# EF70-200 f/2.8L IS ll refurbished @ Canon for $1699.20 & I'm screwed



## brad-man (Mar 10, 2013)

Well I just bought one of these from Canon and now I will feel guilty (at least until I do some shooting with it). You see, the problem is I already have the most excellent f/4 IS version and so do not really _need_ this monster. So I have convinced myself that this purchase was an _investment_, so I _should_ be able to sell it for not too much loss if I should so choose. Fine. The problem is that I am afraid that I wont want to sell my f/4 due to size/weight etc. and will have _two_ 70-200 zooms, which seems more than just a little silly. I am hoping that, after seeing the magic that comes from the 2.8, I will willingly part with my little girlyman zoom, but I think that in reality I am screwed...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2013)

The MkII is a wonderful lens, I doubt you'll regret it. If anything, you'll be selling the f/4 version. Personally, I can see the utility of having the 70-200 II, and the 70-300L for travel. The latter made the 70-200/4 IS less interesting, to me.


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The MkII is a wonderful lens, I doubt you'll regret it. If anything, you'll be selling the f/4 version. Personally, I can see the utility of having the 70-200 II, and the 70-300L for travel. The latter made the 70-200/4 IS less interesting, to me.



+1. I got mine used for 1900 and thought the same thing over my MK1. Sold the Mk1 and have not looked back. Great deal!


----------



## J.R. (Mar 10, 2013)

If weight is not an issue, you should sell the f/4 lens.

I plan to get the f/2.8 II but will retain the f/4 (non-IS) to have a lightweight tele-zoom to take on hikes. The 2.8 is a beast but weighs twice as much as the f/4 lenses. Having two zooms in the same range seems stupid but them again ... Horses for courses!


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 10, 2013)

brad-man said:


> You see, the problem is I already have the most excellent f/4 IS version and so do not really _need_ this monster. So I have convinced myself that this purchase was an _investment_, so I _should_ be able to sell it for not too much loss if I should so choose. Fine. The problem is that I am afraid that I wont want to sell my f/4 due to size/weight etc. and will have _two_ 70-200 zooms, which seems more than just a little silly. I am hoping that, after seeing the magic that comes from the 2.8, I will willingly part with my little girlyman zoom, but I think that in reality I am screwed...



A lot of folks probably end up with duplicates in this range and keep them for one reason or the other. It is a slippery slope though...I have somehow ended up with four, yes, four of the zooms in this range with much overlap: 70-200 f4, 70-200 f2.8II, 70-300L IS, and 100-400L IS. 

Owing to weight, I favor the 70-200 f/4 and the 70-300L IS. The other two are underused if at all. Yet, I just can't seem to bring myself to sell the 70-200 f/2.8II as it is a great zoom inspite of the shortcomings on weight and obviousness which leads me to rag on it quite a bit here... The 100-400L I bought used at a price I couldn't pass up. Only wild life I see in my life is a mangy squirrel now and then. I have always said I am gonna get rid of the last two...eventually...in due course of time...when the time is ripe... :-\

So yeah, slippery slope... sign up for "L.A" ...Lenses Anonymous. :-X


----------



## brad-man (Mar 10, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > You see, the problem is I already have the most excellent f/4 IS version and so do not really _need_ this monster. So I have convinced myself that this purchase was an _investment_, so I _should_ be able to sell it for not too much loss if I should so choose. Fine. The problem is that I am afraid that I wont want to sell my f/4 due to size/weight etc. and will have _two_ 70-200 zooms, which seems more than just a little silly. I am hoping that, after seeing the magic that comes from the 2.8, I will willingly part with my little girlyman zoom, but I think that in reality I am screwed...
> ...



In the interest of full disclosure, I also have the 100-400L _as well as_ the 300L f/4...


----------



## bwfishing (Mar 10, 2013)

Granted I don't have this lens, but Canon list this lens at Weight 52.6 oz./1490g or 1490 Grams = 3.284887703800 Pounds. What is so bad about that?

I've walked around for hours with a 300mm f2.8, taking pictures of wildlife @ 5.6 lbs and granted it was a workout, but still...


----------



## bwfishing (Mar 10, 2013)

You have the 100-400mm that is got to be at least 3bls right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2013)

brad-man said:


> In the interest of full disclosure, I also have the 100-400L _as well as_ the 300L f/4...



Hello, my name is <insert name here>, and I have a problem. 

I tried the 12-step program. I exceed expectations when I bought my 13th lens.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > In the interest of full disclosure, I also have the 100-400L _as well as_ the 300L f/4...
> ...



This zoom will make it 12 for me. I need to part with some or I _need an intervention_


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 10, 2013)

Naah, you just need an attitude adjustment. As for me, #14 is getting ordered next week.


