Canon 70-200 L 2.8 lens

rookies

rookies

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,064
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
I can't make my mind up whether to IS as there a big price difference.
 
Why's that pls?

I know IS adds 4 stops doesn't it?

My budget is f4 with IS or 2.8 without. Or should I wait till I've saved up more.
 
Get the 35-100 f2.8 for your EM5 instead...
 
I traded a non IS f4 for a 2.8 IS MkII and would never go back to a non IS version. I have heard people say that with the great high ISO performance that today's cameras have that IS is not necessary and I was of a similar opinion, until I tried the IS 2.8. It's a wonderful lens. Very sharp and the 4 stop IS is uncanny in the way it stabilises the image. Well worth the money as far as I am concerned.
 
pooley said:
You're unlikely to hear anything but brilliant reports of the f2.8 IS, but cheap it ain't.

What are you planning on shooting?

That will make a big difference regarding which one to go for.
Click to expand...

Well shooting anything I fancy really no particular preference.

When at the zoo in the park. Maybe sometime birds and aeroplane.
 
Gaz J said:
I traded a non IS f4 for a 2.8 IS MkII and would never go back to a non IS version. I have heard people say that with the great high ISO performance that today's cameras have that IS is not necessary and I was of a similar opinion, until I tried the IS 2.8. It's a wonderful lens. Very sharp and the 4 stop IS is uncanny in the way it stabilises the image. Well worth the money as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

Sharp it is damn sharp as demo one today but £800 more over a non is
 
If you intend shooting non moving subjects at low shutter speeds, then IS is what you need. Anything else, I wouldn't bother. Optically the2.8 IS MK2 is supposed to be better. The extra stop has to be a consideration too. I love mine and wouldn't be without it...however, I very seldom have the IS switched on.
 
Photogaz said:
Personally I wouldn't want to own this lens without IS!
Click to expand...

OK, well the 70-200 II f2.8 is blisteringly sharp and has the 4 stop IS. The non IS will be a little more soft at f2.8 but it's a tad sharper than the version 1 of the f2.8

When I had a 70-200 f4 without IS, I couldn't shoot on a cloudy day without cranking up the ISO.

If money is tight, I would personally go for the 70-200 f4 IS rather than the 70-200 f2.8 unless you're doing sports.
 
Photogaz said:
OK, well the 70-200 II f2.8 is blisteringly sharp and has the 4 stop IS. The non IS will be a little more soft at f2.8 but it's a tad sharper than the version 1 of the f2.8

When I had a 70-200 f4 without IS, I couldn't shoot on a cloudy day without cranking up the ISO.

If money is tight, I would personally go for the 70-200 f4 IS rather than the 70-200 f2.8 unless you're doing sports.
Click to expand...

But rather be able shoot in low light so though 2.8 be better. So the non is 2.8 is soft compar to sharp 2.8 IS? What the f4 IS like?
 
Tugster said:
If you intend shooting non moving subjects at low shutter speeds, then IS is what you need. Anything else, I wouldn't bother. Optically the2.8 IS MK2 is supposed to be better. The extra stop has to be a consideration too. I love mine and wouldn't be without it...however, I very seldom have the IS switched on.
Click to expand...

If you don't have IS turn on much surly a non IS be ok then?
 
rookies said:
But rather be able shoot in low light so though 2.8 be better. So the non is 2.8 is soft compar to sharp 2.8 IS? What the f4 IS like?
Click to expand...

When I say sharp 2.8 IS, I'm talking about version 2. The f4 is very very sharp!

The sharpness goes like this from least sharp to sharpest

70-200 f2.8 IS
70-200 f2.8
70-200 f4
70-200 f4 IS
70-200 f2.8 IS II

The reason the f4 IS is sharper than the standard f4 is because the f4 IS is a much newer design than the old f4. Until the f2.8 IS II, the f4 IS was considered the sharpest zoom lens out there.

Edit: You can compare here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2
 
Last edited:
The reason the f4 IS is sharper than the standard f4 is because the f4 IS has more glass!

The IS has four more elements!
 
admirable said:
The reason the f4 IS is sharper than the standard f4 is because the f4 IS has more glass!

The IS has four more elements!
Click to expand...

Hmmm now need to decide whether need F4 or F2.8 as I think I would like IS.

I use to have a F4 and it was soft so sold it .
 
I'll put in my penn'orth for the non IS which I have used for a few years. I have never missed the IS and I hand shoot wildlife and cycle racing with it.

