bit more about how in practice you use both the 70-200/4 IS and 135/2?

The f/4IS is my most used lens for outdoor sports/action and when I had the f/2.8mkII I rarely if ever needed to shoot wide open....mostly I opted for f/4 or 5.6, and if I ever did I would have the 135 nearby in my shoulder bag and could swap out on those occasions. After I sold the 5D and bought the 100L macro I used it more on my crop body, thereby replacing the need for a 135.

Do you carry both around a lot to have just in case, or do you pretty much know which to grab based on where you are going?

Depending on the activity I'll bring one lens which would cover 90% of the conditions expected, but I'll keep my gear close by in case of an unforeseen situation.

Being an amateur I've bought/sold a lot of gear over the years and have reduced my lens kit considerably, only keeping the bare essentials for my interests, ranging from 24mm to 420mm. They are EF lenses in case I go back to FF......

  • 24-105f/4L IS
  • 100f/2.8L IS
  • 70-200f/4L IS
  • 300f/4L IS
  • 1.4xII TC
      
 Hank3152's gear list:Hank3152's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +5 more
JLim22 Contributing Member • Posts: 501
Your math is wrong...
1

Hank3152 wrote:

I sold the mkII for $2100 and bought a mint, used 6 month old 135f/2 for $800 which made more sense to me since it is an often used range and f/2 made a difference..........and put $1300 back in the bank......

Canon 70-200 MKII = $2199

Canon 70-200 f/4IS ($1149) + Canon 135L ($999) = $2149

From the price perspective, you're not really putting back anything in the bank. Also you can't use used price for the 135L as same can be said for the 70-200MKII. I've seen it as low as 1800 for a used one.

In terms of functionality, there's a reason why Canon makes 4 different versions of the 70-200mm. Just because the 70-200MKII doesn't work for you doesn't mean it shouldn't work for everyone.

I no longer own any 70-200 lens, but if I had the money, I wish I can have the MKII.

Enjoy your lenses!

 JLim22's gear list:JLim22's gear list
Sony a7R II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 28mm F2 Sony FE 35mm F1.4 Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 +2 more
CalBoy87
CalBoy87 Contributing Member • Posts: 991
Re: Is 1 stop worth $1200 to you?

I started with F4 IS originally. I love the sharpness of it and small weight. Than I saw some shots with the new F2.8 IS II and love them. Sold baby brother (that's how they call this lens in Korea) and get it. As nice as the shots, bokeh were, this lens was humongous, at first sight of it, people fled. Also after couple hours of walking make my wrist numb. So, for me yes, it was worth 1200 extra, but the sheer size and weight of it make it hard to use for me. I sold it, got 85/1.8, 135L and 200/2.8. More work, but ultimately smaller and faster those 3 primes make my happy.

007peter
007peter Forum Pro • Posts: 11,867
F2.8 zoom seem okay in camera shop, but after 3hrs of event shooting, the weight

CalBoy87 wrote:

I started with F4 IS originally. I love the sharpness of it and small weight. Than I saw some shots with the new F2.8 IS II and love them. Sold baby brother (that's how they call this lens in Korea) and get it. As nice as the shots, bokeh were, this lens was humongous, at first sight of it, people fled. Also after couple hours of walking make my wrist numb. So, for me yes, it was worth 1200 extra, but the sheer size and weight of it make it hard to use for me. I sold it, got 85/1.8, 135L and 200/2.8. More work, but ultimately smaller and faster those 3 primes make my happy.

I can relate.  When I pickup the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 zoom in the camera store, I said to myself: "weight is reasonable, those DPR weaklings should go work out."  But after shooting with a f/2.8 for an hour, the weight becomes noticeable; after 2hrs, it becomes tiresome.  I return to the camera store and got the F4IS instead.  Lesson Learned.

NancyP Veteran Member • Posts: 5,881
Not in this instance. I have the f/4 L IS version.

If I really need speed, an extra prime could fill the bill for less than the extra $1,200.00.  For instance, I would rather have the 100mm f/2.8 LIS macro plus the f/4 zoom than the f/2.8 zoom alone. If I couldn't stretch the budget to the macro, I could have a very inexpensive 85mm f/1.8.

-- hide signature --

NancyP

 NancyP's gear list:NancyP's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill
Joel Pimenta Forum Member • Posts: 76
Re: Is 1 stop worth $1200 to you?

No, it doesn't worth (IMHO).

My first L lens was a 70-200:4 (non IS). Bought in 2008.

1. Sometimes, I asked myself if "the need of the big jump": 70-200:2.8LIS. Four times the price!

2. Sometimes, I asked myself if "the need of the not so big jump": 70-200:4LIS. two times the price! Not so bad...

3. Stayed with the 70-200:4L (non IS). I like the color and sharp image it delivers. Still can't justify the need of IS and weather sealing of the F4 IS version. And sharper images? Probably. I think my copy is very good.

So I bought the 200:2.8L II. Mine was cheaper than a 70-200:4L (non IS). Shorter and lighter. And discreet (black). And use TC's, also. Bought in 2009.