----------



## Alex (Mar 10, 2013)

I felt the same when I bough my 600mm mk2... As soon as I used it i forgot about the guilt and started thinking what a great investment


----------



## J.R. (Mar 10, 2013)

bwfishing said:


> Granted I don't have this lens, but Canon list this lens at Weight 52.6 oz./1490g or 1490 Grams = 3.284887703800 Pounds. What is so bad about that?
> 
> I've walked around for hours with a 300mm f2.8, taking pictures of wildlife @ 5.6 lbs and granted it was a workout, but still...



Carrying a single lens is not such a big issue ... but try doing a trek ascending 4,000-5,000 feet with a few lenses, multiple camera bodies, a tripod and some other stuff you need. Weight does become an issue at some point and its better to be light rather than heavy! OTOH, maybe you are stronger than I am


----------



## candyman (Mar 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The MkII is a wonderful lens, I doubt you'll regret it. If anything, you'll be selling the f/4 version. Personally, *I can see the utility of having the 70-200 II, and the 70-300L for travel*. The latter made the 70-200/4 IS less interesting, to me.



+1 
I first owned the 70-300L. And, it is a great travel lens. Still I purchased the 70-200 f/2.8 It is a great portrait / urban travel /sport lens. No regret I bought it.


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 10, 2013)

J.R. said:


> bwfishing said:
> 
> 
> > Granted I don't have this lens, but Canon list this lens at Weight 52.6 oz./1490g or 1490 Grams = 3.284887703800 Pounds. What is so bad about that?
> ...



Could not agree more. I lug my 400 f/2.8 II in a glass Limo while skiing/hiking with:70-200 f/2.8II, 8-15 fish, 5d3 on occasion, 1.4 TC, 1Dx, RSS Versa 33 and monopod and spare batteries food etc. I have a loaner 500 f/4 II at the moment and the extra 2 Lb is very nice, I feel less exhausted when I get to my location.


----------



## eos650 (Mar 10, 2013)

Congrats on your purchase. I'm sure you will be happy with your decision. I have the 70-200mm f2.8L and look forward to replacing it with this lens in the not too distant future.

I would have bought one of these a few weeks back, when they were offering 20% off, had it been in stock. However, I was able to snag an 85mm f1.2L II, so now I'm a bit short on funds. Hopefully, this will go back on sale at 20% off, in a couple of months, once I have refilled my coffers.


----------



## bwfishing (Mar 10, 2013)

I guess I'm too young (& stupid) to understand yet. A couple of extra pounds sounds like fun to me. It's all good! To each his own! And enjoy the new lens!


----------



## Aglet (Mar 10, 2013)

Lenses are good investments, tend to hold their value well and some of the older ones (nikon, pentax, CZ) are actually _appreciating_ lately.

Don't worry about having too many, you could have, say, 119... and still not be too concerned..


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 10, 2013)

Only read the following if this thread is making you twitch, tempting you to go spend that ~$1830 at the Canon store...._the following is not meant for humorless fanboys _ :

1) Canon Refurbished price though at first blush seems low at $1700, in the US, they do add tax (unlike many online stores), and that would be about ~$130 more on top of that price....so you hit that ~$1830 mark easy while you can have a new lens during rebate season for a few bucks more and get a a real box as opposed to the refurbished one and importantly a full year warranty as opposed to 90 days. Clearly, this is not a big deal, but if you need reasons to stall.

2) Let me think of other terrible things to dampen your ardor...lets see... The weight is significant as the sane already pointed out, it is also that obvious "look-at-me" lens for regular folk at venues, also keep in mind you get warts when you touch it and it leaks green gooey stuff when you are sleeping in your ears... and did I mention this lens stinks when you take it out of the bag? It smells like _a mix between nerd and fanboy_...

3) Let's see...and the bokeh they say isn't all that pleasing...to see this you have to pick shots from the greyest winter day with a grey statue and grey bare twigs taken by someone totally unbiased and sweet shivering in the cemetery...can you live with something like the bokeh in that picture that I ...er...completely randomly chose?! Seriously! You don't need this... it is not good at all... awful... and if none of this makes a dent...think of the poor starving children of the world! :-\

Note to fanboys: I am just trying to bring down the purchase fever others may have after the gormless fawing and lovefest that goes on here over this zoom. Relax.... I think it is a good piece of glass.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Naah, you just need an attitude adjustment. As for me, #14 is getting ordered next week.



If 'n' is the number of lenses you have now, the ideal number would be 'n+1'


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 10, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Naah, you just need an attitude adjustment. As for me, #14 is getting ordered next week.
> ...



And the "_rational_" number would be "n - 3"


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 10, 2013)

brad-man said:


> but I think that in reality I am screwed...


Yes you are ;D


----------



## Brand B (Mar 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> .
> 
> I tried the 12-step program. I exceed expectations when I bought my 13th lens.



