Buying a 70-200 L

Save a ton and just buy the 80-200 f2.8L

Photo looks like a movie still. Not the sharpest quality, but interesting nonetheless.

>>3046940
If you want sharper images with less apparent ca, go full frame.

Also, that lens you have is trash.

Sell everything, try again. But yeah, a decent 70-200 is a necessity.

File: 100601_1805_dancarr.jpg (101KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x533px

>>3046942
This actually means a lot because I'm interested in photography as a side to shooting films. Thanks.

>>3046943
Pretty fair. I lust after pic related at nights.

>>3046941
That one costs around 500 used, which means that if I look hard I can get it for about 400 least. This is 350 dollars less than the mk1 of 70-200 which has a stabiliser, which I think would be worth it overall. Though, thanks for advice, I didn't consider this before.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi

File: _DSC7055-Edit.jpg (479KB, 1100x619px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 1100x619px

>>3046950
I use the 70-200 f4 non-is on a sony a7ii with mc11, it was only GBP 200 and sharp as a cunt hair. Nearly all of my shots have been from events, so I can't share those on here, but here's one nature shot I have from it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	118 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	118 dpcm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>3046940
Get a Tamron 70-200/2.8 VC G1 and call it a day
Excellent sharpness, good stabilization and weather sealing for 1/3rd of the Canon L one.

Fuck the canon tax get a sigma, equal or sometimes better sharpness eg my 150-600 is sharper at 400 than the canon 400 prime. Canon is a meme at this point. With the new sigma 100-400 coming out soon no one will be paying the canon tax for their version.

Canon refurbished store, wait for a 10% off deal

Or grey market off eBay

>>3047034
Well, I wasn't even thinking of new or even refurbished. Used/ebay is pretty much my only option.

>>3046966
Ya you know, the quality of that baby is pretty great. It's not aaaas perfect as the Canon but pretty reasonably. It's a tough one, but looking realistically, I'll probably end up with the Tamron. Eh!

>>3047144
It out resolves a 24MP APS-C sensor. Just barely, but it is about per-pixel resolution on a 1.4X TC on the same sensor.
Stabilization is good for shooting while walking at the long end.

>>3047153
Well I looked at reference photos and there defo is a difference even on cropped frame, but it's nothing to write home about. I think it will not affect me as much since I don't print as I said.

But when you buy something, especially glass, you get that perfectionist feeling, like a bit more and I get a perfect perfect ...artefact... thing, and it will last years oh years, you know what I mean.

But I love Tamron, I picked up their old lens (55-200) for 20 bucks basically and it was better than the sigma I have

What the hell do you even want a big unwieldy 70-200 for? What kind of photos do you want to take with it? Is your genre of photography photos of confused old women standing in crowds? What focal length does that style require, does it require a whole range of focal lengths or would just one telephoto prime cover it? Do you need f/2.8 to get enough depth of field separation between the women and the crowds in question, or would f/4 work? Or do you need even more, like an 85mm f/1.8 or something? Is size and weight a concern, will a big lens weigh you down too much and prevent you from finding old women?

Those are the kinds of questions you should ask if you want to know what you need to buy.

>>3047162
Thanks, solid points, but I did consider it.

I do lots of stuff. I don't profit from photos at all, it's a hobby. While it means less money can be reasonably spent on it, it also meant I am free as the wind to explore and do anything I want.

I do landscapes, I do macro, I do portraits of individuals, or groups of people.

It's cliche and vanilla, and maybe not very deep or perverted like I see some people here pose themselves, but for me it's the capturing of a moment in life, almost like documenting, but in an artistic light/filter.
So if I travel and see a valley and it's lovely, I'll take my wide angle and shoot it all. But if one specific mountain speaks to me, if I want to show it as a giant spending an eternity in solitude, them I'll zoom in and see how I can put it down.
I think you can see what I mean.

Sure, I can have a bunch of primes, but with a zoom you have more artistic freedom to experiment with.
If you're a career photographer, maybe you know specifically what you need. I want to find more styles and compositions that I haven't used before.

Usually zoom lenses suck compared to primes, but this one doesn't - in fact it beats quite a few. So, it's a win-win in that sense.

Don't take my wall-o-text as explaining myself, more like I want to start a discussion. I'm lonely, anon, ok?

>>3047162
That is a stupid question there, mate. Everyone at some point should have a 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 at least, it is the most practical lens and zoom range and delivers the best images as well.
So asking why he wants to buy one is stupid and you should be more positive about what to look for.
Anon can use this lens for portraits, events, family, local or paid as well, sports, it is an excellent start with wildlife and tolerates even 2X TCs well with leaving plenty of light for the AF with the f/2.8.
It is just the most used and most practical type of lens ever, even more so than a 24-70/2.8.
The 70-200 is widely used for landscape as well, giving narrower scenes some very nice compression, leaves more room for composure as well.
There is really no reason NOT to get a 70-200/2.8, be it first party or third party.

>>3047182
Yep.
I used to hate 70-200's way back when I was shooting film, but now that I shoot digital it's the lens I always use. Even at night.
70-200mm/2.8
17-50mm/2.8
ftw

>>3047144

Maybe you should look? I was following the auctions on eBay myself when I was looking to get a used 70-200 II. I would stop bidding when the price reached the refurbished price (with 10% off). eBay almost always went over. After about six months of following auctions. I wound up purchasing refurbished at Canon because it the cheapest option.

File: 20140420-_MG_0051.jpg (332KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

332KB, 600x900px

I've got a 70-200 2.8 ii. Now that I've stopped shooting wedding and events I hardly touch it. Still when I did use it everything about it was amazing other than the weight can be a bit much when you hit hour 8 of shooting. I switched up from the hilariously bad 100-300 3.5-5.6 that I got when I first started. No regrets whats so ever.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Photographer	Reagan Davis Pufall
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3744
Image Height	5616
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:04:20 22:18:15
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	1.23 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	75.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	600
Image Height	900
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3047291
That is because you are a dirty wedding photog lowlife and can't think of anything else with it other than wedding shootings.
Go out in the park, ask around if someone wants to get their portraits taken, go out in the hills and take landscape shots, get a TC for even longer reach on the wildlife shots etc...
The possibilities are there you just have to go out there. Your lens will get back in regular use in no time.

>>3048037
Lol, newfag.

>>3046940
perhaps it won't have a very long reach if you intend to use the full range at 200mm but have you considered the sigma 17-50 2.8? it's rather decent as an all around walk about lens or even for video and low light
should be able to snag one for very cheap. it won't compare to the L glass of the 70-200 but it would blw your 18-250 variable away
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_rPxWpArNY

>>3046940
>buying a superzoom in the first place.
yea get the 24 pancake.

why do you want a 70-200 2.8 on a rabal anyway?
just get the 55-250mm stm. it's f5.6 but decently sharp.

>>3048079
>3X zoom
>superzoom

And f/2.8 is great on APS-C

>>3048126
Anon referred to the Sigma 18-250 mentioned in the OP

>>3048079
I got the Sigma, Tamron, and 60D for 400 bucks all together on eBay
Figured I could sell the sigma for 200+ at any time and basically get the cam for 200

>>3046940
Get full frame
Get the tamron instead
Get optical stabilization without a doubt