Keep my 70-200 f/4 IS?

[Random Orbits]

I have the Big Daddy (70-200F2.8 L II) and got the F4 IS L because I wanted something lighter.

Found that I needed extra reach so I opted forthe 70-300L. Now I have 3 lenses with similar range.

I propose to keep the 70-200F2.8 (very sharp, F2.8) and the 70-300 (lighter and greater range).

If so, I'll sell the 70-200 F4 IS. Thoughts?

70-200 II + 70-300L is what I ended up with, and that combination has worked out well for me. For sports and portraiture, 70-200 II. For travel and zoos, 70-300L. The biggest advantage of the 70-300L for me is its compact size. Standing it up, I can use one lens slot in the bag as opposed to the equivalent of two slots for the 70-200L II. You'd lose fractional stops to the 70-200 f/4 IS, but if light is that much of a concern, the 70-200 II is a better choice anyway.

 

[Dylan777]

You can step down from f2.8 to smaller f-stops. To me, I think you should sell it and use that money for other gear

 

[scottkinfw]

I have both. I love the smaller zoom- lighter, easier to carry, excellent iq. I use both. Plus, always have a back-up in case of a problem.

If you need the money, sell it. If you are fine for money, it is a great lens to have and use.

 

[mackguyver]

After using the f/2.8 for a couple of weeks, I decided to the sell the f/4. The IS is noticeably better and for me, having f/2.8 as an option makes it much more versatile for me. I would typically bring the f/4 to my event and wildlife work, but would also have to bring my faster prime lenses, whereas now I can just bring one lens. So the smaller lens actually ended up taking up more room and being heavier because of the need to bring my 135 and other lenses with it.

If I was just interested in landscape or travel photography, the f/4 (along with the 17-40 and 240-105) would do me fine, but for the work I do, the f/2.8 seems to be the lens I've been missing!

 

[Dylan777]

After using the f/2.8 for a couple of weeks, I decided to the sell the f/4. The IS is noticeably better and for me, having f/2.8 as an option makes it much more versatile for me. I would typically bring the f/4 to my event and wildlife work, but would also have to bring my faster prime lenses, whereas now I can just bring one lens. So the smaller lens actually ended up taking up more room and being heavier because of the need to bring my 135 and other lenses with it.

If I was just interested in landscape or travel photography, the f/4 (along with the 17-40 and 240-105) would do me fine, but for the work I do, the f/2.8 seems to be the lens I've been missing!

For me, selling f4 is a right choice.

Just don't ask this same question when you ready for 24-70 f2.8 II. I'm sure you know what to do with your 24-105 ;D

 

[mackguyver]

Just don't ask this same question when you ready for 24-70 f2.8 II. I'm sure you know what to do with your 24-105 ;D

Funny you should say that - I actually have the original 24-70 f/2.8, and the 16-35 f/2.8 II. So far I'm hanging on to the old 24-70. The improvements from f/8-f/11 don't impress me enough to pay the price to upgrade - at least while it's that much. Besides, I have the 24 f/1.4 II, 50 f/1.2, and 85 f/1.2 II if I want to shoot anything wide open or anywhere near 2.8.

Point taken, though!