As far as sharpness is concerned, you need have no fear on that score. I have shot deer with it at a fair distance on my 7D and even with a heavy crop you can count the hairs on the deer's nose. Even Canon rate the non-IS as one of their sharpest lenses (source: EOS system booklet 2011).

The need for IS on a 200mm lens is IMHO overstated. Yes it sure is nice to have, but at what price. Develop a good stance and a steady hand and buy another lens with your savings.
 
Also consider weight. The f2.8 is a tank. So much so I often opt for my 135L if I have other lenses in my bag.

Were you thinking of the version II of the f2.8 IS?
 
I ahev just bought the mk2 version, and yes its heavy same as my 100-400 but bloody hell its worth it, it is so sharp its unreal, best money I have spent in a long time.

Brand new from Panamoz it is only £1300

spike
 
Photogaz said:
Also consider weight. The f2.8 is a tank. So much so I often opt for my 135L if I have other lenses in my bag.

Were you thinking of the version II of the f2.8 IS?
Click to expand...

Yes was thinking of the version 2 of it :)

Hmmm hard decision now it either

F4 IS
F2.8
F2.8 IS MKII

Argh
 
I was in the same position a couple of years ago.

This was before the mk ii came out, and the mki IS 2.8 was still about £800 more than the non IS 2.8 and the F4 IS. So it was between the same two lenses that you are looking at.

For myself, I felt that i would prefer the 2.8 non IS over the F4 with IS as i wanted to use it for motorsport as well as portrait, so figured the bokeh for portraits would be more beneficial to me, and i could always use a monopod to steady my panning for motorsport.

I must say that over the years there have been a few shots that may have benefited from me having the IS version of the 2.8, but could not afford or justify the expense to do so. But at no time have i thought that i wished i had gone for the f4 is instead, as many images i have taken have been at 2.8

Obviously the mkii IS version of the 2.8 is supposed to be even better then the mk1 IS and would love to own one myself but am very happy with the non IS version.

Just another thought, were you looking at a used or new lens? Just that another possible option if you were looking at new prices, would be a used mk1 2.8 IS.

They appear to be selling at similar prices to a new non IS version, so could get best of both worlds :)
 
Where sells the 2.8 is mki new?
 
Hi,

Sorry if i didnt come across very clear, i meant that if you are looking at buying a new 2.8 non is (around £850) then perhaps you could look at a Used MK1 IS instead as they sell second hand for about the same value.

Cheers

Pete
 
pwal1 said:
Hi,

Sorry if i didnt come across very clear, i meant that if you are looking at buying a new 2.8 non is (around £850) then perhaps you could look at a Used MK1 IS instead as they sell second hand for about the same value.

Cheers

Pete
Click to expand...

Ah make sense but is it sharp? People say it not as sharp as f4 is
 
Ive been considering a 70-200 2.8 IS mk2 for a while now but ive got the 70-300L already and think i'd end up using the 200 much more than the 300 and dont want to sell that yet.
 
Lets just say the sharpness difference between the non IS and version I of the IS is quite marginal. I personally never liked my old Mark I IS at f2.8, it always lacked that wow, it was better at f4 but still couldn't match the sharpness of the f4 IS.

I personally think if you're a lover of sharpness and like to crop, either the f4 IS or the f2.8 IS II are the only real options.

You could always buy the f4 IS then sell it on later when you have the extra money.

Despite my weight comment earlier, the 70-200 f2.8 IS is a remarkable bit of kit.
 
rookies said:
If you don't have IS turn on much surly a non IS be ok then?
Click to expand...

Hi Andrew, Just to answer your question, I dont use the IS as the majority of what I shoot is sport..My S/S is normally 1/500 sec or higher...probably 1/1000 with the new bodies.

If I were shooting still subjects with relatively slow S/S, then I would turn the IS on.

The weight difference between the three lenses is massive...Sometimes after shooting a tournament, my arms and shoulders ache ! On a monopod the problem is minimised.

I think you have to decide what you are purchasing the lens for a decide accordingly, obviously taking in to account the advice given here.
 
Ben6 said:
Ive been considering a 70-200 2.8 IS mk2 for a while now but ive got the 70-300L already and think i'd end up using the 200 much more than the 300 and dont want to sell that yet.
Click to expand...

I'm a big advocate of the 70-300L but the 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII is in a different league altogether! Having said that, I never had reason to question the performance of the 70-300 and I only sold it because I had more of a need for faster glass. :)

If you need the long end and you can afford to put the cash in, get the 70-200 MKII and a 1.4x MKIII teleconverter... You gain a stop of light and there's no noticeable difference in image quality.
 
