Should I Sell My 70-200 f4?

idoteech · June 4, 2011

I have a 7D and the above lens as well as the Tamron 28-75. I love the idea of having the L series lens, but I find it always in my bag and never on my camera. My Tammy is surprisingly sharp and suits more of my needs. Question is: Do I sell my 70-200 and buy a Canon 24-70L (or 17-55)? 99% of my work is portrait (with about 60% being studio). I would love some advice. And if I do sell, which Canon lens should I buy?

divamum · June 4, 2011

Why don't you use it?

What would you want from a different lens?

I think if you figure out what you're lacking and/or NOT lacking, you'll be able to decide what else you need. Having an L lens in the bag should be because you enjoy using it, not because you feel like you "should" have one or that it confers some kind of magic just by coming along on the shoot...

Seriously - what is it you want to do that you can't with your existing gear? Once you now that, you'll know what (if anything) you should consider adding to the gear lineup.

idoteech · June 4, 2011

I understand Diva. I bought it thinking I would use it, but I really don't need "that much" zoom. Most of my stuff is within the 28-70mm range. My studio is small, so it's just too long. I am just wondering how much better the 24-70L or 17-55 is than my Tammy, which is quite impressive but really not as sharp as the 70-200.

divamum · June 4, 2011

I have a Tam 17-50, so I understand what you mean. For me it wasn't IQ with the Tammy, but that in poor lighting situations (such as theatrical) the AF wasn't fast enough (it's not "slow", but Canon's USM is undeniably faster) so I wasn't using the lens as much as I'd like.

For me, it came down to focal length: I found I was missing 50-70, therefore it made sense for me to get the 24-70 (I've kept the Tamron, although I haven't taken it out of the bag since I got the 24-70L). I use 50-70mm a LOT for portraits. That said, many would say the 17-55is is a more consistent lens, it has the benefit of IS (the thing I would most have liked on the 24-70) and the focal length is, for many users, better suited to a crop camera.

As always, "horses for courses"!

idoteech · June 4, 2011

That makes sense Diva. Do you know much about the 17-55? I hear the build is "cheap".

divamum · June 4, 2011

I think that's relative - it's not weather-sealed or as chunky as an L, but I think it's a perfectly fine lens. I don't own one myself, but I've yet to hear anybody who DIDN'T like using it within its focal length. Ziggy's a big fan of it and I'm sure can chime in on the build-quality.

Art Scott · June 5, 2011

idoteech wrote: »

I have a 7D and the above lens as well as the Tamron 28-75. I love the idea of having the L series lens, but I find it always in my bag and never on my camera. My Tammy is surprisingly sharp and suits more of my needs. Question is: Do I sell my 70-200 and buy a Canon 24-70L (or 17-55)? 99% of my work is portrait (with about 60% being studio). I would love some advice. And if I do sell, which Canon lens should I buy?

idoteech wrote: »

I understand Diva. I bought it thinking I would use it, but I really don't need "that much" zoom. Most of my stuff is within the 28-70mm range. My studio is small, so it's just too long. I am just wondering how much better the 24-70L or 17-55 is than my Tammy, which is quite impressive but really not as sharp as the 70-200.

I shot for over 20yrs with an in house studio in my living room and it was very seldom that i had to step out the front door to use my 70-210f2.8.....the living room was approx 14' wide and my shooting area was a bit angled so I got about 16 feet out of it to the backdrop...so about 11-13' to the subject(s)........I am one that likes my space and to have no one in my face and that is how i work....I want several feet between me and my subject (one of the reasons I do not like a 50mm lens....puts me to dang close to the subject).....for most people a 70-200 weather f2.8 or f4 is sometimes too heavy to constantly heft for long portrait session or even weddings...but it is my lens of choice.......I do use my 18-70 a lot but for portraits it is at the 70mm end very seldom do i shoot it under 70 unless at a concert like today and I wanted full stage shot wth the crowd in front of me showing........

I love my 24-70f2.8 on my Konica Minolta 7D...but again it was shot 99% of the time at the 70mm end for portraits and such....normally I will go wide for landscapes.....

I do not shoot a lot of babies or small toddlers and even then I want distance, not to keep them away from me or the gear, but so the flash is less harsh on them If I have to use speedlights down low on the floor......there is no way I could give up my 70-200.....my 18-70 or 24-70 in a heart beat...... for me I think it is I learned to use it well 30yrs ago when it ws the only lens i had and I had no choice then and it became my lens of choice even when I bought other lenses........

