Options
Advice on purchasing used Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS I
I'm strongly considering the purchase of a 70-200 f/2.8L IS Version 1 after selling my 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 for $600 (there were some mechanical problems).
I have a seen a couple on KEH for around $1,400 - $1,500 which is just out of my price range, but I could save up for a while. I also have one I'm interested in on eBay that is quite beat up on the outside, but the owner claims it is in perfect condition optically/mechanically. Of course, it is eBay...but the seller has 77 ratings all of which appear to be excellent, and I wouldn't imagine you do that well being dishonest. I couldn't careless about aesthetics. If I can get the lens for a low price because it doesn't look pretty, I'm all about that. I'm just curious about a couple of things:
Are there any major quality differences throughout the production years of this lens, i.e. a 2001 model is rife with issues while a 2006 model is not?
The used version on eBay I am looking at has a crack in the focusing distance window, does this have a major impact on weather resistance?
This should link you to the lens on eBay.
I basically don't want to spend more than $1,000 and definitely no more than $1,200. I'm just looking for some advice on whether or not that is even feasible to get a quality copy of this lens.
I have a seen a couple on KEH for around $1,400 - $1,500 which is just out of my price range, but I could save up for a while. I also have one I'm interested in on eBay that is quite beat up on the outside, but the owner claims it is in perfect condition optically/mechanically. Of course, it is eBay...but the seller has 77 ratings all of which appear to be excellent, and I wouldn't imagine you do that well being dishonest. I couldn't careless about aesthetics. If I can get the lens for a low price because it doesn't look pretty, I'm all about that. I'm just curious about a couple of things:
Are there any major quality differences throughout the production years of this lens, i.e. a 2001 model is rife with issues while a 2006 model is not?
The used version on eBay I am looking at has a crack in the focusing distance window, does this have a major impact on weather resistance?
This should link you to the lens on eBay.
I basically don't want to spend more than $1,000 and definitely no more than $1,200. I'm just looking for some advice on whether or not that is even feasible to get a quality copy of this lens.
0
Comments
I'm not saying that this indicates one way or another, just that you don't truly know before getting the lens.
It is encouraging to see the original box, case and paperwork.
I don't see any sort of return policy for this lens so I believe that this is an "as is" sale with no option to return if you are dissatisfied. This just means that there is some real risk in this purchase.
Ask questions of the seller beforehand. See how they respond.
I would rather have you purchase a used lens from a source that has return privileges and a warranty period, so you ave a chance to inspect and shoot with the lens before absolutely committing to the lens. In this regard, KEH, B&H and Adorama are considerably safer and your only real risk is shipping charges.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Ziggy,
Thanks for the quick response! The seller has been pretty quick to respond to everything I ask of him. I guess I should inquire about a return policy now, something I've been meaning to do.
That's pretty normal for this sort of transaction, and should be sufficient for inspection and testing.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Why the 2.8 " very heavy lens" why not consider the 4.0 ?
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
Lens, I would agree, but I think that if I was to pursue a career in PJ, I would end up wanting the extra stop for low light sporting events and such. I don't know. I'm torn on it...but everyone swears by the 2.8. Like I said...it's a pretty hard decision. If I can get the 2.8 IS for $1200 or so, I'm getting it...if I can't find a decent one, I may just go with the 4.0.
I would investigate it further, some of the people I have talked to say the f/4 is an awesome lens some have traded in their f/2.8 for the f/4.0 . I guess if one stop of light is going to make a world of difference
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
Regarding Ebay... I know that some listers put "no returns" on their items, but I believe they have an obligation (per Ebay TOS) to have an accurate description, so if they say it works and you receive a broken lens, I believe you have the right to return it regardless.
I'm not sure exactly what I would be shooting. I do realize there is some weight involved with it. I'm fairly used to lugging around the 24-70 f/2.8 at this point, and while I know this other lens is heavier, I've never really been fatigued by my gear and I have done some pretty lengthy shoots with the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6.
Like you, I've done quite a bit of research on the subject, and while the f/4 seems to be pretty amazing on its own two feet, I don't want to regret the purchase over $300-400. While price is a big factor, it seems that the f/2.8 is some sort of mana from Heaven for most Canon photographers.
I think, if anything, I will simply have to force myself to wait and save for the 2.8 if I can't find the right price. Now that I've confirmed this gentlemen on eBay is open to returns (and as Demian said, the eBay ToS guarantees your satisfaction to an extent) I feel more confident about this copy I've bid on. Hopefully I can get a great deal on it. If not, there is a DGrin user selling his copy for $1400, which isn't a shabby price at all.