Well I hardly be shooting sports with it. Just the little one running round field etc and going out to zoo. Might try some birds photography. I take mixture of photos.

The 70-300 sound good but aperture not the same through out the zoom

What about the 2x converter. What lens works with these converters pls
 
Last edited:
Another plus for the 70-200 Mk II IS is with the new 2x Canon TC you can effectively turn it into the equivalent quality of the Canon 100-400, it does make it a constant f/5.6 though.
 
Calzor Suzay said:
Another plus for the 70-200 Mk II IS is with the new 2x Canon TC you can effectively turn it into the equivalent quality of the Canon 100-400, it does make it a constant f/5.6 though.
Click to expand...

How sharp is it though? I have the Mark II and always wanted to try with the 2x extender!
 
Spiritflier said:
I'm a big advocate of the 70-300L but the 70-200mm f/2.8 MKII is in a different league altogether! Having said that, I never had reason to question the performance of the 70-300 and I only sold it because I had more of a need for faster glass. :)

If you need the long end and you can afford to put the cash in, get the 70-200 MKII and a 1.4x MKIII teleconverter... You gain a stop of light and there's no noticeable difference in image quality.
Click to expand...

Ive been contemplating doing that for a while as i had the offer of a bargain tc but couldn't justify the loss i'll make on the 70-300 as i got it when they were pretty much brand new and paid a lot more than they are now.
 
Photogaz said:
How sharp is it though? I have the Mark II and always wanted to try with the 2x extender!
Click to expand...

Oh, it's sharp! :) I'm a really picky b****r but I've put the 70-200 MKII + 2x MKIII TC next to the 100-400 and really couldn't tell the difference. :thumbs:

Ben6 said:
Ive been contemplating doing that for a while as i had the offer of a bargain tc but couldn't justify the loss i'll make on the 70-300 as i got it when they were pretty much brand new and paid a lot more than they are now.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean Ben... I bit the bullet in the end and took the loss. In the long run, it's definitely been worth it. :)

You have to go with what suits your own situation but I'd be very surprised if you were disappointed with the move.
 
Spiritflier said:
Oh, it's sharp! :) I'm a really picky b****r but I've put the 70-200 MKII + 2x MKIII TC next to the 100-400 and really couldn't tell the difference. :thumbs:

I know what you mean Ben... I bit the bullet in the end and took the loss. In the long run, it's definitely been worth it. :)

You have to go with what suits your own situation but I'd be very surprised if you were disappointed with the move.
Click to expand...

You're making me consider it even more now. Im sure i will do it one day just being brave enough to loose the cash although at the moment i don't really need the 2.8 until next year so gives me a while to pluck up the courage.
 
Ben6 said:
You're making me consider it even more now. Im sure i will do it one day just being brave enough to loose the cash although at the moment i don't really need the 2.8 until next year so gives me a while to pluck up the courage.
Click to expand...

Might be interested in your 70-300 if price is right :) if you decide to sell now ha ha.
 
rookies said:
Might be interested in your 70-300 if price is right :) if you decide to sell now ha ha.
Click to expand...

I really wouldn't know what to ask for it, only used it for the formula one and a few other bits still in as new condition but i know i'll end up loosing on it.
 
Spiritflier said:
Oh, it's sharp! :) I'm a really picky b****r but I've put the 70-200 MKII + 2x MKIII TC next to the 100-400 and really couldn't tell the difference. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

I've used that set up on my 5D3 and I got some better shots than I did with my 100-400. Sharp wide open but super sharp at f8. I went to a wildlife park earlier in the year and took some shots of big cats with the 70-200 and MkIII 2x and you can count the hairs between it's eyes. Best money (most money on a lens) I've spent on anything photographic.
 
Photogaz said:
How sharp is it though? I have the Mark II and always wanted to try with the 2x extender!
Click to expand...

As others have said it's a very comprehensive combo, I've only ever hired the 100-400 which is good but getting on a bit now, the 70-200 MK II IS + the TC gives you best of both worlds :love:
 
I currently have a 100-400 and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and am vaguely toying with the idea of cashing them in and replacing with the 70-200 f2.8 IS II and a 2x TC, but could probably only stretch to a MkII, not MkIII TC. Is that combination as good?
 
Well, i don't have much to add, i used to use 70-200 2.8IS mk1, bought it in 2006, i was happy with it until say 2009 i think then it became a bit soft for me, i bought mkII last month, and it blown away my mk1, the sharpness is almost identical to my 300mm 2.8IS, and using it on my 1DX it opens me another world, the sharpness is incredible, i will sell my 70-200mk1 very soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top