Good Luck on your decision.

Matthew Saville · June 5, 2011

For portrait work, honestly a 24-70 range zoom is PERFECT on a crop sensor. ~36mm equivalent is just wide enough to photograph a medium sized family without worrying too much about distortion at the edges, and 110mm equivalent on the long end is just enough for a headshot. Plus most 24-70 lenses have very decent macro capabilities...

So, as a "workhorse" lens that brings you lots of bread and butter, you probably can't beat a 24-70 or similar lens. Personally though I'm not the *biggest* fan of Canon's current 24-70 L, honestly it's kinda old in comparison to all Canon's new mk2 lenses, and I suspect that Canon will have a mk2 24-70 coming out within the next year. (I'm not just guessing, I looked up the release dates of the mk1 and mk2 versions of every Canon lens with two versions, such as the 16-35 and 70-200 2.8 IS, as well as the f/1.2's....And this year is "right on schedule" for Canon to make a 24-70 mk2.

Dunno what that means for you though. There are definitely plenty of VERY sharp copies of the current 24-70 out there, you just have to test whatever you buy. Or maybe just wait for a mk2 to come, either to upgrade or as an opportunity to get a sweet deal on a used mk1...

The only other recommendation I can make is to check out the Sigma 50-150 2.8. If you never use 70-200 but you DO find yourself "bumping into" the 70/75mm end of your mid-range zoom, then perhaps for the 7D the best lens is 50-150. Personally, I LOVE mine and use it all the time to this day, even now after having added a full-frame body to my system.

Just opinions, of course!

=Matt=

Richard · June 5, 2011

Unless you are having focus speed issues with the Tammy, the 24-70 isn't going to buy you much. I have both the Tamron 28-75 and the Canon 70-200 f/4L, and love them both, but I also have a 17-40 f/4L for the wide end. If you really are OK with 75mm as your longest lens, then I think you'd have better coverage by replacing the 70-200 with either a Canon 17-40 or the Tamron 17-50.

divamum · June 5, 2011

+1 to what Matt says

For portrait work, honestly a 24-70 range zoom is PERFECT on a crop sensor.

My experience exactly, even though it goes against "conventional" wisdom for FL on a crop camera

Again, it will depend on the FL's YOU use the most whether this would be a good choice for you; it definitely was for me. There's a cute little utility out there which will read your photo directories and tell you what FL's you use the most... except I can'at remember what it's called just now (Bueller? Anybody?). It makes interesting reading

The only other recommendation I can make is to check out the Sigma 50-150 2.8.

Except it's impossible to find for Canon! Eva, seeing many of Matt's shots with this lens and hearing his glowing reports of using it, I spent ~4 months looking for one - not only were they few and far between 2ndhand (and seemed to be out of stock new every time I checked), but the few copies I found had issues wide open (a known Sigma problem with quality control - fixable, but you have to know to watch out and test for it). For some reason, this lens seems more readily available (and reliable) for Nikon than Canon.

There's Mk2 expected soon (is it out yet, Matt?) but I believe it's supposed to be a bit bigger and heavier.

The other option you have is what I've chosen to do: I go from the 24-70 to an 85 1.8 and then the 135L 2.0. I find I'm not using the 85 1.8 that much now I have the 24-70, and just jump to the 135 when I need something a little longer. There are times when a zoom would be really nice at the long end, but I don't have the $ to add a 70-200is, and I'm very reluctant to carry that much weight. Now that I've jumped to the longer zoom (vs the 17-50), I find I usuallly have everything I need for the shooting that I do. YMMV.

ThatCanonGuy · June 5, 2011

I think it comes down to either keeping the 70-200 or replacing the two lenses with a 24-70. If you're never using the 70-200, there's really no reason to have it, and I would wholeheartedly recommend getting a 24-70 (or 24-105, but I'd rather have the 2.8 than the IS). Look at your bag and see the holes in your lineup that would benefit you if they were filled. Example: I'd love to have a 17-40, a 400 2.8, or an FF body. But I find that 99% of my work involves my 1DII and 70-200. A 17-40 would just sit in my bag 99% of the time. So would a 400 2.8, and to a certain extent a 5D2. So instead of buying those toys, I plan on using my upgrade money to get a 100 f2 (anybody have one they don't want? ;~) for those low-light/smooth bokeh situations, and then a 70-200 2.8 (after all, it's my most used lens). Honestly I'd like to have the 135/2 instead of the 100/2, but for that money I can get the 100/2 and the 70-200 2.8. Notice that I have pretty much nothing below 70mm. I have the cheap 28-105 to fall back on in those 1% situations.

