EF70-200 f/2.8L IS ll refurbished @ Canon for $1699.20 & I'm screwed

[infared]

The MkII is a wonderful lens, I doubt you'll regret it.  If anything, you'll be selling the f/4 version.  Personally, I can see the utility of having the 70-200 II, and the 70-300L for travel. The latter made the 70-200/4 IS less interesting, to me.

Originally had the 70-200 F2.8 and then added F4 for travel (both IS).  Then I heard about the 70-300 and reluctantly took the plunge.  THinking of selling the F4 IS but it is a great lens.  Hard to decide which to let go.

I know I need to get on the 12 step problem, at least I know I have a problem - it is called GAS.

My advise is to eat Beano before each lens purchase...and you should be just F.I.N.E.

[mrsfotografie]

Well this zoom may be a reprieve for my ef1.4xll. I have never been too happy with the results with it on any of my lenses and was going to unload it. I've read that the 2.8 plays very well with extenders, so it may have a new lease on life. As an aside, I ordered that lens at 9:22 this morning and it STILL hasn't shipped. Why is Canon always so slow?

That's correct, I have my 1.4 II on it a lot of the time and the results are excellent. Mind you that's on my 7D. According to this http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx, the 1.4 II may actually do a better job with this lens on a crop body than a 1.4 III. Check out the ISO 12233 Crops.

For serious wildlife photography, I usually recommend a longer focal length lens such as the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens. But, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II will work great if the subject is relatively close and/or large. When paired with the Canon Extender EF 1.4x II on a Canon APS-C/1.6x body, this lens works especially well for this purpose.

[jcatterino]

Well I just bought one of these from Canon and now I will feel guilty (at least until I do some shooting with it). You see, the problem is I already have the most excellent f/4 IS version and so do not really need this monster. So I have convinced myself that this purchase was an investment, so I should be able to sell it for not too much loss if I should so choose. Fine. The problem is that I am afraid that I wont want to sell my f/4 due to size/weight etc. and will have two 70-200 zooms, which seems more than just a little silly. I am hoping that, after seeing the magic that comes from the 2.8, I will willingly part with my little girlyman zoom, but I think that in reality I am screwed...

I am in the same boat!! Bought one yesterday morning also!! I  am going to sell my 70-200 F4 IS that I bought 4 months ago....This is one expensive hobby. I have purchased a 24-70mm 2.8 MKI, 135mm F2L, 100mm IS F2.8 Macro, 35mm F1.4L, 1.4x Kenco and 2X III teleconvertors and now the 70-200mm IS 2.8 IS  in less than 4 months...just for vacation shots and family photos.. explain that one to your wife (That's after buying the 5D MKIII for my Christmas gift to myself..lol)

[RS2021]

Well I just bought one of these from Canon and now I will feel guilty (at least until I do some shooting with it). You see, the problem is I already have the most excellent f/4 IS version and so do not really need this monster. So I have convinced myself that this purchase was an investment, so I should be able to sell it for not too much loss if I should so choose. Fine. The problem is that I am afraid that I wont want to sell my f/4 due to size/weight etc. and will have two 70-200 zooms, which seems more than just a little silly. I am hoping that, after seeing the magic that comes from the 2.8, I will willingly part with my little girlyman zoom, but I think that in reality I am screwed...

I am in the same boat!! Bought one yesterday morning also!! I  am going to sell my 70-200 F4 IS that I bought 4 months ago....This is one expensive hobby. I have purchased a 24-70mm 2.8 MKI, 135mm F2L, 100mm IS F2.8 Macro, 35mm F1.4L, 1.4x Kenco and 2X III teleconvertors and now the 70-200mm IS 2.8 IS  in less than 4 months...just for vacation shots and family photos.. explain that one to your wife (That's after buying the 5D MKIII for my Christmas gift to myself..lol)

At some point you get to know your style "exactly" and you cherish the lenses that fit that style...It takes a while to get there. It is always great to be at that zen point where realization occurs that "one of each" lens and genre is not necessary...but by the time we get to that point...we frequently have, not one, but many of each.

[RLPhoto]

The 70-200II is the best 70-200mm available from canon, and its fantastic. Too heavy for my tastes, but you may want to sell the 70-200F4L for the smaller 135L prime to complement the new big white shark.