...half of the price of the 2.8LIS II, and I bought 2 lenses.

...same price of the 2.8LIS II, and I bought 3: added the 100-400LIS(!). Now, I can justify the need of IS, because it's the longest focal lenght I have and it's F:5.6. And has faster focus than any 70-200 (2.8 or 4) with a TC. Even a 100-400L it's lighter than a 70-200:2.8. Bought in 2012.

I decided this way. Probably, some disagreed.

...but I can justify the use of any of these three lenses, between portraits, landscape and sports.

And it's doesn't hurt (in your pocket) so much buying 3 L lenses in 4 years...

Hank3152
OP Hank3152 Forum Pro • Posts: 13,499
Re: Your math is wrong.........not really

JLim22 wrote:

Hank3152 wrote:

I sold the mkII for $2100 and bought a mint, used 6 month old 135f/2 for $800 which made more sense to me since it is an often used range and f/2 made a difference..........and put $1300 back in the bank......

Canon 70-200 MKII = $2199

Canon 70-200 f/4IS ($1149) + Canon 135L ($999) = $2149

From the price perspective, you're not really putting back anything in the bank.

......not really since I kept both 70-200's for over a year for different purposes, the f/4IS for most sports/action and long outings, and the f/2.8II for those situations when I needed the faster lens which was not very often.........so the f/4IS was going to stay and down the road I sold the 135.....

 Hank3152's gear list:Hank3152's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM +5 more
BigBen08 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,912
Well...

The new 500 II has 4 stops, vs 2 stops for the old version. And it's $10,399.

rebel99 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,025
Re: Is 1 stop worth $1200 to you?

Hank3152 wrote:

After having both f/4IS and f/2.8IS II versions of the 70-200 for a year, I decided to keep the former and sell the latter. I finally came to terms after my arms were getting weary from shooting BiF for a few hours realizing a 1 stop advantage for the additional weight wasn't worth the $1200 difference between them.

$1200 or $2400,........is the price difference worth it for the shooting you do?

i have the 70-200 f4 IS and can afford to upgrade to f2.8mkII but i have no desire to do so because the f4IS has on par IQ and optics as f2.8MKII. yes, i'll pay for better optics whatever the difference is but not because it is 1 click faster. in a dim light, that i click faster isn't going to help you much at all, even f1.4 won't be much help!

cheerz.

abi170845 Regular Member • Posts: 348
Re: Is 1 stop worth $1200 to you?

I am with you, there were a number of occasions that I wanted to sell the 70-200mk2. I do have the f4I.S, the 135 f2, 100macro L. The only problem i have with the mk2 is the weight! but when I do use it, it's versatility is priceless. I can go from sunrise landscape shot during twilight and go about town to shoot street photo with great bokeh and the i.s do help when my arm starts to go into spasm! another thing is the 77mm, I usually bring with me on photo trips the 10mmEFS zoom and the 17mmmf2.8 efs zoom in which both has 77mm filters. I found in more than one occasion it is a pain to use a step up ring with the f4 i.s when my other lenses are 77mm and my Cokin X adapter is also 77mm.

 abi170845's gear list:abi170845's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 35mm F2.0 Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II +24 more
jrahadi Regular Member • Posts: 240
I'd rather spend $5000 more - Re: Is 1 stop worth $1200 to you?

I want the 200 vr2 n, and yes i don't need it.

It's not for the iso, the weight, bragging rights etc.

One look at the flickr on the 200 vr2 n, you'll know why I covet that lens.

Unfortunately (or fortunately?) currently i'm not in the position to spend that amount of cash..

Hank3152 wrote:

After having both f/4IS and f/2.8IS II versions of the 70-200 for a year, I decided to keep the former and sell the latter. I finally came to terms after my arms were getting weary from shooting BiF for a few hours realizing a 1 stop advantage for the additional weight wasn't worth the $1200 difference between them.

$1200 or $2400,........is the price difference worth it for the shooting you do?

 jrahadi's gear list:jrahadi's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +2 more
Phil BH Contributing Member • Posts: 594
Re: Yes

ARShutterbug wrote:

The only reason I'd accept an f/4 aperture on a telephoto lens is if it has a focal length longer than 250 mm.  Paying $1,200 for 200 mm f/4 is kind of silly to me, and if I need f/2.8 more often than not, 200 f/4 and 70 f/4 also becomes useless.  I did try to move to the 70-200 f/4 IS, but decided that it didn't do what I needed.

It was worth it to me. I travel extensively and got the f/4 for the size and weight, as well as its performance. The IS lets me handhold a low shutter speeds and, at the time, it was the sharper of the two lenses, but not by much. The new version of the 2.8 is better than the older one, but both are excellent. The f/L IS was one of the best lenses Canon made and still is. I have not been disappointed even after over sis years.

jedinstvo
jedinstvo Senior Member • Posts: 1,914
Once upon a time it was, but not now

Back when I was covering the NBA in the 70s we were pushing Tri-X to 1600 and would have spent $5000 just to gain a third of a stop. Now with digital the ISO ratings are so high that f4 is plenty fast. I do like my 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 lenses....but on the long end I don't need anything faster than f4. Carrying one of those giant, heavy lenses is too much. In fact, I've got an AP staffer buddy who just went on disability because his back went out.

