Out with the old in with the new - advice please

[khani]

Hi all, this is my first post so I would like to start by saying a big HELLO to everyone

I have recently purcahsed a mkII 5D with 24-105 lens. I also own a 30d and 40d. I wish to keep the 40d as a backup camera and sell the 30d along with some lenses which I dont use much.

I shoot weddings and portraits and have found my new lens (24-105 L) is great as a general work horse. I do however wish to purchase the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM L lens for more candid stuff and low light situations and use these two lenses for most if not all of my wedding work.

Here are my questions;

1) How have you guys found the canon 70-200 IS USM L lens in terms of optical quality and low light performance and was it worth the hefty price tag compared to other lens from tamron and sigma?

2) Which lenses would you hold on to from my list below and why? I have put my choices and why.

My Canon Lenses:
17-85 EFS IS USM (5.6) - Out, only works on crop sensor camera
70-200 EF (5.6) - Out, wouldnt need it if I bought the 2.8l is USM
80-200 EF (5.6) = Out, same as above
70-300 EF IS USM (5.6) - Poss Keep?, extra 100mm
10-22 EFS USM (4.5) - Poss Keep? only usable on the 40d but super wide
35-80 EF (5.6) - Out - my 5d kit lens covers this
50 EF (1.4) - Poss Keep? - cheap, f1.4, great little lens

I know its a bit of a read but your advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance

Khani

 

[pearce_jj]

How about getting shot of the 70-300 as well and getting a 1.4x TC instead for use with the 70-200?

 

[snowy]

Hi Khani and welcome to the TP forums

The 70-200/2.8 L IS is generally considered one of the best lenses of its type by any manufacturer, so yes it's a good lens and yes it's worth the money! Bear in mind it's a lot heavier than any of the lenses on your list, so you might want to play with one before committing to make sure it's something you want to carry around. You could do a lot worse than hiring one for your next wedding and seeing how you get along with it. If you can cope with the weight, I'd expect it and the 24-105 to make a good two-lenses on two-bodies kit that would be quick to use and give excellent results.

I'd agree with pearce_jj's suggestion of getting rid of the 70-300 if you go for the 70-200/2.8. And I also agree with your other Outs. Definitely keep the 50/1.4 as it will be a very useful low-light lens, and the 10-22 is such a peach on the crop bodies I'd keep that as well.

 

[Strolls]

Clearly neither pearce_jj or snowy are 70-300 IS owners, otherwise they'd realise how hard it would be to bring oneself to part with this lens!!

There are 3 other threads on Canon's 70-200mm L lenses in the last fortnight. Suggest you have a look at them, although I haven't seen many comments in the way of Tamron & Stigma comparisons (possibly because the Canons are all so good .

Stroller.

 

[snowy]

Clearly neither pearce_jj or snowy are 70-300 IS owners, otherwise they'd realise how hard it would be to bring oneself to part with this lens!!

Yes you're correct from my point of view I don't have any non-L zooms, so maybe I've missed a gem in the 70-300 IS. :shrug:

There are 3 other threads on Canon's 70-200mm L lenses in the last fortnight. Suggest you have a look at them, although I haven't seen many comments in the way of Tamron & Stigma comparisons (possibly because the Canons are all so good .

I've read that the Tamron and Sigma are both optically very good - maybe not quite up there with the Canon but not far off. But mechanically and AF speed, the Canon beats them hands down.

 

[fletch5]

i would cut it down to the
40d, 5d mk11
the 70-300 IS (for longer shots and a backup to the 70-200 your getting
the 24-105
the 17-85 as a backup in case your 24-105 fails(until you can get something better)
50MM 1.4(as said cheap and good low light lens for when needed)

or sell it all except the 50mm 1.4 and buy a 70-200 f2.8IS, 24-70 f2.8

the sigma 70-200 is comparable to the IQ on the canon versions, but doesnt have IS and a bit slower to focus.

 

[khani]

thanks for the advice all. I have tried out the 70-200 f2.8L today and while it is really heavy compared to my other lenses I found the optical quality, IS and focus speed to be awesome. I think I will get rid of the 70-300 and the rest bar the 10-22 and 50mm. that will give us a few bob in the pocket which will go a short way in funding in the 70-200L...expensive but I think it will be worth it in the long run.

 

[Strolls]

After reading this thread last night I realised that if I sell my 70-300mm IS, my 80mm f/1.8 and my spare RRS ballhead I'll be well on the way to a 70-200mm f/2.8, which I've been lusting after the last couple of weeks.

If I do so, I'll have to experience the very difficulty I wrote about above - I love the 70-300mm IS, but I don't see how I can argue with the extra stops (nor with a range I'll probably find more useful; Canon Lens Work says that I can use TCs with the 70-200mm, too).

Weird how I mentioned this dilemma, and then so shortly afterwards suddenly become the victim of it.

 

[snowy]

After reading this thread last night I realised that if I sell my 70-300mm IS, my 80mm f/1.8 and my spare RRS ballhead I'll be well on the way to a 70-200mm f/2.8, which I've been lusting after the last couple of weeks.

If I do so, I'll have to experience the very difficulty I wrote about above - I love the 70-300mm IS, but I don't see how I can argue with the extra stops (nor with a range I'll probably find more useful; Canon Lens Work says that I can use TCs with the 70-200mm, too).

Weird how I mentioned this dilemma, and then so shortly afterwards suddenly become the victim of it.

"And so the vortex sucks in another victim..." <fx: Evil laugh>


Sorry, I'll get my coat.

 

[khani]

After reading this thread last night I realised that if I sell my 70-300mm IS, my 80mm f/1.8 and my spare RRS ballhead I'll be well on the way to a 70-200mm f/2.8, which I've been lusting after the last couple of weeks.

If I do so, I'll have to experience the very difficulty I wrote about above - I love the 70-300mm IS, but I don't see how I can argue with the extra stops (nor with a range I'll probably find more useful; Canon Lens Work says that I can use TCs with the 70-200mm, too).

Weird how I mentioned this dilemma, and then so shortly afterwards suddenly become the victim of it.

What do you think the 70-300 is usm should fetch? considering a mint example like new probably used all of 30times with original packaging and seperatley purhcased lens hood (shame on you canon :nono

 

[Strolls]

What do you think the 70-300 is usm should fetch? considering a mint example like new probably used all of 30times with original packaging and seperatley purchased lens hood (shame on you canon :nono

One went in the classifieds here recently for £320 plus p&p, another is listed at the moment for £340. The first one includes original box & (the very slim) manual, the second one doesn't, but looks in very good condition. Neither had a hood.

Stroller.