Canon 70-200 Question

nicknack

nicknack

Messages
139
Edit My Images
No
Good Morning folks,

Can someone tell me if the above lens will fit the Canon 60D fine ?

Thanks.
 
Hi, yes that wil fit ok, good lens, enjoy :)
 
nicknack said:
Good Morning folks,

Can someone tell me if the above lens will fit the Canon 60D fine ?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yup, any of the Canon 70-200 range will fit (the F4's or the F2.8's).

Nice lenses as well :)
 
right now i can only afford the NON IS version, maybe i should save my pennies for the IS ?
 
nicknack said:
right now i can only afford the NON IS version, maybe i should save my pennies for the IS ?
Click to expand...

I had the F4 non IS and loved it, only reason I sold it was to upgrade...

If you bought the F4 non IS now, you could sell it on, for a minimal loss if / when you decided to upgrade to the IS version... It's a personal decision and really depends on how quick you can get the money together for the IS version / how quickly you want it / which lens do you really want...
 
andyred said:
I had the F4 non IS and loved it, only reason I sold it was to upgrade...

If you bought the F4 non IS now, you could sell it on, for a minimal loss if / when you decided to upgrade to the IS version... It's a personal decision and really depends on how quick you can get the money together for the IS version / how quickly you want it / which lens do you really want...
Click to expand...
Spot on! I bought mine 3 years ago for £375, which was a good price then, just sold it for £330 as I have moved over to MFT.
I will miss it though, it really is a cracking lens for the money, went with my 40d exceptionally well!
 
i may get a 24-105 for now and then look at a 70-200 IS christmas
 
Last edited:
The IS is regarded as slightly sharper and has the advantage of being "sealed" back and front, although I don't think your current body will be as "sealed", you never know you might get a second pro body at some point, so it's worth bearing that in mind.

Matt
 
Corker of a lens! I use the non-IS as it will add nothing to sports shooting at 1/800s but may grab the 2.8 one day...
 
I have the 2.8 IS mk 1 version. Loved it from day 1. Looking at upgrading to the mk 2 but it happens to be on a long list of 'I wants'
 
I bought the f4 non IS version just yesterday for my 70D and I am truly thrilled with it... I got it secondhand for 350 GBP and it seems to be as mint as a used lens can be, with not a mark on the body or optics. It is by far my shapest lens and is simply a joy to use, working perfectly with the 70D.... I cant wait to get out with it to give it a real workout... the only downside is I now crave more L glass :D
 
Ok folks the question is this....do I

A : buy the non IS 70-200
B : buy 24-105

Then when I have enough sell whichever to buy the IS 70-200?

I like landscape and portraiture and currently have a sigma 10-20 and canon 85 1.8
Iam thinking I may not get as much use out if a 24-105 where as the 70-200 will shoot some sports and event stuff I would like to do....thoughts please.

Thanks.
 
The telephotos are nicely suited to the crop sensors too I find. I'd go for the 70-200 over the 24-105 presuming you already have a kit lens or such in that range?
 
70-200, definitely (y)
 
I have a 10-20 as I like landscape stuff and also 85mm 1.8 for portraits and a 50 1.8. I don't have a kit lens...
 
nicknack said:
Ok folks the question is this....do I

A : buy the non IS 70-200
B : buy 24-105

Then when I have enough sell whichever to buy the IS 70-200?

I like landscape and portraiture and currently have a sigma 10-20 and canon 85 1.8
Iam thinking I may not get as much use out if a 24-105 where as the 70-200 will shoot some sports and event stuff I would like to do....thoughts please.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Which do you want 1st !!!!

Both are very good lenses. Which do you think you might use more in the next 6 months ?

I had as I said the 70-200 non IS initially and never had a problem with sharpness and didn't miss the IS the vast majority if times. Certainly for sports when panning if switch it off anyway. Also depending what you are shooting sports wise, you may want to capture the moment, so a high shutter speed would be used ...

The other way to look at it, with your current line up, do you miss / crave the 20-85mm range (up to 105mm really) - as this could help swing which way you go now.

Hope this helps some more...
 
Thats a good price! Just watch out for the manufacture year! just recently purchased the 70-200 non is and i think my only upgrade would be to the 2.8! I was very particular on the date code as there was a lot going around that were 10+ years old.
 
Well there's a lot of moving parts that can show signs of wear.
I've seen several that have very loose zoom and focus rings, but still work perfectly.
One I saw at Oulton Park that looked liked it was only fit for the bin, hardly any paint on it at all and the hood was taped on.
'No one will nick it though' the guy said!
Depends how the OP wants it to look, a newer one will probably look better.
 
I did not consider the age when buying mine, which is a bit of an oversight. It seems mine is a 2009 build, but fortunately it does seem in great shape, with zoom and focus rings still feeling tight and smooth, with no play... and no dust on the internal elements. I guess for most people these will not be day-to-day lenses, and therefore will see less use and wear than other focal ranges, which means the chance of getting a good one is high.
 
Mark Abdey said:
I did not consider the age when buying mine, which is a bit of an oversight. It seems mine is a 2009 build, but fortunately it does seem in great shape, with zoom and focus rings still feeling tight and smooth, with no play... and no dust on the internal elements. I guess for most people these will not be day-to-day lenses, and therefore will see less use and wear than other focal ranges, which means the chance of getting a good one is high.
Click to expand...
Well I dont know about anyone else, but mine was hardly ever off my 40d. It was attached In the backpack and only changed for the 10-20 siggy when needed for wider landscape shots (I mostly took it hiking, which is why I changed to micro 4/3, the weight you see!) I loved the way the 70-200 'squeezed' the long landscape images.
 
wontolla said:
I loved the way the 70-200 'squeezed' the long landscape images.
Click to expand...

This is precisely why I bought mine... I love the effect of compressing distance with landscape, though it not the first thing most think of when you say 'I shoot landscapes'... I love the graphic, semi abstract affect you can get by isolating small areas.


And I could well be wrong about the amount of use they get... it will not be the case with me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top