I also have the F4, and it is basically a 70-200MM prime lens, no exaggeration. Its resolve and AF performance are excessively excellent, even in rooms which required ISO 6400 with the 5D Mark II. Personally 1 stop doesn't make much of a difference at all anymore. DOF might change a bit, but its still very shallow at F4, and even the MKII could nail low light shots if it wasn't ridiculously low contrast or pretty much pure black. I've shot sports indoors and didn't have any trouble either (IS needs to be off of course)
If you save $400.00 you will get the full value of the money , but to come up with an extra $400.00 cash you will have to earn a bit more than that,because of the tax man .
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
I picked up a (very) affordable copy of the 70-200 F4 non-is for a specific shoot quite recently.
I absolutely LOOOOOOVVVVEEE it. It is (truly) as sharp as the 135L. It is lightweight. It is clear. It is consistent. It is accurate. I would love the 2.8 too, I'm sure, but at 3x the price and at least 2x the weight, I'm not sure that's a fair trade.
The only thing I'm currently asking myself is whether I should get the IS version, but I'm so happy with this one I think it might be kind of dumb. It wouldn't be my first choice in the dark (eg weddings or theatre), but it has become my go-to lens outdoors (especially when the primes might not be flexible enough) - I absolutely love it
Bokeh junkies should pass on the 70-200 f/4. It's a good glass and all, but a killer portrait/wedding lens it is not. I am a huge fan of my 70-200 2.8LII. Nice bokeh, great optics and it's FAST. But, why shoot Canon if you're not going to sample the real bokeh machine? The 85L f/1.2 II is the bokeh king, hands down, no questions asked.
Also have used the F4 extensively and I own 2 copies of the 70-200 F2.8 non-IS...my vote goes with the 2.8 (I shoot college sports [in and out doors] and motorsports both).
As far as weight it's something that you'll not really notice as your prior 100-400 weight was 1380 grams; the 70-200 F2.8 IS is 1470 grams and the 70-200 F2.8 non-IS is only 1310 grams.
To me the real question is do really need IS or not?
Lastly as a long-time ebayer your analysis of the seller seems pretty valid - however, you can't really judge the price when there's still 1-3 days left - my experience is the last few hours (down to the final seconds) will see the real bidding surface and I wouldn't doubt that lens (even with the cracked window) will sell for way more than the $775 it's at now.
Final thought the canon 2.8 70-200's are built like battleships and to break that window indicates it took a pretty hard hit on the side and goes beyond the normal wear and tear the pics show...
Trust me there's always a 'low priced' 70-200 on ebay a day or 2 before the auction ends - research the final prices for a good idea of the 'whole flow' as it were
-rich56k
Member: ASMP; EP; NPPA; CPS
This is great info, rich, thank you. PM Sent with a few additional questions.
Thank you everyone else, also, for all of your input.
Answers:
1. I own the 135L. Nuff said.
2. I don't shoot weddings, and am not doing as much theatre work as I was a while back (by choice). I bought this lens expressly for outdoor use, where it has been a star so far.
3. The weight of the 2.8 IS glass would not be pretty for me, even with IS to minimize my crappy hand-holding.
4. ~$1500
Seriously, I've (intentionally) avoided ALL of the 70-200s for what, 2 years? The 135 usually does what I need and want for a tele. I only bought the f4 for a very specific situation, but there's no way I'll let it go now that I"ve used it - I can't tell you how surprised I was to discover how much I like it! I use it from pretty close distances a lot of the time so can get some pretty nice bokeh even at f4; stepping back it's not as much as I'd like, but since I have other lenses that will give me that, it's a reasonable trade-off for me at this time. I know I'll cave and go 2.8 eventually, but to date it really has been practical concerns rather than anything against them artistically
Btw, the 85 1.2 is my main wishlist lens these days. I know it can be a pig to use but OH what it can yield....
The exterior not going to win a beauty contest, but the glass is in perfect condition and the thing functions just like it did the day I bought it from B&H. Since the majority of my work is outdoors these days, I find that I can just step a little closer with my 135L
PM Sent
I would be more inclined to buy used camere gear from this forum, POTN, FM, etc. (buy check the feedback!) if they offered a return policy where you could inspect the lens that might be OK