Canon 70-200 f/4

milou · 09-06-2005, 21:19

Just received a substantive promotion at work (even at my advanced years) so I fancy a treat (!). I currently have a 300d with a 50mm f/1.8 and a recently acquired 17-40L. A pal advised me that the 70-200 would "complete" the outfit. It's a great lens but I wonder if the money wouldn't be best suited towards a 20d - just wondered what you guys/gals think. Ideally I'd like both (!) but as always there're other commitments.

I'm orf to Switzerland in mid-July too - ideal for the 17-40 but I thought a zoom might come in handy. The last few times I was there I had no interest in photography but now I can imagine all sorts of scenarios.

Cheers me dears :)

IanC_UK · 09-06-2005, 21:39

To be honest, i would say get the 70-200, then if you can afford to upgrade later you just need the 20D body and all of your lenses will still fit ! If you go to Switzerland with a 20D and your current lenses, you will still feel short a lens without the bigger zoom !

My 2p worth anyway !

CT · 09-06-2005, 21:47

Buy the lens! The 300D is still a great camera capable of delivering superb results, and the ability to swop lenses is one of the main reasons we buy an SLR - or should be. Without the lenses we're severely restricted in what we can do. You'll probably get the 20D at some stage anyway. :wink:

milou · 09-06-2005, 22:00

Cheers!

Sounds like a plan & Her Ladyship is in agreement too...

IanC_UK · 09-06-2005, 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by milou

Cheers!

Sounds like a plan & Her Ladyship is in agreement too...

Cool

dod · 09-06-2005, 23:10

The 70-200 F4 is great, BUT, think carefully about what you want it for. I bought it and thought it would be enough. Unfortunately I find myself regularly needing just that tiny bit more and so, I'm ordering a teleconvertor. A better, albeit more expensive option in my case would have been the 100-400 or a third party alternative. Unfortunately I can't justify forking out another grand just now.

I'm not trying to damp things but just trying to make sure you get the right thing, good glass is expensive

IanC_UK · 09-06-2005, 23:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by dod

The 70-200 F4 is great, BUT, think carefully about what you want it for. I bought it and thought it would be enough. Unfortunately I find myself regularly needing just that tiny bit more and so, I'm ordering a teleconvertor. A better, albeit more expensive option in my case would have been the 100-400 or a third party alternative. Unfortunately I can't justify forking out another grand just now.

I'm not trying to damp things but just trying to make sure you get the right thing, good glass is expensive

I know what you are saying mate !

Only argument i can have with that, is !!! i think when i get my 100-400 next week, i will probably still find myself just a little short on magnification sometimes !

so then a converter, and then maybe a 600 or a 1200 (although £60000 for that may be a little excessive) etc etc !

lol

milou · 09-06-2005, 23:44

I suppose a "safety net" is that L glass seems to have a good resale value.

CT · 10-06-2005, 00:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by milou

I suppose a "safety net" is that L glass seems to have a good resale value.

That's a very good point actually.

AndyD · 10-06-2005, 00:30

I have one, and I can't fault it. It's light, sharp and great value for an "L" lens.

09-06-2005, 21:19	#1 (permalink)
milou Forum Regular Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Southampton Posts: 583	Canon 70-200 f/4 Just received a substantive promotion at work (even at my advanced years) so I fancy a treat (!). I currently have a 300d with a 50mm f/1.8 and a recently acquired 17-40L. A pal advised me that the 70-200 would "complete" the outfit. It's a great lens but I wonder if the money wouldn't be best suited towards a 20d - just wondered what you guys/gals think. Ideally I'd like both (!) but as always there're other commitments. I'm orf to Switzerland in mid-July too - ideal for the 17-40 but I thought a zoom might come in handy. The last few times I was there I had no interest in photography but now I can imagine all sorts of scenarios. Cheers me dears :) __________________ 100% zimmer photoblog

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Second Hand Canon 20D v New Canon 400D	nk3905	Which Camera Should I Buy?	13	02-06-2007 10:06
Handled the Canon 5D, Canon 30D & Nikon 200D today	Dave	Which Camera Should I Buy?	5	03-10-2006 18:47
Canon 30d wins Canon/Nikon race	barrymoir	General photography questions and answers	7	13-01-2006 16:51
Canon Professional Newsletter Issue 14 - not just for Canon users	Adrian	General photography questions and answers	3	28-08-2005 18:12

09-06-2005, 21:39	#2 (permalink)
IanC_UK Feet under the table Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Northampton Posts: 2,137	To be honest, i would say get the 70-200, then if you can afford to upgrade later you just need the 20D body and all of your lenses will still fit ! If you go to Switzerland with a 20D and your current lenses, you will still feel short a lens without the bigger zoom ! My 2p worth anyway !

09-06-2005, 21:47	#3 (permalink)
CT Feet under the table Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: West Mids UK Posts: 3,500	Buy the lens! The 300D is still a great camera capable of delivering superb results, and the ability to swop lenses is one of the main reasons we buy an SLR - or should be. Without the lenses we're severely restricted in what we can do. You'll probably get the 20D at some stage anyway. :wink:

09-06-2005, 22:00	#4 (permalink)
milou Forum Regular Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Southampton Posts: 583	Cheers! Sounds like a plan & Her Ladyship is in agreement too...

09-06-2005, 23:10	#6 (permalink)
dod Feet under the table Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Nairn Posts: 1,911	The 70-200 F4 is great, BUT, think carefully about what you want it for. I bought it and thought it would be enough. Unfortunately I find myself regularly needing just that tiny bit more and so, I'm ordering a teleconvertor. A better, albeit more expensive option in my case would have been the 100-400 or a third party alternative. Unfortunately I can't justify forking out another grand just now. I'm not trying to damp things but just trying to make sure you get the right thing, good glass is expensive

09-06-2005, 23:44	#8 (permalink)
milou Forum Regular Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Southampton Posts: 583	I suppose a "safety net" is that L glass seems to have a good resale value.

10-06-2005, 00:30	#10 (permalink)
AndyD New here Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Cambs, UK Posts: 38	I have one, and I can't fault it. It's light, sharp and great value for an "L" lens.