As a friend of mine used to say, rehab is for quitters.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 11, 2013)

Well this zoom may be a reprieve for my ef1.4xll. I have never been too happy with the results with it on any of my lenses and was going to unload it. I've read that the 2.8 plays very well with extenders, so it may have a new lease on life. As an aside, I ordered that lens at 9:22 this morning and it STILL hasn't shipped. Why is Canon always so slow?


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 11, 2013)

RS2021 said:


> The weight is significant as the sane already pointed out



Meh.. 3lb isnt that much~ Good read


----------



## pjdavep (Mar 11, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Well this zoom may be a reprieve for my ef1.4xll. I have never been too happy with the results with it on any of my lenses and was going to unload it. I've read that the 2.8 plays very well with extenders, so it may have a new lease on life. As an aside, I ordered that lens at 9:22 this morning and it STILL hasn't shipped. Why is Canon always so slow?



It's Sunday and Fedex doesn't pickup today, so even if you got a tracking number it really wouldn't mean anything 

Later,
pjdavep


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2013)

I ordered one as well. I also have the f/4 IS. If I like it, I'll keep it, I have 14 days to return it. I've returned two of them over the years due to the weight, then I found my pain was due to carpal tunnel. I had surgery last fall, so I'm hoping to be able to hold it better. I also sold my 1 series camera due to the problem, so my 5D MK III will not be as heavy with it.


----------



## infared (Mar 11, 2013)

Well RS2021...in spite of the weight, the cost and whatever...I LOVE mine!
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8480/8216459097_07bf31bb1b_b.jpg
This is NOT a lens that I would pick for creamy bokeh....but anyone knows that after reading one review. There are many other lens choices out there for that. This lens is all about sharpness and speed...and it is GREAT at what it achieves best!


----------



## RGF (Mar 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The MkII is a wonderful lens, I doubt you'll regret it. If anything, you'll be selling the f/4 version. Personally, I can see the utility of having the 70-200 II, and the 70-300L for travel. The latter made the 70-200/4 IS less interesting, to me.



Originally had the 70-200 F2.8 and then added F4 for travel (both IS). Then I heard about the 70-300 and reluctantly took the plunge. THinking of selling the F4 IS but it is a great lens. Hard to decide which to let go.

I know I need to get on the 12 step problem, at least I know I have a problem - it is called GAS.


----------



## infared (Mar 11, 2013)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The MkII is a wonderful lens, I doubt you'll regret it. If anything, you'll be selling the f/4 version. Personally, I can see the utility of having the 70-200 II, and the 70-300L for travel. The latter made the 70-200/4 IS less interesting, to me.
> ...



My advise is to eat Beano before each lens purchase...and you should be just F.I.N.E.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 11, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Well this zoom may be a reprieve for my ef1.4xll. I have never been too happy with the results with it on any of my lenses and was going to unload it. I've read that the 2.8 plays very well with extenders, so it may have a new lease on life. As an aside, I ordered that lens at 9:22 this morning and it STILL hasn't shipped. Why is Canon always so slow?



That's correct, I have my 1.4 II on it a lot of the time and the results are excellent. Mind you that's on my 7D. According to this http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx, the 1.4 II may actually do a better job with this lens on a crop body than a 1.4 III. Check out the ISO 12233 Crops.



> For serious wildlife photography, I usually recommend a longer focal length lens such as the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens. But, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II will work great if the subject is relatively close and/or large. When paired with the Canon Extender EF 1.4x II on a Canon APS-C/1.6x body, this lens works especially well for this purpose.


----------



## jcatterino (Mar 11, 2013)

brad-man said:


> Well I just bought one of these from Canon and now I will feel guilty (at least until I do some shooting with it). You see, the problem is I already have the most excellent f/4 IS version and so do not really _need_ this monster. So I have convinced myself that this purchase was an _investment_, so I _should_ be able to sell it for not too much loss if I should so choose. Fine. The problem is that I am afraid that I wont want to sell my f/4 due to size/weight etc. and will have _two_ 70-200 zooms, which seems more than just a little silly. I am hoping that, after seeing the magic that comes from the 2.8, I will willingly part with my little girlyman zoom, but I think that in reality I am screwed...



I am in the same boat!! Bought one yesterday morning also!! I am going to sell my 70-200 F4 IS that I bought 4 months ago....This is one expensive hobby. I have purchased a 24-70mm 2.8 MKI, 135mm F2L, 100mm IS F2.8 Macro, 35mm F1.4L, 1.4x Kenco and 2X III teleconvertors and now the 70-200mm IS 2.8 IS in less than 4 months...just for vacation shots and family photos.. explain that one to your wife (That's after buying the 5D MKIII for my Christmas gift to myself..lol)


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 11, 2013)

jcatterino said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Well I just bought one of these from Canon and now I will feel guilty (at least until I do some shooting with it). You see, the problem is I already have the most excellent f/4 IS version and so do not really _need_ this monster. So I have convinced myself that this purchase was an _investment_, so I _should_ be able to sell it for not too much loss if I should so choose. Fine. The problem is that I am afraid that I wont want to sell my f/4 due to size/weight etc. and will have _two_ 70-200 zooms, which seems more than just a little silly. I am hoping that, after seeing the magic that comes from the 2.8, I will willingly part with my little girlyman zoom, but I think that in reality I am screwed...
> ...



