Silly question regarding 70-200 L lenses

shogran

shogran

Messages
560
Name
Josh
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys,

Silly question about prices of the Canon 70-200 L lens, I have seen them on the bay from 460ish up to 899ish, my question is why the large difference? It is based on condition, or age or something else altogether?

Cheers

Josh
 
Don't forget there is an f4 as well as f2.8, is and non-is.
 
That's cleared it up, thanks guys. Can't decide between a decent, sharp L lens, or a new body as I still have a 450D...
 
The 450D is a very capable camera, and a 70-200 will still work very nicely on it! No point getting a great body if you can't put a nice lens on the front and get the most of it!

Chris
 
There's the f/4 non-IS and IS, as well as the f/2.8 non-IS and IS and the new f/2.8 IS MkII, prices range from around £500 for the f/4 non-IS to £1800 for the f/2.8 IS MkII
 
shogran said:
That's cleared it up, thanks guys. Can't decide between a decent, sharp L lens, or a new body as I still have a 450D...
Click to expand...

Go for the L lens first - you will see a bigger jump in quality than changing bodies. Then when you have a decent clutch of good glass, get a the new body.
 
Go for the glass first! I'm looking around at the 70-200's aswell
 
Aren't you a helpful bunch! (y) Really appreciate it, anyone any experience with the 35-350 L ? Seems to cover larger focal range, any loss of quality?
 
I have got a 70-200 f4 L and could not believe the difference in picture quality going from a kit lens. Cost more but I would agree with what a lot of people say on here that glass is everything. Use mine on a 40D body by the way.
 
shogran said:
any experience with the 35-350 L ? Seems to cover larger focal range, any loss of quality?
Click to expand...

It weighs a tone, is slow and soft. 17-40 + 70-200 f/4 + 1.4x combo is better value, sharper faster and lighter
 
I have the 70-200 f4 L, wow what a lens, this was my first 'L' and what a difference in quality compared to my other standard Canon lenses. If you get one you won't regret it!
 
philshep said:
I have the 70-200 f4 L, wow what a lens, this was my first 'L' and what a difference in quality compared to my other standard Canon lenses. If you get one you won't regret it!
Click to expand...

I agree. I bought the F4 non IS. I expected it to struggle being the bottom end of the range, but it's been great. I'm using it on the ageing 30D, and haven't had any problems with it. I used it recently with a Kenko x2 extender to take a photo of the 'super moon' and it did a good job of that too.

I'd definitely recommend one if saving for the 2.8 version is not an option.
 
Another thumbs up for the F4 version, really impressed with it on my 40d, upgraded from a sigma 70-300. I got a 2nd hand from the classified on here and figured that if I wanted to move up to either the IS version or F2.8 it would be an easy trade up, or maybe the 1.4tc, decision decisions.
 
I bought the 70-200 f2.8 L non IS, great quality well worth the money.
 
I ended up going for the 2.8 IS MkI (MkII wasn't around then.
Beautiful lens, but HEAVY.
 
Another vote for upgrading the lens first, you're camera is absolutely fine!

I went for a 70-200 f4 L while I still had my 400D and it's a great lens - I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't upgrade to the IS version now that I've experienced it on other lenses.
 
Jazzmonkey said:
I have got a 70-200 f4 L and could not believe the difference in picture quality going from a kit lens. Cost more but I would agree with what a lot of people say on here that glass is everything. Use mine on a 40D body by the way.
Click to expand...



philshep said:
I have the 70-200 f4 L, wow what a lens, this was my first 'L' and what a difference in quality compared to my other standard Canon lenses. If you get one you won't regret it!
Click to expand...

... i just wanted to ask guys, im hearing a lot of "you need to get the one with IS..".. do you feel that your getting good results hand held with the non-is model?
 
Photogo! said:
... i just wanted to ask guys, im hearing a lot of "you need to get the one with IS..".. do you feel that your getting good results hand held with the non-is model?
Click to expand...

