Which 70-200?

[dorkloltroll]

Hello everyone!
My daily gear currently consists of a 17-40, 24-105, and 70-200/4L (NO IS) on a 5D3 (2nd on its way).
I'm currently thinking about ugrading the 70-200, since it's by far the least used lens, because of both the lack of IS and the slow f4 aperture.
So I'm looking to buy a used 70-200/2.8 IS but I'm not sure whether I'd go for the version II(used 1800€++) or if the version I is enough(I can pick one up for just over 1300€)!?
Any experience?

I'm a wide-angle guy so I don't expect to use it all the time and my funds are limited too, with the recent upgrade of my 2nd body to another 5D3, so a new mark II is out of the question.

Is it worth to spend (at least) 500€ more for the mark II or is the mark I good enough? (=Will my clients be able to tell the difference?) And can I expect the mark Is price to remain the same for say, the next year or two? I bought my f4L used for 450€ and I already have a buyer who's ready to pay me the same amount.

Thank you very much in advance!

 

[eddiemrg]

All of them are amazing lenses!
I had the 2.8 non-is (a friend borrowed it) and I am going for the f4 is becouse of it is lighter and f4 is is Hood forma my use.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

I guess I'm just a little slow - you've got the f.4 "trinity", are getting a second full frame body, and you want to
upgrade the lens you use the least? Why? If you absolutely have to spend another 1300-1500 Euros, fine, but
I think your planning is a little weird. Why not upgrade the 17-40 to either the 16-35is (or wait for the new wider, longer model the rumor sites tell us is due in less than a month) or the mid-range for the 24-70 f2.8? It seems to me you'd get more "bang for the buck" with either of these choices than upgrading the lens you use least.
If you have to get faster, longer lenses, consider upgrading to two beautiful primes, the 135L and/or the 200L.
You run the risk of finding out prime lenses are a bit more challenging photographically than the zooms, but they
do provide wonderful images. You might even pick just one of these and "upgrade" to the 70-200 IS f4.0 version
since lens speed hasn't seemed to be a problem with your other focal lengths.

 

[RGF]

I guess I'm just a little slow - you've got the f.4 "trinity", are getting a second full frame body, and you want to
upgrade the lens you use the least? Why? If you absolutely have to spend another 1300-1500 Euros, fine, but
I think your planning is a little weird. Why not upgrade the 17-40 to either the 16-35is (or wait for the new wider, longer model the rumor sites tell us is due in less than a month) or the mid-range for the 24-70 f2.8? It seems to me you'd get more "bang for the buck" with either of these choices than upgrading the lens you use least.
If you have to get faster, longer lenses, consider upgrading to two beautiful primes, the 135L and/or the 200L.
You run the risk of finding out prime lenses are a bit more challenging photographically than the zooms, but they
do provide wonderful images. You might even pick just one of these and "upgrade" to the 70-200 IS f4.0 version
since lens speed hasn't seemed to be a problem with your other focal lengths.

You have the F4 trinity and you are a wide angle guy. Spend $ where your passion is - WA. The 70-200 F4 is a good lens. Unless you need (or covet) a great lens, enjoy it. If you want better, go all the way to 70-200 F2.8 II IS

 

[sunnyVan]

I guess I'm just a little slow - you've got the f.4 "trinity", are getting a second full frame body, and you want to
upgrade the lens you use the least? Why? If you absolutely have to spend another 1300-1500 Euros, fine, but
I think your planning is a little weird. Why not upgrade the 17-40 to either the 16-35is (or wait for the new wider, longer model the rumor sites tell us is due in less than a month) or the mid-range for the 24-70 f2.8? It seems to me you'd get more "bang for the buck" with either of these choices than upgrading the lens you use least.
If you have to get faster, longer lenses, consider upgrading to two beautiful primes, the 135L and/or the 200L.
You run the risk of finding out prime lenses are a bit more challenging photographically than the zooms, but they
do provide wonderful images. You might even pick just one of these and "upgrade" to the 70-200 IS f4.0 version
since lens speed hasn't seemed to be a problem with your other focal lengths.

Can't agree more.

I've heard that version ii is a substantial upgrade. Version I has quite a few flaws. F4 IS should be adequate under most circumstances. It is incredibly sharp.

The 135L is absolutely stunning. I actually use it more frequently than my 70-200 f4 is.

 

[mwh1964]

Either will satisfy your needs. The 70-200 f2.8 II IS is a very good lens. But also heavy. If you don't need that extra stop in your photography I suggest staying with the f4 IS version or the very capable 70-300 L, which excels also in relatively light weight and short dimensions. As indicated by my signature I have both the 70-200 f2.8 and the 70-300L. I use them both but I do seem to use the latter more as it is much more convenient to bring along. For fast the 2.8 obviously is it. In the end they are for different use which is why I got both. Should I sell one I would probably let the 2.8 go. But that just reflects my needs. I also tried out the 135L and 200 L and the are both light and very capable and much cheeper but also both don't offer IS. I often still think that I may be should have gotten one of either over the 70-200 2.8. But no decision yet to actually go ahead and do it. I tend to stop every thoughts of changing when I do pickup up and use the 70-200. It really is a wonderful lens. Got luck deciding.

 

[Zv]

Sell your 70-200 f/4 if you're not using it but don't replace it with something even more expensive for no apparent reason! That's insane! Use the money for a wide angle prime like the 24mm 1.4 or the 14mm 2.8. If wide angle is your thing shouldn't you invest there? You said you had a 17-40, which focal length in that range do you like best? Do you crave wider? Are you a 35mm shooter? Maybe a Sigma 35 1.4 for street shots?

What do you shoot? Landscapes? Buildings?

 

[jdramirez]

I have owned the f4L usm, f2.8L usm, & the f2.8L is mkii. I liked the f2.8L usm, but it was a bit front focused and my 60d didn't have afma. I really like the bokeh and look of the f2.8L's. I didn't care for three copies I had of the f4L.

It depends on what you shoot, but I'd lean towards the bigger aperture more often than not.

 

[silvestography]

I'm going to be that guy who recommends 3rd party glass. If you REALLY feel you need an upgrade in the 70-200 range, I've heard Tamron's new 70-200 f/2.8 VC is outstanding, and in your price range.

That said, I'm going to stick with the others in recommending that you get faster glass in the WA to normal range seeing as you'll be using it more. As a 24-70 consideration, once again, Tamron's 24-70 VC (which I own, and love) is actually sharper that canon's mark 1 and has VC, which you may enjoy. Otherwise, you might want to look at Canon's 16-35 (or wait for it to be updated) and Tokina's 16-28 f/2.8, which is said to be an incredible lens for the money (although it won't accept filters). I own one of Tokina's APS-C UWA lenses, the 11-16, and especially from f/8-11, it's a great value.

 

[distant.star]

.
Tell me who your "clients" are, and I'll provide an answer.

 

[adhocphotographer]

2.8 IS II is fantastic, and if your budget can afford it, i would say get that, never look back and enjoy your images!