canon ef 70-200mm f/2.8 l (11)

niko

niko

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,017
Name
nik
Edit My Images
No
hi guys i am thinking about ordering this soon ,i know there a few threads about it , but was hoping for thoughts feeling on it from anyone,ideally from people who own them
is it as sharp as a sharp thing:D,?
if you bought one did you think its ok or Christ this is incredible?
is it well overpriced or a lot of lens for the money?
its a hell of a lot of cash and just wandering whether to talk myself into it or out of it :thinking:
 
Apparently it is sharp, but only on one side :lol:

You'll find mixed views I think at this stage of release.
 
:D
thats why iam asking for user viewpoints ,i think ive read all the reviews now
and tbh if that problem comes out canon can recalibrate it anyway
 
niko said:
hi guys i am thinking about ordering this soon ,i know there a few threads about it , but was hoping for thoughts feeling on it from anyone,ideally from people who own them
is it as sharp as a sharp thing:D,?
if you bought one did you think its ok or Christ this is incredible?
is it well overpriced or a lot of lens for the money?
its a hell of a lot of cash and just wandering whether to talk myself into it or out of it :thinking:
Click to expand...

This lens is every bit as it claims and is worth every bit of the money. It is as sharp as the day is long and when I first got it I thought wow its heavy. Lol but after that I thought wow I didn't know a lens could do this. It's absolutely incredible Imo and my favorite lens. (I just bought the 24-70 markII canon and it doesn't compare.) you will not be disappointed sir, buy it and come back and tell me what you think. If you are still not convinced go rent one for the weekend and check it out yourself. Either way you need to use it to see what I'm talking about.
 
thank you shayne,iam not sure if thats good or bad:thumbs:
 
It's an awesome piece of kit.Super sharp and takes the tcons very well.

I've moved mine on now though and replaced it with a 70-200 F4Lis.It just weighed too much to carry around all day as part of a travel kit.I do regret selling it.It just feels supurb to use and I've never had that feeling with the 70-200 F4lis.Only buy it if you need the F2.8 though because the difference in IQ between it and the F4Lis is minimal at best.BUT,if you need F2.8 you need F2.8-I didn't and the weight saving is more important to me.

Gary
 
I moved up from the mkI which I was very happy with but the improvement is noticeable even to my eyes. The clearest gains are at 200mm wide open where the mk1 was a bit soft. The mkII is sharp over the full zoom range and there isn't much to be gained from closing down the aperture either. It is a big heavy beast but the IS is excellent which helped compensate for my weedy muscles. Well worth getting if it is a focal range you would use.
 
I have had the Canon 70-200 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. The Canon 70-200 f2.8 really is noticeably better :) If you use a 70-200 a lot and need the f2.8...
 
thanks guys ,that's interesting that the iq differance between the 4ls / 2.8 is minimal
whether i need or just want 2.8 is debatable:D.the price and weight of the 4 is certainly attractive
but i do like the idea of being able to use teleconverters more easily on the 2.8 .this is difficult to choose.
 
niko said:
what about tc use?
Click to expand...

Well that may be a reason that you need f2.8? As a starting point for your TC use, what body do you have as that may be an issue with the f4 and a 2.0X TC? I've only used my f2.8 mkII with cheap Kenko extenders it's OK but I haven't used it much.
 
ive got a 5d mk111 (there supposed to be releasing new firmware to enable f8 focus but we shall see)but i am guessing the iq would suffer more on the 4l than with the 2.8 ?
 
niko said:
thanks guys ,that's interesting that the iq differance between the 4ls / 2.8 is minimal
whether i need or just want 2.8 is debatable:D.the price and weight of the 4 is certainly attractive
but i do like the idea of being able to use teleconverters more easily on the 2.8 .this is difficult to choose.
Click to expand...

I politely disagree with that statement. I used both and the mark II 2.8 is head and shoulders sharper and faster then the f4 unit. There really is no comparison in my opinion.
 
I have thousands of images in my catalogue taken with the F4Lis and Mk2 and I wouldn't use one over the other on IQ terms.It really is splitting hairs.

Both lenses use the 1.4 tcon very well.I wouldn't hesitate to use one on either lens.I've used a Kenko 2.0X MC7 and Canon 2.0X MK3 on the MK2 and neither are what I would call stunning.The Kenko is worst and the MK3 Tcon produses ok results.The 100-400 produces much nicer images than the MK2 +2.0x Tcon.I've never tried the 2x on the F4Lis.
These are only my opinions but I'm basing them on probably 50000 images taken with everything from a 1DSMK3,1D4,5D2,5D3 7D etc.