At some point you get to know your style "exactly" and you cherish the lenses that fit that style...It takes a while to get there. It is always great to be at that zen point where realization occurs that "one of each" lens and genre is not necessary...but by the time we get to that point...we frequently have, not one, but many of each.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 11, 2013)

The 70-200II is the best 70-200mm available from canon, and its fantastic. Too heavy for my tastes, but you may want to sell the 70-200F4L for the smaller 135L prime to complement the new big white shark.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 11, 2013)

jcatterino said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > Well I just bought one of these from Canon and now I will feel guilty (at least until I do some shooting with it). You see, the problem is I already have the most excellent f/4 IS version and so do not really _need_ this monster. So I have convinced myself that this purchase was an _investment_, so I _should_ be able to sell it for not too much loss if I should so choose. Fine. The problem is that I am afraid that I wont want to sell my f/4 due to size/weight etc. and will have _two_ 70-200 zooms, which seems more than just a little silly. I am hoping that, after seeing the magic that comes from the 2.8, I will willingly part with my little girlyman zoom, but I think that in reality I am screwed...
> ...



I have the 100-400L which is about the same size/weight of the 2.8, so I know what it's like carrying a tree stump around all day. When you need to, you need to. But often I head out with my Think Tank Retro 5 stuffed with my 5Dmkll + SP24-70VC + either 17-40L or 70-200L with no particular photographic mission in mind. I just like to have my stuff. I don't think I'm likely to do that with the 2.8L. So I'm screwed in that I think I will "need" to keep my f/4 for such trips as well as when "traveling light."

On a positive note, I just got the shipping label from Canon so my new heavy toy should ship tomorrow, yipee!


----------



## brad-man (Mar 11, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The 70-200II is the best 70-200mm available from canon, and its fantastic. Too heavy for my tastes, but you may want to sell the 70-200F4L for the smaller 135L prime to complement the new big white shark.



At this last refurb sale Canon had, I almost grabbed one for $711. In the end, due to the lack of IS, I just didn't feel I'd get enough use out of it to justify the purchase. A lens is a terrible thing to waste...


----------



## jcatterino (Mar 11, 2013)

Is it me or does it seem funny that there were NO 70-200 available(I hear a couple people got them if they had them saved in their wish list) the whole time they were 20% off but a couple weeks later and 15 % off and there seems many have been available?? Not that I am complaining since I bought one this time...lol


----------



## brad-man (Mar 11, 2013)

jcatterino said:


> Is it me or does it seem funny that there were NO 70-200 available(I hear a couple people got them if they had them saved in their wish list) the whole time they were 20% off but a couple weeks later and 15 % off and there seems many have been available?? Not that I am complaining since I bought one this time...lol



You are correct. There were none available during the first sale, just as there were no 5Dmkllls either. Canon then offered 15% off the 70-200 and the mklll sold for something like $2367.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 12, 2013)

brad-man said:


> I have the 100-400L which is about the same size/weight of the 2.8, so I know what it's like carrying a tree stump around all day. When you need to, you need to. But often I head out with my Think Tank Retro 5 stuffed with my 5Dmkll + SP24-70VC + either 17-40L or 70-200L with no particular photographic mission in mind. I just like to have my stuff. I don't think I'm likely to do that with the 2.8L. So I'm screwed in that I think I will "need" to keep my f/4 for such trips as well as when "traveling light."
> 
> On a positive note, I just got the shipping label from Canon so my new heavy toy should ship tomorrow, yipee!



I find the 100-400 is (a lot) easier to carry, esp with a tele converter! I very often have the 1.4TC on the 70-200 so here are the weights:

70-200 IS II : 1490 grams
100-400 : 1380 grams
70-200 IS II + 1.4 II (=98-280 f/4) : 1710 grams

Also, the 70-200 seems a lot more front-heavy than the 100-400, this gets worse obviously if you add the TC. The 100-400 gets long when you point it at (fast) things far-away which makes it easier to 'aim'.

This is why I prefer the 100-400 on sunny days when I need the extra reach, but I will live with the extra weight of the 70-200x1.4 when I need f/4


----------



## Grumbaki (Mar 12, 2013)

Photog are one of the types of geek that can be buff and tanned. Take advatage of it. Sell the f4, use the f2.8 work out.


----------