Bernard D Contributing Member • Posts: 700
Re: Is 1 stop worth $1200 to you?

Never owned the f/4, but rented the 70-200 f/2.8 MK1 MANY MANY times, when the MK2 came out, I had enough money to purchase it, I did without hesitation, and I'm glad I did. I use it with my 40D, and now use it with a 1.4x extender MK3, and love the combination, and be able to shoot at f/4 with it.

When I need f/2.8, I know I can take out this lens and do what the f/4 can't, give me one stop more, which for example mean I can keep the ISO to 800 instead of 1600, get a shutter of 1/500 instead of 1/250, the IS on it work perfectly.

The weight doesn't bother me, I own a monopod, which I purchased soon after my first DSLR, and never regretted this purchase.

I went on a trip this past March to Florida, and took the lens on a day at Seaworld, and frankly being able to separate the subjects from the background, especially in some busy/crowded  situation, was priceless, the weight that day also didn't bother me.

Cheers,
Bernard

-- hide signature --

I measure my success in life not by my awards, but by the amount of smiles, hugs and kisses I get from my family on a daily basis !

hong197 Regular Member • Posts: 272
A different perspective on this...

I do not see the cost difference between the two lenses as $1,200. I see the difference more like $200 or $300. How? Because of the resale values of these lenses. The f2.8 II, you can sell for probably around $1,600 even after owning it for 7+ years. And the f4.0, probably around $800 after 7 years. That makes the cost of ownership for the former at $500 and the latter at $250 over 7+ years. That makes the cost difference between those lenses less than $300.

As an example, I bought the f2.8 v.1 for $1,700 7 years ago and just sold it for $1,400. So, even though it would cost a lot more initially to buy the f2.8II, costwise, there isn't as great a difference as we think in the long run...

Richard Veteran Member • Posts: 4,858
Yes, AF is the key

For a 1dmk4 the af is better on the 2.8 lens, not just because of better access to cross sensors but more light comes into the camera to detect focus in low light scenarios. Read below. Also narrower DOF and less noise when shooting in a stadium. I shoot 1600 or 3200 in a stadium low light for fast moving sports. In this situation I would rather have the ability to shoot at ISO 800-1600, more cross sensors, more light for AF and shalower dof.  So yes I own the image stabilized 70-200 2.8 I think BIF is similar when shooting in lower light but if you don't need these things than maybe you can get away with f4.

When used with an f/2.8 or faster lens, and Manual AF point selection, 39 of the AF points will act as cross-type points. The remaining six AF points will act as horizontal –line sensitive only. Cross-type points offer superior focus performance when compared to horizontal-only or vertical-only type AF points.

When AF point selection is Automatic, the number of AF points acting as cross-type will decrease to 19. The remaining 26 will act as horizontal –line sensitive only.

When used with an f/4.0 lens only the centre point will act as a cross-type high-precision type. The remaining 44 points will function as horizontal-line sensitive only. There are five lenses/combinations that are exceptions to this rule though and they are listed below.

  • Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
  • Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
  • Canon EF 200mm f/2.0 IS USM plus Extender EF1.4x II
  • Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM plus Extender EF 1.4x II
  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 IS USM plus Extender EF1.4x II
  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 IS USM plus Extender EF1.4x II

With these lens or lens/extender combinations, 39 AF points will act as cross-type points, and the 6 remaining points will act as horizontal-line sensitive only.

When used with an f/5.6 lens all the AF points will act as horizontal-line sensitive only.

When used with a lens/extender combination with an aperture of f/8.0, only the centre AF point will work as a horizontal-line sensitive point. The remaining 44 AF points will not function for autofocus.

Hank3152 wrote:

After having both f/4IS and f/2.8IS II versions of the 70-200 for a year, I decided to keep the former and sell the latter

Bernard D Contributing Member • Posts: 700
Re: A different perspective on this...

+1 Excellent point in regards to cost down the road !

-- hide signature --

I measure my success in life not by my awards, but by the amount of smiles, hugs and kisses I get from my family on a daily basis !

scorrpio
scorrpio Veteran Member • Posts: 3,595
Re: Is 1 stop worth $1200 to you?

Hank3152 wrote:

tonyjr wrote:

For example - I can put the 2 X III on the 2.8 and have the AF work . Can't on f 4 .

I did and it worked fine on a 1DmkIV...........

Well, was 1D4 worth the extra $$$ over a 5D2 or an older 1D3?

Tho some, extra stop is apparently worth a lot more than $1200.

300mm f/4L IS USM = $1350, 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM  = $6800, that's  $5450 more for 'one stop'

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,085
Re: Is 1 stop worth $1200 to you?

Very nice photo, and a wise decision.
--
Thanks for posting, have a great day.
John

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads