Canon 70-200mm f2.8 mk2 - lens for pros?

jonneymendoza · 19 Jun 2011 at 22:57

Hi, I may have some funds to buy this lens but the question is, is this lens only suitable for pros who use it everyday compared to a hobbiest who only uses the camera maybe once of twice a month at an average per year?

If I got this I reckon this lens will last me a lifetime ie no reason to replace it and therefore the sound if spending 1.8k sounds like a investment.

I will use this for pretty much lots of things. Actions. Landscape. Candid street shots, low light candid shots indoors in a large hall etc etc.

Thoughts? Is this lens only for pros? Can this lens last a lifetime without malfunctioning ?

Also, Will it fit inside a lowepro 350 backpack and I assume this lens work fine on my Canon 400d.

Paul11 · 19 Jun 2011 at 23:35

no lens is "only for pros"

Ksanti · 19 Jun 2011 at 23:44

It is a great lens, but I'd question whether there's much point of sticking it on a 400d unless you plan to replace that too?

Paul11 · 19 Jun 2011 at 23:47

i agree, i would look at upgrading the body too

Schizophonic · 20 Jun 2011 at 00:07

do you know how heavy this lens is?

I've only used it when I'm at a back of a church wedding and its heavy!

mrthingyx · 20 Jun 2011 at 07:33

Ksanti said:
It is a great lens, but I'd question whether there's much point of sticking it on a 400d unless you plan to replace that too?

There's nothing wrong with the body - sure, it feels like a toy and isn't particularly clever, but it doesn't have to be repaced just because some nice glass is stuck in front of it.

The higher the resolution on the sensor, the better the high quality glass will help it resolve finer detail. Plus, bodies are cheap and won't make as big a difference to the photos as the glass...

D.P. · 20 Jun 2011 at 08:03

Ksanti said:
It is a great lens, but I'd question whether there's much point of sticking it on a 400d unless you plan to replace that too?

Replacing camera bodies is a waste of money, buy lenses first and only when you absolutely have to should you buy a new camera.
Cameras are disposable toys compared to lenses.

adamau5 · 20 Jun 2011 at 08:23

before i jumped to full frame i would have agreed.... but the step up from the 500d to the 5dmkII was huge, probably more so than improved glass (within reason :-)

)

33L · 20 Jun 2011 at 09:10

I Moved from the 400D -> 50D -> 5DII all of which have massive differences IMO, the 50D could capture more resolution than the 400D (im not just talking no. of pixels, the clarity was better) and as a result it showed up that i had some lenses that were worse than others. My addiction to lenses started at that point.

The 5DII just has the FF pop and wow and combined with some nice glass is a dream to use.

A.N.Other · 20 Jun 2011 at 09:48

Schizophonic said:
do you know how heavy this lens is?

Don't be a fairy

. The Mk1 is my lens of choice, and rarely leaves my camera.

Ksanti · 20 Jun 2011 at 09:59

D.P. said:
Replacing camera bodies is a waste of money, buy lenses first and only when you absolutely have to should you buy a new camera.
Cameras are disposable toys compared to lenses.

Not true at all.

The 400D will quite happily ruin any high ISO shots you might want to take

A higher end camera like a 60D/7D will, for the most part, sort those problems out, speed up autofocus (considering he wants to shoot action that's pretty important) and shoot faster.

And a full frame camera like a 5D will blow all of them out of the water for pure image quality.

While it might be fashionable to say you don't need a pro body, there are plenty of situations where a 400d would let you down. Not to mention how horribly unbalanced the combination will feel when you've got that much glass at the front and that much plastic at the back.

Paul11 · 20 Jun 2011 at 10:05

i agree the jump from the 400D to 5Dmkii would be huge

mcc49 · 20 Jun 2011 at 10:39

The 70-200II lives on my 5D2 now, yes its abit heavy but you ll soon get used to it. In fact I bought a battery grip for the 5D2 just so it balances the camera out.

Easily the sharpest zoom in my kit and even better than all my primes bar the 135L maybe.

jonneymendoza · 20 Jun 2011 at 10:39

Lens > body.

i will get a 7d at the end of the year or sometime next year. i want to build my lens collection first.