That's my situation, and for you the opposite may be true. If I was always using the 24-70 range and never the 70-200, I'd go for the 24-70 and get a cheap 70-210 USM to fall back on.

Whatever you do will be fine, as all of the lenses you mentioned (the ones you own and the others) are very good

idoteech · June 5, 2011

Wow! Thanks for all of the great advice. In my studio setting I shoot 60% newborns, so it's important IMO to be closer to my subjects, especially when I don't have my assistant (and I use strobes). I have found that I use my Tammy 95% of the time, so I guess it would be best for me to stay in the FL. If anyone can think of the site Diva was talking about, I'd love to hear from you.

So the 24-70L without IS or the 17-55 with IS? That is the question.

Matthew Saville · June 5, 2011

divamum wrote: »

+1 to what Matt says

My experience exactly, even though it goes against "conventional" wisdom for FL on a crop camera Again, it will depend on the FL's YOU use the most whether this would be a good choice for you; it definitely was for me. There's a cute little utility out there which will read your photo directories and tell you what FL's you use the most... except I can'at remember what it's called just now (Bueller? Anybody?). It makes interesting reading

Except it's impossible to find for Canon! Eva, seeing many of Matt's shots with this lens and hearing his glowing reports of using it, I spent ~4 months looking for one - not only were they few and far between 2ndhand (and seemed to be out of stock new every time I checked), but the few copies I found had issues wide open (a known Sigma problem with quality control - fixable, but you have to know to watch out and test for it). For some reason, this lens seems more readily available (and reliable) for Nikon than Canon.

There's Mk2 expected soon (is it out yet, Matt?) but I believe it's supposed to be a bit bigger and heavier.

No, I don't think the Sigma 50-150 2.8 OS is out yet, and in fact Nikon is currently suing Sigma over patent infringement, so who knows if it will ever become widely available. :-(

divamum wrote:

The other option you have is what I've chosen to do: I go from the 24-70 to an 85 1.8 and then the 135L 2.0. I find I'm not using the 85 1.8 that much now I have the 24-70, and just jump to the 135 when I need something a little longer. There are times when a zoom would be really nice at the long end, but I don't have the $ to add a 70-200is, and I'm very reluctant to carry that much weight. Now that I've jumped to the longer zoom (vs the 17-50), I find I usuallly have everything I need for the shooting that I do. YMMV.

idoteech wrote: »

Wow! Thanks for all of the great advice. In my studio setting I shoot 60% newborns, so it's important IMO to be closer to my subjects, especially when I don't have my assistant (and I use strobes). I have found that I use my Tammy 95% of the time, so I guess it would be best for me to stay in the FL. If anyone can think of the site Diva was talking about, I'd love to hear from you.

So the 24-70L without IS or the 17-55 with IS? That is the question.

I'd say that, if you're shooting with flash or at least controlled lighting in a studio, you'll probably want to forego stabilization and just stick with that "perfec" focal length. If you get the 17-55, I honestly believe that you will find yourself hardly EVER using the 17mm end, and "bumping into" the 55mm end all the time. So, stick with the 24-70 range in my opinion. (Divamum confirms this, but your shooting styles may not be identical...)

Unfortunately, I doubt that a 24-70 mk2 will have stabilization, since Nikon just made a new one recently and it didn't have it either.

insanefred · June 5, 2011

You should sell it... I mean wants to carry a white lens anyways?

puzzledpaul · June 5, 2011

insanefred wrote: »

You should sell it... I mean wants to carry a white lens anyways?

A few bits of inner tube'll sort that 'problem'

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/pppix/5456-800.jpg

pp

photodad1 · June 5, 2011

idoteech wrote: »

Wow! Thanks for all of the great advice. In my studio setting I shoot 60% newborns, so it's important IMO to be closer to my subjects, especially when I don't have my assistant (and I use strobes). I have found that I use my Tammy 95% of the time, so I guess it would be best for me to stay in the FL. If anyone can think of the site Diva was talking about, I'd love to hear from you.

So the 24-70L without IS or the 17-55 with IS? That is the question.

