70-200/2.8 IS II - wrong lens for me?

[Mitch.Conner]

I've noticed that when I use my 70-200/2.8 IS II, I almost exclusively use it at 70mm or 200mm. I'm wondering if maybe it might be worthwhile to save up and eventually sell it to be replaced with 2 primes, the 85/1.2L and 200/2L.

Would this be a mistake?

 

[meywd]

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and while my shots are across the full focal range, I think that if you can afford the 200 f/2.0 and the 85 f/1.2 then go for it, because although its a great lens, its there as a convenient and a less costly replacement of those.

 

[Random Orbits]

Probably not. The 85L II is a great portrait lens. Not great for things on the move especially if you don't have a 1-series body. 70-200 is much more useful and it weighs a lot less.

 

[candc]

using a zoom mostly at both ends is pretty common. its still one lens instead of two.

 

[Ruined]

I've noticed that when I use my 70-200/2.8 IS II, I almost exclusively use it at 70mm or 200mm. I'm wondering if maybe it might be worthwhile to save up and eventually sell it to be replaced with 2 primes, the 85/1.2L and 200/2L.

Would this be a mistake?

If you shoot exclusively portraits the two primes is a good idea.

If you shoot anything else like events, action, sports I would stick with the 70-200.

 

[Dylan777]

If you shoot with two bodies, 35+85 indoor tight space or gym size 50+200, then it's hard to beat primes IQ.

I used to own 24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II on two bodies, missing shot is almost impossible.

 

[Mitch.Conner]

using a zoom mostly at both ends is pretty common. its still one lens instead of two.

Is it? I feel weird looking through the metadata for my photos and realizing that, of shots taken with that lens, almost none are at focal lengths in between the ends stops of it.

 

[Policar]

using a zoom mostly at both ends is pretty common. its still one lens instead of two.

Is it? I feel weird looking through the metadata for my photos and realizing that, of shots taken with that lens, almost none are at focal lengths in between the ends stops of it.

Do you shoot events?

If so, the IS and ease of switching focal lengths makes the 70-200mm the clear choice. The image quality isn't your concern, it's your clients', and apparently they've been more than pleased thus far.

Or do you shoot portraits or for personal work? In that case, just get what you want. I'm a poor and very inexperienced photographer so the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS still wows me despite its obvious limits, but when I switch to an 85mm f1.4 (I haven't tried the f1.2) I get nicer background separation and similar sharpness, and I only own a 200mm f2 AI Nikkor in "user" condition, but it is magic, with a much more captivating look on my 5D III than the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS, which is relatively clinical. The 200mm f2 IS Canon is my dream lens.

You've answered your own question. You've outgrown the gear you have. So move on. Those who claim you should do otherwise still haven't outgrown it (as I haven't yet).

That said, "zoom with your feet" isn't just a dumb adage. Obviously I have a given focal length in mind for each photo I take, though I'll cheat with a zoom a few mm here or there to get the framing right. But I, too, find 50mm, 135mm, and 200mm to be the most useful fields of view, and will often default to 70mm anyway.