Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II

Nexus

Nexus

Nexus

Soldato
Joined
13 Feb 2003
Posts
10,631
Location
London
Does anyone on here have one of these badboys?

I've been thinking it over and tried one out in a shop the other day.
It's a lot of money to drop on a lens, but I think it will take some fantastic pictures.

How have any owners found it?
 
Yes I have one and tbh with getting it recently and being ill I've not had much of a chance to take the photos I wanted.

I took some quick test shots and have found mine to be very very sharp even pixel peeping. Mine gets better towards 200mm as well.

As you would expect for the money really, very fast and even handheld in low light I got fantastically sharp images.

I was really happy with my 17-55 2.8 until I tried this lens. I can easily see it being my most used lens even for portraits.
 
If you've got the money and know you'll use it, don't think twice about buying one! I've just bought the bottom end of the line 70-200 F4L non IS and that is REALLY nice. The shots I've seen from the new 2.8 are awesome.

Buy it now (and get me one!).
 
I got the 70-200L f4, and it's a brilliant lens, obviously the big brother would be far better but I don't have the budget at the minute.

Ideally I'll upgrade to a f2.8 in the future. But yeah, nice and fast for a zoom, USM, practically submersible! Great lens.
 
I have the Nikon equivalent and it's sublime. Sharp, contrasty, great colour reproduction - wide open across the entire focal length. I hear the Canon is much the same...

That said, every so often I think about selling it as I use it fairly infrequently as it's a big, heavy bit of glass which just doesn't go in the bag on the off chance. It only takes me a few minutes shooting with it (or 30 seconds reviewing the shots I've taken with it) to forget that idea but it is worth questioning if you'll really use it often enough to justify owning rather than hiring.
 
The size and weight is the reason I'm sticking with the f4 IS. I know I'll take the f4 with me everywhere but I doubt that'd be the case with the twice as heavy f2.8 II. For me, weight is a big consideration when it comes to lugging slr kit up a mountain!
 
I did wonder about the weight, which is why I tried it out in the shop.

It struck me though that it wouldn't really be much of an issue to carry around with another lens or two.

I know a friend of mine who is a Pro Ski Photographer and has both lenses and he uses the f4 up on the mountains due to it being lighter. Thing is with him is that he is lugging a hell of a lot of kit with him, so I can see how every little bit of weight you can shed is important.

That's not likely to be such an issue with me.
 
Same as the rest really, I have the F4 version and it's quite sharp. I will upgrade later this year to a 2.8 IS if the need is there.
 
The one thing that does tempt me about the f2.8 II is it's ability to take a 1.4x and 2x and retain superb IQ. An f/2.8-4 lens with a range of 70-400mm coupled with solid IQ is a very enticing option! I wouldn't mind the weight so much with something as versatile as that.
 
I've just gotten back into photography and bought one of these to go with a 7D. The lense is unbelievable and the quality from it amazes everybody who has seen pictures from it. In conjunction with the 2x teleconverter, the quality is still fantastic at f5.6
 
bigredshark said:
I have the Nikon equivalent and it's sublime. Sharp, contrasty, great colour reproduction - wide open across the entire focal length. I hear the Canon is much the same...

That said, every so often I think about selling it as I use it fairly infrequently as it's a big, heavy bit of glass which just doesn't go in the bag on the off chance. It only takes me a few minutes shooting with it (or 30 seconds reviewing the shots I've taken with it) to forget that idea but it is worth questioning if you'll really use it often enough to justify owning rather than hiring.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this - for years I lusted over this lens and went an intermediate route via an 80-200 AF-D.

The photos are sublime, the handling great. I used it at a wedding and had so many great photos. Not just sharpness, but the contract, colours, the creamy bokeh.

But I don't actually use it that much. I find my 70-300 VR get very close (from 70-200, this lens is amazing), but since it is a fraction of the weight it is a no brainier for taking up 15,000ft mountains and 20 mile treks.
 
Nexus said:
I did wonder about the weight, which is why I tried it out in the shop.

It struck me though that it wouldn't really be much of an issue to carry around with another lens or two.

I know a friend of mine who is a Pro Ski Photographer and has both lenses and he uses the f4 up on the mountains due to it being lighter. Thing is with him is that he is lugging a hell of a lot of kit with him, so I can see how every little bit of weight you can shed is important.

That's not likely to be such an issue with me.
Click to expand...

When your skiing you don't need 2.8 glass for most things.
a) There is plenty of light, even ina blizzard.
b) The shallow DoF is not really an issue most of the time since the snow quickly turns a pretty uniform white. The only ski shots where I saw good use of shallow DoF was taken with an 85 1.4 to throw the mountainous background.
 
not sure how good it is but if its 2 much for you to drop in one go look at the sigma version and you can always upgrade to the canon if your using the sigma a lot for work you know its worth the upgrade and the lens will pay for its self.

Alex
 
Should actually say that I bought one on Saturday!

It's a beast of a lens, not really had a chance to try it properly as the weather was so miserable.
 
I've had one for a couple of years. It replaced a Caon 75-300 EF lens. It's in a different league compared to that. I've also got the 1.4x and 2x converters and you can't tell the difference with them being on. I've also got a 100-400 Canon L lens which is lighter, but I use the 70-200 more as it's better for motorsport photography.
 
[Darkend]Viper;18390391 said:
I've had one for a couple of years. It replaced a Caon 75-300 EF lens. It's in a different league compared to that. I've also got the 1.4x and 2x converters and you can't tell the difference with them being on. I've also got a 100-400 Canon L lens which is lighter, but I use the 70-200 more as it's better for motorsport photography.
Click to expand...

Tish and pish! I love my 2.8 L IS - it's by far and away my most used lens - but I would definitely not recommend it for use in conjunction with the 2x converter. The images are noticeably soft at f/5.6 and softer than the 100-400 at the equivalent focal length ... and that's a pretty poor L lens in the first place, so that's not good. Focussing is noticably impaired as well. That's not with the latest generation of either, so I don't know how the new ones pair up, but I wouldn't imagine it's going to be a extraordinary change.
 
I've seen some very nice shots with 70-200 II and the 1.4 and 2.4 convertors on the Canon Forums lens sample thread, so I don't think it's quite as bad as you are making out.

I'm hoping to finally get out and use my lens this weekend, as I've had it a couple of weeks now and not had any free time.
 
Nexus said:
I've seen some very nice shots with 70-200 II and the 1.4 and 2.4 convertors on the Canon Forums lens sample thread, so I don't think it's quite as bad as you are making out.

I'm hoping to finally get out and use my lens this weekend, as I've had it a couple of weeks now and not had any free time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it can produce some nice shots, but in my experience it's better if you stop down a bit (which gives light issues) and have it very stable. Focussing is slow and it hunts quite badly if the subject contrast isn't that good. As I said, I also haven't used it with their new TC and I don't have the mkII version of the lens, so I don't know how that combo fairs.

That's not to say the 70-200 isn't a brilliant lens - it definitely is, and if you need the 2.8 over the 4, then I'd recommend one without question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom