Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II to replace them all* ?

LongLensPhotography

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Suspended / Banned
Messages
18,695
Name
LongLensPhotography
Edit My Images
No
I just got this :cuckoo: idea that I could probably shift everything >= 70mm in bag for this one.
So that would include 85mm f/1.8, 70-200 f/4 IS + non-IS, and maybe 100mm macro, which kind of adds up to the right sum

I am probably taking a couple of them at a time so weight will be OK.

Would I miss 85 given that I'd get stabilised f/2.8 through the whole range?

Then I imagine this would be actually usable with 1.4x and 2x, unlike my current ones, or do I need mkIII converters for decent IQ?

Finally, how good is the zoom at macro? It would need a tube or two - what is it like? Are they solid enough to support weight? Sustain AF? How would the IQ and magnification compare with 100mm? zoom would be set at 150+
 
Well you wouldn't lose anything from the 70-200s you currently have so it's a question of whether you can live without the f/1.8 of the 85mm or the macro of the 100mm.

If I were in your shoes I do it tbh :)
 
Vertigo1 said:
Well you wouldn't lose anything from the 70-200s you currently have so it's a question of whether you can live without the f/1.8 of the 85mm or the macro of the 100mm.

If I were in your shoes I do it tbh :)
Click to expand...

I guess it depends if the zoom can replicate the look of 85/1.8 at let's say 100-135/2.8. I don't know. It may be 1 stop+ faster, but with IS, and semi-static subjects the zoom at f/2.8 IS is probably better (1/125 vs 1/60s usable speeds so same-ish). There is always 1.2 version but that is sadly well too much for me.

The macro is really the bigger question as I do some floral shoots.
 
Dont forget your current setup is smaller, lighter per lens or even two at a time and less inconspicuous. I had the same idea before I added a 135L, but figured for what I shoot the 70-200 2.8 will draw to much attention so will stick to primes.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
Dont forget your current setup is smaller, lighter per lens or even two at a time and less inconspicuous. I had the same idea before I added a 135L, but figured for what I shoot the 70-200 2.8 will draw to much attention so will stick to primes.
Click to expand...

yes, probably. Two at a time is very close to it. Today I am taking all three for no good reason ;). If I only take the primes, then yes, the difference is substantial, except I feel quite limited by only 100mm for both portraits and macros. I look at 85mm as a better 50 if that makes sense.

The fact is that even f/4L draws lots of attention so in that regard, I may as well have all of it :D

I can't stop thinking that when it comes to weddings, the amount of lenses will seriously inconvenience and slow me down, whereas I could just use 2x1D 24-70 / 70-200 f/2.8 setup instead.

And then is mkII the best way to get usable 400mm (100-400 good). I know it won't touch the prime.
 
For intended use like weddings Id probably go with the 70-200 and a 24-70 on another body for convenience if you can afford it.
 
Vertigo1 said:
Well you wouldn't lose anything from the 70-200s you currently have so it's a question of whether you can live without the f/1.8 of the 85mm or the macro of the 100mm.

If I were in your shoes I do it tbh :)
Click to expand...

You'd maybe lose portability and definitely handholdability for long periods :p
 
bumping this up slightly.

I can certainly do without 85mm given the benefits of this monster, but I have just realised that I do need a dedicated macro lens - ideally with IS. No extension tubes can make 70-200mm behave like a decent macro at the LONG end.

I hope the mkII is better optically than f/4 IS. I hope it takes 1.4x and 2x better than the older versions.
 
I'd say go for it, I love my 70-200mm f/2.8 mark ii, I doubt you will miss the 85mm f1.8 if you can handle the weight of course of the mark II, I've never used it with an extender but I understand from researching it myself on the net it works very well with both the 1.4x and 2x.

You will definitely need a dedicated macro though:)
 
Must admit I have been toying with the idea of getting rid of my MKI 70-200mm f2.8 IS and 100-400mm in favour of a MKII 70-200mm and 2x converter.

Seen shots taken with the lens and MKII 1.4x (which are fine) but not so many with the 2x.
 
nothing but the mkII ..Other versions of 70-200 wouldnt IMHO but the mkII is as good as my primes.... My 85mm and 135mm primes are collecting dust ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top