Which 70-200 2.8 to buy

[Scruffy90]

Long story short, im in need of a telephoto zoom. Im shooting with a canon 60D(may get upgraded eventually). I am having a hard time justifying the Canon 70-200 2.8L is ii because I dont shoot photos for money often and cant currently justify the ~ $2000 cost. Whats the next best alternative? I hear the sigma still has qc issues, tamron is releasing a new 70-200 next month (people seemed to like the first version despite the focus breating issue) and i could get a canon 70-200 2.8Lis mk 1 for about the same price as the third party lenses. 

[johnt]

26 minutes ago, Scruffy90 said:

i could get a canon 70-200 2.8Lis mk 1 for about the same price as the third party lenses

Your best option

[xQubeZx]

Do you really need the f/2.8? Since the Canon 70-200 f/4L is very well priced. Especially used it's very cheap. 

 

But if you need the 2.8 I guess the Canon mark i is your best bet if its in the same price as the third party lenses. 

[Scruffy90]

3 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

Do you really need the f/2.8? Since the Canon 70-200 f/4L is very well priced. Especially used it's very cheap. 

 

But if you need the 2.8 I guess the Canon mark i is your best bet if its in the same price as the third party lenses. 

I would like 2.8 as I shoot indoors a bit. I wouldve jumped on the f4 IS if i had a full frame or an apsc with cleaner higher ISO.

[johnt]

5 hours ago, Scruffy90 said:

I would like 2.8 as I shoot indoors a bit. I wouldve jumped on the f4 IS if i had a full frame or an apsc with cleaner higher ISO.

You won't be disappointed with a 2.8. People usually baby equipment like this anyway (like high end audio gear), so you're likely to get a used lens in good condition for a great price.

[AkiraDaarkst]

21 hours ago, Scruffy90 said:

Long story short, im in need of a telephoto zoom. Im shooting with a canon 60D(may get upgraded eventually). I am having a hard time justifying the Canon 70-200 2.8L is ii because I dont shoot photos for money often and cant currently justify the ~ $2000 cost. Whats the next best alternative? I hear the sigma still has qc issues, tamron is releasing a new 70-200 next month (people seemed to like the first version despite the focus breating issue) and i could get a canon 70-200 2.8Lis mk 1 for about the same price as the third party lenses. 

You don't really need the Canon L series 70-200 2.8.  It's one of the best 70-200 lenses for Canon, however it may not be worth the price for you.  I can tell you, from past experience, that the Sigma 70-200 2.8 (if it falls within what you can afford) is a very good lens.  So is the Canon 70-200 f/4.

 

Or get the version 1 of Canon 70-200 2.8.  It's one of the primary workhorse lenses for pro togs for years.

[link955]

I personally own the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 vc and it is  awesome. Tamron is a amazing third party company that preforms very closely to the official canon one for more then half the cost. Also if you need to compare lenses I use DxOMark helps me find what I need.

[Scruffy90]

47 minutes ago, link955 said:

I personally own the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 vc and it is  awesome. Tamron is a amazing third party company that preforms very closely to the official canon one for more then half the cost. Also if you need to compare lenses I use DxOMark helps me find what I need.

Ive heard very good things about the Tarmon one. How bad is the focus breathing. I hear that its bothersome on the Tamron when focusing subjects closer to the minimum focusing distance.

[link955]

43 minutes ago, Scruffy90 said:

Ive heard very good things about the Tarmon one. How bad is the focus breathing. I hear that its bothersome on the Tamron when focusing subjects closer to the minimum focusing distance.

I have had absolutely zero focus breathing problems.

[cc143]

I would take the Canon mk1 over the others if prices are comparable, but if difference is too high e.g. over 25%, I'd get the tamron/sigma. 

[Scruffy90]

2 hours ago, link955 said:

I have had absolutely zero focus breathing problems.

Thats good to know. I'd have to test this if I pick it up.

 

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

I would take the Canon mk1 over the others if prices are comparable, but if difference is too high e.g. over 25%, I'd get the tamron/sigma. 

A used 2.8 IS MK1 locally is about $1000 USD in excellent condition. So it may be my best bet. 

[Guy_guy]

My opinion is  : never buy new L glass if you won't be making money with it.

 

I was shopping for a 70-200 as well a few months ago. It was either a f/2.8 or a f/4 IS. I kept looking on the used market and ended up finding a virtually new f/4 IS for 620€, owned for 6 months and never used, still under warranty for a year and a half, bill of sale and all.

 

 

So if you're not in a hurry, take some time to research different markets, you might end up saving quite a bit of money. It's also worth noting that glass doesn't really age at all, if a lens has been used and cleaned properly, it will take as good photos as its first day out of the store.

[Scruffy90]

5 minutes ago, Guy_guy said:

My opinion is  : never buy new L glass if you won't be making money with it.

 

I was shopping for a 70-200 as well a few months ago. It was either a f/2.8 or a f/4 IS. I kept looking on the used market and ended up finding a virtually new f/4 IS for 620€, owned for 6 months and never used, still under warranty for a year and a half, bill of sale and all.

 

 

So if you're not in a hurry, take some time to research different markets, you might end up saving quite a bit of money. It's also worth noting that glass doesn't really age at all, if a lens has been used and cleaned properly, it will take as good photos as its first day out of the store.

Def not getting the 2.8 L is mkii and I would get the f4 if my 60d could produce cleaner shots past 1600 iso. i doubt ill be buying new for a variety of reasons. Ive been keeping my eye on the used and grey markets as there have been pretty steep discounts on 70-200s, especially the 2.8 mk i. Next time adorama or B&H get a batch of used ones, im going to head to the store and check them out, maybe ill get lucky again and get a nearly new lens for relatively inexpensive.  

[xQubeZx]

4 hours ago, Guy_guy said:

My opinion is  : never buy new L glass if you won't be making money with it.

 

I was shopping for a 70-200 as well a few months ago. It was either a f/2.8 or a f/4 IS. I kept looking on the used market and ended up finding a virtually new f/4 IS for 620€, owned for 6 months and never used, still under warranty for a year and a half, bill of sale and all.

 

 

So if you're not in a hurry, take some time to research different markets, you might end up saving quite a bit of money. It's also worth noting that glass doesn't really age at all, if a lens has been used and cleaned properly, it will take as good photos as its first day out of the store.

My friend managed to find one of those you have there for like 400US, incredible cheap, barley used had went maybe max 500-1000 exposures and only brought out a few times.