Canon 70-200 lens.

Albertaclipper

Albertaclipper

Suspended / Banned
Messages
18
Name
Sandy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi I would like your input on the canon 70-200 f/2.8 L II is USM lens. I was considering buying one but after looking on Amazon and eBay. I am seeing a few secondhand
ones for sale still going for a good price. I can't help but wonder why these people are selling this lens, and what are they replacing that lens with. Your thoughts would be appreciated. I do have the 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 L IS USM lens and just love it...So I was thinking about changing my canon 50-200 lens for the above.
 
Albertaclipper said:
Hi I would like your input on the canon 70-200 f/2.8 L II is USM lens. I was considering buying one but after looking on Amazon and eBay. I am seeing a few secondhand
ones for sale still going for a good price. I can't help but wonder why these people are selling this lens, and what are they replacing that lens with. Your thoughts would be appreciated. I do have the 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 L IS USM lens and just love it...So I was thinking about changing my canon 50-200 lens for the above.
Click to expand...

Yes you may ask yourself what try are replacing it with and the answer is Telephoto primes and they are probably selling the 70-200 to fund the the large fortune they will be paying for a tele prime. And I am also selling my 55-250 to buy a 70-200 f4 they are great lenses. You won't be disappointed
 
Last edited:
Well I replaced mine with a much smaller system as I got fed up lugging round huge heavy gear. But the 70-200/2.8II was probably the best lens I used. If size and cost aren't an issue then you won't be disappointed. It is really sharp across the full zoom range, IS is excellent and it has great contrast.
 
I've had 3 Canon 70-200's, the first was an f4 non IS version and the IQ was fantastic from wide open. The second was the f2.8 IS MkI and that was also a great lens, not quite as sharp wide open but by the time it was stopped down to f4 it was better than the f4 version.

Eventually I went for the f2.8 IS MkII and was just blown away. It's sharper wide open than the MkI at f4. It was the last lens I bought that truely made me go WOW. I have it bolted on my 7D usually as my 5D3 has a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM or a 150-500 OS on most of the time, but on the times I've had the 70-200 on the 5D3 it's soooo damn good.
I paid £1334 for mine new and it's worth every penny and maybe more besides. It's the best lens I have and even when I put my 2x MkIII converter on it gives excellent IQ.
 
Thank you all for your input. It was really appreciated. You have helped me make up my mind. I have been debating it back and forth for quite sometime. So I guess I will be getting a new lens.
 
I can well understand why folks might sell a 70-200 Mk2, and not because it isn't a fantastic lens.

But perhaps because it's a heavy old thing, and if you don't use f/2.8 much, it holds it's value well, and can easily be swapped for something pretty much as good but much lighter (70-200L 4 IS) or longer and lighter (70-300L IS).
 
many reasons, such as pointless obsession with trading gear (yeah, Nikon is really better, right), financial problems, or simply a bad copy out of warranty

Anyway the more of the former, the better. I may be looking for one at some stage soon
 
if you have the 70-300 "L" .. do you need the 70-200II as well ??
i bought the 70-300L after trying both and found that the 70-300 to be such a fine lens (very underated to be honest) .. it covers my needs very well' ..
 
Rolex said:
if you have the 70-300 "L" .. do you need the 70-200II as well ??
i bought the 70-300L after trying both and found that the 70-300 to be such a fine lens (very underated to be honest) .. it covers my needs very well' ..
Click to expand...

and it covers 200mm f/2.8 particularly well then... just like my 17-40mm does :lol:
 
My main photography is wildlife and there are times that I want to take photos in low light conditions where possibly you would only get the one chance to capture the shot. Especially in the early morning and late evening. I spend a lot of time in the mountains in forested areas... That's why I need to go to a lower aperture and still get a high quality photo.. I have appreciated your input. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top