Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 27, 2010, 8:09 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 80
Default Hypothetical better deal (EF 70-300 IS, 70-200/4 NON IS)

Quick question, as there have been tons of threads on this very topic across the internet.

If a new EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS is $480 or so, and a used (seven-year old) EF 70-200/4L is $450 (but in great condition), would the 70-200 be the inarguable best choice? Or would the IS/reach outweigh the age of the L lens?

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/87/496187.jpg
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/88/496188.jpg

I think I would be hand holding most of the time, and have no real telephoto specialty since I'm a total amateur whose longest lens is the 18-55 IS kit.

Thanks!

Last edited by cjp87; Dec 27, 2010 at 8:26 PM.
cjp87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 27, 2010, 8:14 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
JustinThyme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 361
Default

As for optical quality yes, if you hand hold a lot at slower shutter speeds then IS is nice to have.
JustinThyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2010, 8:52 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

What do you want to shoot?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2010, 10:03 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 80
Default

That's part of the problem for me: I don't really know. Like I said, I'm totally amateur and more opportunistic than anything, so the possibilities are pretty out there.

I know I enjoy wildlife, but I definitely can't afford the 100-400L/500L or something equivalent, so I don't have delusions of getting the perfect birding shots. But if the opportunity arose to shoot birds, lizards (I'm going to St. Lucia for a honeymoon next July), or any other nearby animals, I will definitely try and take them.

Unfortunately the University of Oklahoma doesn't allow removable lenses at football games, so I won't be shooting there, either.

I plan on keeping everything for a very long time, so I suppose in the future I'll have a family (but that's years off, and I'll be better funded when that time comes around).

When I go on vacations I do a ton of shooting. In Ireland that was mostly done with the Tokina 11-16, but a quality zoom would've been handy for sure, so outdoor/scenery stuff will definitely happen.

I think this is part of my problem: not having a niche or typical application for the lens I'm looking for. I just know that I've had plenty of occasions where the kit lens was just nowhere near long enough, and I saw this 70-200/4L on the (relative) cheap, albeit a bit aged.
cjp87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 28, 2010, 1:47 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Since you want to do some wildlife shooting, I think the 70-200 will be too short, and while the 70-300 won't be great for that, it'll be better than the 70-200. And it's stabilized, which is another advantage for what you want to do with it.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 29, 2010, 12:21 AM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 80
Default

So I just came across a used 70-300 IS that "if you look really hard in just the right angle and light, you may discern the faintest mark on the glass. I could not take a picture of it, and it in no way affects image quality. As you can see, the lens is otherwise in great condition." Red Flags for anyone? The seller seems to be pretty reputable (30 positive reviews, 0 negative).

It's quite cheap ($350).
cjp87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2010, 1:09 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
JustinThyme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 361
Default

Where is this offered?
You have to take into account that marks on the glass has an affect and resale value whether or not the mark has an affect on the images. I would say an average used price for this lens would be around $400-$425 and non L glass doesnt hold its resale value as much as the L glass does with a few exceptions of some EF primes like the 85 1.8 or the 50 1.4
While L glass cost more it holds value very well. Example I bought a 70-200 2.8L IS in 2006 for $1350 new and sold it used a month or two ago for $1450. Of course it was still in mint condition.
JustinThyme is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 AM.