Depends on your usage. For moving subjects IS isnt going to help, and as with any lens the results will be fine if you keep the shutter speed high enough.

I've got a non-IS which produces great results hand held, and I dont feel the need for IS (I mainly use this for moving subjects) but if you want to use slower shutter speeds with static subjects IS may be something you want.
 
Photogo! said:
... i just wanted to ask guys, im hearing a lot of "you need to get the one with IS..".. do you feel that your getting good results hand held with the non-is model?
Click to expand...

I am getting good results with mine and the lack of IS isn't a problem at all. Will probably upgrade to a 2.8 IS at some stage but till funds allow I am more than happy with this lens,as is echoed by all the other users on this thread.
 
Jazzmonkey said:
I am getting good results with mine and the lack of IS isn't a problem at all. Will probably upgrade to a 2.8 IS at some stage but till funds allow I am more than happy with this lens,as is echoed by all the other users on this thread.
Click to expand...

I agree, just depends on what you're shooting
 
philshep said:
I have the 70-200 f4 L, wow what a lens, this was my first 'L' and what a difference in quality compared to my other standard Canon lenses. If you get one you won't regret it!
Click to expand...

^ what he said!

I've only just upgraded my body to a 7D, now that I'm happy with my lens line-up of 17-50mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 & 70-200mm f4L

The 400D is a back-up now :LOL:
 
J.D. said:
Depends on your usage. For moving subjects IS isnt going to help, and as with any lens the results will be fine if you keep the shutter speed high enough.

I've got a non-IS which produces great results hand held, and I dont feel the need for IS (I mainly use this for moving subjects) but if you want to use slower shutter speeds with static subjects IS may be something you want.
Click to expand...

The IS version is also sharper, weather-sealed and has circular aperture blades.
 
Vertigo1 said:
The IS version is also sharper, weather-sealed and has circular aperture blades.
Click to expand...

The IS version is often said to be sharper, but my non-IS certainly isnt soft. When choosing between to two, sharpness wouldnt be my 1st priority, particularly as the IS is twice the price - quite a lot to pay just for sharpness if the IS isnt something you need. Personally, I'd base my decision on the need for IS and weather sealing.
 
my first L glass F4 70-200 non IS and its a cracker of a lens, if you keep your eyes peeled they come up in classified sometimes, £400 ish and less some times (y)

IS or not, well an honest answer from me if i could afford IS then that is the option i would take as i think it can do nothing but add to your chances of getting the shot.

The IS one some of mentioned to be sharper :shrug: is that because of the IS? :shrug:
 
I love my non-IS f4... It's a great lens. IS would be nice but for twice the price it's not vital. A steady hand and fast shutter speeds mean there's no difference between the two versions for most uses... The IS is handy if you want slow shutter speeds but if it's just to hit an exposure in low light then a lot of newer dslr's have much better high-ISO abilities so you can get even more out of the non-IS lens.
 
That answered my little question.. many thanks! didnt know about the difference in weather sealing either. id use this mainly for out and about people and places shots.. so perhaps the is isnt absolutely necessary after all
 
I owned a f/2.8 MKI 70-200. The Best lens I owned in terms of IQ and I can't say I found the lack of IS that much of a problem for my needs at the time, although I can see it helping for certain situations massively. I hated the size and weight which was the main reason for selling. I also hated the attention it got being a long white L. If I bought again I would go 3rd party mainly to keep it black, and probably something smaller. The 70-200 f4 non IS is a good compromise on exceptional IQ and light/small enough, but f/2.8 throughout the range is so desirable for me.
 
I own the 70-200 non is and I love it its the lens that is on my camera the most by far and all I can say is I agree with all the above lol
 
jambobowron said:
do you have the f4 and if so, is it quick enough in 'dusky' conditions? especially without the IS as well, thats my only worry about if before getting one..
Click to expand...

I've got the f4 non-IS - it's absolutely fine!
I've used mine in low-light for gigs and things like that, the IS would be nice but it's not essential. 'dusky' conditions would be no problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top