A&P Good Deal on 70-200 f4?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Striff, Feb 6, 2009.

  1. Striff

    Striff Gimme the chocolate OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    33,685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Encinitas / San Diego
    My buddy wants to sell me his 70-200 f4 non IS. He has used it a little, but not too much. He has everything that came in the box and he is also throwing in the tripod collar. He wants $400. Should I get it?
     
  2. Mutombo

    Mutombo New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Damn good deal. They are $600 new. As long as the glass is mint I'd go for it. I usually see them for 450-500 used. Fwiw, I sold mine for $550 on ebay during the live.com cashback deal when I upgraded to the IS version.
     
  3. Mutombo

    Mutombo New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Also, the tripod collars cost extra for the f4 version. If it's a canon tripod collar, that could be worth another $125 or so.
     
  4. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,486
    Likes Received:
    69
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    with tripod collar especially that's a rad deal
     
  5. ace3

    ace3 mouthify my wang.

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    122,602
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Omaha NebrASSka Posts: 15
    buy it
     
  6. Striff

    Striff Gimme the chocolate OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    33,685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Encinitas / San Diego
    Yea. It's a 3rd party collar. Oh well. Gunna pick it up on Monday.
     
  7. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    skip the 70-200mm f/4 and save for the f/2.8
     
  8. Striff

    Striff Gimme the chocolate OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    33,685
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Encinitas / San Diego
    Everyone I have talked to personally has said that the difference in price is not really worth it. Out of curiosity why do you think it would be worth it?
     
  9. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    everyone you have talked to is probably:

    wrong

    limp wristed

    a woman

    someone that already has a 70-200mm f/2.8 and is getting the f/4 for weight reasons

    trying to justify their ownership of an f/4

    ...
     
  10. Mutombo

    Mutombo New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    I disagree. I have the f4 and I CHOSE it over the f2.8. It had nothing to do with saving money.

    It depends on how you use it. I don't use that focal length indoors so I didn't need the extra stop. That combined with the fact that the f4 version is actually sharper, and SIGNIFICANTLY smaller and lighter, it was an easy chose to make.

    If you shoot indoors, or shoot sports, without a doubt the 2.8 is the way to go. Just depends on how, or what, you shoot.
     
  11. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    see:

    limp wristed
     
  12. Mutombo

    Mutombo New Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    5,289
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco
    :ugh2:
     
  13. siniquezu

    siniquezu New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    8,669
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol @ drama
     
  14. Deepsix

    Deepsix OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    19,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canada
    it has nothing to do with that. it's more comfortable for anyone to have more than a lb less weight to lug around
     
  15. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,486
    Likes Received:
    69
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    maybe if you have fragile girl wrists
     
  16. Killyin

    Killyin Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    65,029
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    The F/2.8 IS is the mother of all tele-zooms. I have the F/4 right now and I'm saving little by little for the 2.8 IS.

    The good thing about the F/4 is that it's fairly inexpensive in comparison and retains it's value. You could most likely buy it for $400 from your buddy and flip it for $550 with very little hassle.
     
  17. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    the 200-400mm f/4 VR is the mother of all first-party telezooms, i'm exclding the new f/2.8 bigma

    the 100-300mm f/4 HSM sigma is also a really good value

    you really need to assess what your intentions are for using the 70-200mm f/4

    the 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x or 1.7x teleconverters are extremely versatile as a set
     
  18. Killyin

    Killyin Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    65,029
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto
    F/2.8 bigma?!
     
  19. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
  20. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    the 100-300mm f/4 HSM, 200-400mm f/4 AF-S VR are both very handholdable, unless you have the arms of a woman

    you should be able to handhold a 70-200mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8, 200mm f/2.0 or f/1.8 no problem

    200-500mm f/2.8 not so much
     
  21. Killyin

    Killyin Vicariously I, live while the whole world dies.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    65,029
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto

    :werd:

    The 70-200 F/2.8 isn't THAT big/heavy. Unless you're a little girl...hand holding it isn't a problem.
     
  22. ZCP M3

    ZCP M3 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    11,999
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    I paid $450 for my flawless 70-200L f/4 with a B+W UV multi-coated filter on it. I absolutely love mine.

    Pick the lens up, you won't regret it, even if you use it as a stepping stone to the 2.8 IS model because it holds its value.
     
  23. hash browns

    hash browns lolcathlon champion OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    95,387
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Manhattan Beach, CA
    don't count on things holding their value in the years ahead

    i'm expecting a glut of used equipment to hit the market when all of the amateurs give up their gear due to economic conditions
     
  24. White Stormy

    White Stormy Take that, subspace!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    85,486
    Likes Received:
    69
    Location:
    Sparkopolis
    :x: I can't wait.
     
  25. asdfbunk

    asdfbunk A Member OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    29,804
    Likes Received:
    7
    :x:
     

Share This Page