Are you using a tripod most of the time? If so, then I think you would not need the IS. IS is mostly used for handheld situations with low shutter speeds.

insanefred · June 5, 2011

puzzledpaul wrote: »

A few bits of inner tube'll sort that 'problem'

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/pppix/5456-800.jpg

pp

Now, that looks better... is that a bad thing?

rpcrowe · June 5, 2011

I love my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens BUT.....
This thing is too danged short for my likes as a portrait lens. I like around 70mm OR LONGER on a 1.6x camera.

I didn't get much use out of my 70-200mm f/4L lens either but, since I have switched to the IS version, it has become my go-to lens. The rounded aperture blades produce beautiful bokeh and the focal range is just what I like to use.

www.dgrin.com

DeVerm · June 5, 2011

Here's a 3rd option : I recently got a 5D2 with EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS USM and love it. Then I put it on my 7D and wow!
:jawdrop

ciao!
Nick.

idoteech · June 13, 2011

Well I did it! Pulled the plug and bought the 24-70. Now I have to sell my 70-200 f4 and my Tamron 28-75. I love my Tammy. Hate to part with it but the red ring was calling my name. It will be in Wednesday just in time for my trip to Tennessee so I hope to post pics soon.

NeilL · June 13, 2011

Great advice here in this thread!

My only reservation for you giving up the 70-200 is that it might limit your options one day. For me, a variety of lenses, all of which might not be in the middle of the bell curve for my usage (hypothetically), nevertheless like Rudolph the rednosed reindeer will be perfect for the occasional image outside my usual, and no less valuable for that. Further, I really believe that the different characteristics of different lenses will begin to charm you like sirens, so that you will just have to move outside your habits in order to stop the hassling!:D Maybe, if you are always using the same lens and the same focal length, your images might be looking more too much the same than they might, and perhaps should!

Please let us know how the new lens works out.

Neil

divamum · June 13, 2011

idoteech wrote: »

Well I did it! Pulled the plug and bought the 24-70. Now I have to sell my 70-200 f4 and my Tamron 28-75. I love my Tammy. Hate to part with it but the red ring was calling my name. It will be in Wednesday just in time for my trip to Tennessee so I hope to post pics soon.

Enjoy! In the 2 mos since I got it, it's turned into my most-used, everyday lens that lives on the camera for general use. I love having my fast primes but I really, REALLY like the 24-70 and am using it way more (and liking it way more) than I could ever have anticipated!

idoteech · June 15, 2011

That's great to hear Diva. I just got it in and it is a beast!

I'm so excited!

ziggy53 · June 15, 2011

idoteech wrote: »

That's great to hear Diva. I just got it in and it is a beast! I'm so excited!

Congratulations on the new lens.

TheCheesehead · June 16, 2011

Hope the 24-70 works out for you. Mine has been a lemon. Bought it 18 months ago and was sent back to Canon twice for new AF motors under warranty, and now I sent it back again, this time with the 5D because images are soft again. Hopefully they will fix it even though out of warranty.

idoteech · June 16, 2011

Just took a few shots with it. Sharp as a tack! Looks like I got a good copy. Thank God.

codrus · June 16, 2011

divamum wrote: »

Except it's impossible to find for Canon! Eva, seeing many of Matt's shots with this lens and hearing his glowing reports of using it, I spent ~4 months looking for one - not only were they few and far between 2ndhand (and seemed to be out of stock new every time I checked)

There also seems to be very little interest in them. I spent 4 months trying to sell mine, not getting anything but lowball offers until finally finding a buyer (and at only $500, despite the $800 new price and basically perfect condition).

Personally I found that the 24-105 and 70-200 ranges fitted my normal use with a crop body a lot better, and once I owned those I basically never mounted the 50-150 on my camera any more.

--Ian

ThatCanonGuy · June 16, 2011

Congrats! Mine's sharp as a tack too. It can't cut through glass like the 135L, but it's up there alongside the other Ls.

Edit: Oh wait, I was talking about the 70-200 f4

. I forgot it was the 24-70 you got...

Quincy T · June 21, 2011

I, too, am taking the plunge today for a 24-70L. This is my second L series. I have a 100-400L that I got as a sort-of gift. It's a long story...

Anyway, The only thing I don't have covered by high quality is my wide end now, and I think in a couple more years of saving I will be able to afford the EF-S 10-22 which would be ideal for my 7D! I'm very excited about this purchase. Got myself a B+W 77mm UV Haze 010 F-Pro MRC Filter, which seems to be the highest quality 77mm B+W makes as far as I can tell. I'm not a big fan of filters, but this is my first professional quality one, and I'm taking no risks with the lens.

Should I Sell My 70-200 f4?

Comments