It's all about the F2.8.You either need it or you don't.If you don't I would pick up a F4Lis.You would probably be able to pick up a 100-400 to go with it if you shop wisely and not be too far away from the price of a MK2.

Saying that,you do feel like the dogs when you pull out the F2.8!!!

Gary
 
thank you all ,its food for thought ,theres so many differing opinions i keep swaying one way and then the other .
 
I had a 70-200 f4 non IS to start with which I found to be very sharp, light and easy to use. The only thing with it, being an f4 it's not great in low light. After saving up for a few months I then moved up to the f2.8 IS MkI. I found that to be very good when stopped down a bit but wide open I found it to be a little softer than the f4 wide open.

After another few months of furious saving I sold the MkI and ordered the MkII. I have to say, it's the best thing I ever did. It's super sharp throughout the whole range wide open and when it's on my 5D3 it's fantastic, even in low light. Until I tried it I didn't really believe the hype of how sharp it is, but from the first WOW when I tried it I now know the hype is all true. It's by far the sharpest zoom lens I have and I wouldn't swap it for anything.
 
thank you guys all very helpful
Ive bitten the bullet and just ordered the EF 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS II .i think if i went for the f4 id always be wandering what if .... and the extra half kilo is nothing really .i just wish they were black not white so blended in a bit easier!! are any of the covers worth getting?
now lets see if i get any sleep waiting for it!!
 
I have the 70-200mm F/2.8 L II,I moved on from the Sigma version and noticed a difference in sharpness, AF speed and the Sigma used to 'hunt' every now and again for focus. Can't fault the Canon and have it on the camera half the time.
I would say it is well worth the money.
 
ace fingers crossed it arrives quickly and its a good one!
 
right an update for you
it arrived ,and i am returning it for a refund:thinking:
its a great lens without a doubt .the size and weight are fine as is the image quality ,
but i dont think its worth the premium, its to expensive for the gain in quality you get its just not that much better than my £600/£700 canon lenses .i was basically expecting more
 
:lol:
 
How can you compare a 70-200mm lens with a 24-105 and a 100mm? How do you evaluate the image quality at 200mm?
 
well its fairly obvious i didn't compare the 3 lens at 200mm .
but at 100 (and 70 for the 24-105)the difference in quality ,both sharpness and the way they rendered the overall picture wasn't worth a £1800 price tag ,undoubtedly it was better but for me not enough to justify the price tag.
 
vulcan2912 said:
You obviously didn't need the 200mm or the F2.8 after all.
Click to expand...

how do you work that out from my post?,did i say it gathers light to well?or perhaps i said the magnification was to much?
 
Well I can honestly say you are the first person I've heard say, on here and everywhere else, the 70-200mm L f/2.8 II is not much better than a 24-105 L f/4.
 
admirable said:
Well I can honestly say you are the first person I've heard say, on here and everywhere else, the 70-200mm L f/2.8 II is not much better than a 24-105 L f/4.
Click to expand...

thats not really what i said or at least meant ,i said for me the difference between them didn't justify the price tag .iam sure you realize this and are just being argumentative for some odd reason
 
What are you considering now the 70-200 doesn't meet your needs?
 
stu.artd said:
What are you considering now the 70-200 doesn't meet your needs?
Click to expand...
ive no idea mate ,
this is the thing it does meet my needs but i think the price tag isn't justified .
so i think its ether a case of waiting on a big big price drop(which i very much doubt will happen)or going without.we shall see
 
niko said:
thats not really what i said or at least meant ,i said for me the difference between them didn't justify the price tag .iam sure you realize this and are just being argumentative for some odd reason
Click to expand...

I don't understand why op's are twisting words to create a argument. I just had a guy go off on me on another post to the point where it was pretty much an attack. For what it is worth I understood what you meant, it was perfectly clear. I have a 70-200 markII and it's my favorite lens. However it is expensive and I can respect the fact that some people may not feel the price is justified. I just bought the 24-70 markII and I'm not sure at this point if the price was worth it or not. Time will tell...
 
thank you
thats the internet i guess:D
 
I'm not being argumentative at all, are you saying the 70-200mm is not worth the money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top