[brad-man]

Well I just bought one of these from Canon and now I will feel guilty (at least until I do some shooting with it). You see, the problem is I already have the most excellent f/4 IS version and so do not really need this monster. So I have convinced myself that this purchase was an investment, so I should be able to sell it for not too much loss if I should so choose. Fine. The problem is that I am afraid that I wont want to sell my f/4 due to size/weight etc. and will have two 70-200 zooms, which seems more than just a little silly. I am hoping that, after seeing the magic that comes from the 2.8, I will willingly part with my little girlyman zoom, but I think that in reality I am screwed...

I am in the same boat!! Bought one yesterday morning also!! I  am going to sell my 70-200 F4 IS that I bought 4 months ago....This is one expensive hobby. I have purchased a 24-70mm 2.8 MKI, 135mm F2L, 100mm IS F2.8 Macro, 35mm F1.4L, 1.4x Kenco and 2X III teleconvertors and now the 70-200mm IS 2.8 IS  in less than 4 months...just for vacation shots and family photos.. explain that one to your wife (That's after buying the 5D MKIII for my Christmas gift to myself..lol)

I have the 100-400L which is about the same size/weight of the 2.8, so I know what it's like carrying a tree stump around all day. When you need to, you need to. But often I head out with my Think Tank Retro 5 stuffed with my 5Dmkll + SP24-70VC + either 17-40L or 70-200L with no particular photographic mission in mind. I just like to have my stuff. I don't think I'm likely to do that with the 2.8L. So I'm screwed in that I think I will "need" to keep my f/4 for such trips as well as when "traveling light."

On a positive note, I just got the shipping label from Canon so my new heavy toy should ship tomorrow, yipee!

[brad-man]

The 70-200II is the best 70-200mm available from canon, and its fantastic. Too heavy for my tastes, but you may want to sell the 70-200F4L for the smaller 135L prime to complement the new big white shark.

At this last refurb sale Canon had, I almost grabbed one for $711. In the end, due to the lack of IS, I just didn't feel I'd get enough use out of it to justify the purchase. A lens is a terrible thing to waste...

[jcatterino]

Is it me or does it seem funny that there were NO 70-200 available(I hear a couple people got them if they had them saved in their wish list) the whole time they were 20% off but a couple weeks later and 15 % off and there seems many have been available?? Not that I am complaining since I bought one this time...lol

[brad-man]

Is it me or does it seem funny that there were NO 70-200 available(I hear a couple people got them if they had them saved in their wish list) the whole time they were 20% off but a couple weeks later and 15 % off and there seems many have been available?? Not that I am complaining since I bought one this time...lol

You are correct. There were none available during the first sale, just as there were no 5Dmkllls either. Canon then offered 15% off the 70-200 and the mklll sold for something like $2367.

[mrsfotografie]

I have the 100-400L which is about the same size/weight of the 2.8, so I know what it's like carrying a tree stump around all day. When you need to, you need to. But often I head out with my Think Tank Retro 5 stuffed with my 5Dmkll + SP24-70VC + either 17-40L or 70-200L with no particular photographic mission in mind. I just like to have my stuff. I don't think I'm likely to do that with the 2.8L. So I'm screwed in that I think I will "need" to keep my f/4 for such trips as well as when "traveling light."

On a positive note, I just got the shipping label from Canon so my new heavy toy should ship tomorrow, yipee!

I find the 100-400 is (a lot) easier to carry, esp with a tele converter! I very often have the 1.4TC on the 70-200 so here are the weights:

70-200 IS II : 1490 grams
100-400 : 1380 grams
70-200 IS II + 1.4 II (=98-280 f/4) : 1710 grams

Also, the 70-200 seems a lot more front-heavy than the 100-400, this gets worse obviously if you add the TC. The 100-400 gets long when you point it at (fast) things far-away which makes it easier to 'aim'.

This is why I prefer the 100-400 on sunny days when I need the extra reach, but I will live with the extra weight of the 70-200x1.4 when I need f/4

[Grumbaki]

Photog are one of the types of geek that can be buff and tanned. Take advatage of it. Sell the f4, use the f2.8 work out.