Also, i would love a 5dk mk2 but it has terrible AF compared to the 7d.

The choices in terms of body are a 7d or a 1d and to me a 1d is a bit overkill and pricey seeing as body's come and go whilst lenses last longer.
Will their be a 5dmk3 coming out at the end of this year/early next year?

How old is the 5dmk2? i might wait for the 5dmk3 if its on the horizon but for now. my 400d will be suitable for my needs. Yes i have hit a brick wall on it. i feel its limitations already but i have not completed my lens collection yet. i need a tele zoom

Paul11 · 20 Jun 2011 at 10:45

thats true, the lens should come first and is more of a long term investment

the 5Dmkii was just an example, the 7D is equally a great jump up from the 400D

mcc49 · 20 Jun 2011 at 10:54

No one knows when the 5D3 is coming out, any dates out there are just speculations. Try not to fall for the waiting for the next model game as its pretty pointless with tech. The 5D2 focus system is very primitive but is more than enough for more applications bar fast moving subjects.

Good thing about investing in top of the range L glass is that theres no more upgrade path so the its value always stays around the same as new and sometime even goes up, so you are never in a position to lose much money by investing in L glass even if you want to give up photography later down the line and sell your kit.

jonneymendoza · 20 Jun 2011 at 11:18

Plus the mk2 70-200mm is teh newest L lens and from what i can see, canon dont upgrade their lens every year like their camera bodys?

the mk1 70-200mm i heard was released 10 years ago? wow

mrthingyx · 20 Jun 2011 at 12:22

Ksanti said:
Not true at all.

The 400D will quite happily ruin any high ISO shots you might want to take

And sticking an EF 75-300 IS III on a 5D Mark 2 would, equally, ruin... well... any shot taken.

A higher end camera like a 60D/7D will, for the most part, sort those problems out, speed up autofocus (considering he wants to shoot action that's pretty important) and shoot faster.

No argument.

And a full frame camera like a 5D will blow all of them out of the water for pure image quality.

Not too much argument.

While it might be fashionable to say you don't need a pro body, there are plenty of situations where a 400d would let you down. Not to mention how horribly unbalanced the combination will feel when you've got that much glass at the front and that much plastic at the back.

Yup, but there are more situations where a Canon 1Ds Mark 3 would be a massive let down with a cheap lens, and probably even more where a 5D Mark 2 would be just as disappointing... the sensor can only capture the light that's coming through the lens, and if that light is badly focussed, diffracted, pporly resolved, etc. then the whole exercise is pointless.

Ksanti · 20 Jun 2011 at 14:17

mrthingyx said:
Yup, but there are more situations where a Canon 1Ds Mark 3 would be a massive let down with a cheap lens, and probably even more where a 5D Mark 2 would be just as disappointing... the sensor can only capture the light that's coming through the lens, and if that light is badly focussed, diffracted, pporly resolved, etc. then the whole exercise is pointless.

If you look at the sharpness data from lenses or just images taken, you'll struggle to find any situation where there is a lens 1.5 or 1.6 times sharper than another, and with the crop factor that is essentially what you get (unless you're framing right on the edges, but that's a different point).
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
(don't batter on about it being uncle ken, it demonstrates the point)

You might notice a bit of CA or diffraction on a full frame camera with crappy lenses, but a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS or an f/4 IS is hardly bargain bucket IQ paired with a 5dc, or even a 5d2 and f/4 non-IS.

Lenses are much more of a long term investment, but shooting crop when you know you're going to go full frame makes that investment difficult as your lenses swap roles and you'll end up with ones that underperform on crop that are great on full frame or vice versa.

jonneymendoza · 20 Jun 2011 at 14:30

So far i have a tamron 17-50mm which i believe cant work on a full frame 5dmk2?

will my 50mm f1.8 prime be fine? that is a canon one called nifty fifty.

i can replace my tamron later with same range with f2.8 but a f2.8 is a must for me in a walkaround lens.