Should i buy a 70-200mm 2.8 II

R

romeo21

Suspended / Banned
Messages
417
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
so i have been thinking of selling both my 70-200mm F4 is and 135mm f2 for a
70-200mm 2.8 II

I have a 5d mkII and although i love the 70-200mm f4 i never seem to use it.

would love your advice.
 
If you don't use your 70-200 f4 much then what the 70-200 f2.8 going to do for you? If reasons like because the 70-200 f4 low light is not good and you not using it then it make sense.
 
As above really, why don't you use the F4 lens ?
 
i just think it would make more sense that if i sold both the 135mm and 70-200 f4 then i will only have 1 lens the 70-200 2.8
 
romeo21 said:
i just think it would make more sense that if i sold both the 135mm and 70-200 f4 then i will only have 1 lens the 70-200 2.8
Click to expand...

I've not used the 135 F2 so can't help on how the the 70-200 F2.8 will compare to this. I know the F4 IS is a belter of a lens and the F2.8 v II is excellent.
 
The 70-200 f2.8 is a all rounder lens. Good focal range, fast aperture thanks to the f2.8 and IS to keep it stable for slower shutter speed. Optic is fantastic and can produce good quality images.

The 70-200 f4 is alot lighter and smaller compare to the 70-200 f2.8 but the f4 can produce a lot more sharper images in my opinion.

The 135mm f2 prime is a prime lens and can go to f2 aperture! is completely different lens.

IT really depend on your needs. If the 70-200 f4 is not being use then the 70-200 f2.8 will most likely be sitting at home. Unless the low light fast tele zoom can inspire you to use more often then it is worth it lol.
 
Last edited:
badboy1984 said:
The 70-200 f2.8 is a all rounder lens. Good focal range, fast aperture thanks to the f2.8 and IS to keep it stable for slower shutter speed. Optic is fantastic and can produce good quality images.

The 70-200 f4 is alot lighter and smaller compare to the 70-200 f2.8 but the f4 can produce a lot more sharper images in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the part where he's looking at the 70-200 f2.8L IS MKII - An outstanding lens IMO far better than the MkI and sharper than the f4L.


Down side to the f2.8 MkII is the weight!
 
EOS_JD said:
I think you missed the part where he's looking at the 70-200 f2.8L IS MKII - An outstanding lens IMO far better than the MkI and sharper than the f4L.


Down side to the f2.8 MkII is the weight!
Click to expand...

I know his talking about the mkII version but for some reason i always thought he had a 70-200 f4 IS. I still believe the 70-200 f4 IS is sharper, but thats only if i pixel peep. I've try my friends L glass and did a compare.

I think his other point is not the weight of the lens, he mention he don't use 70-200 much so weather i f2.8 or f4 doesn't matter i guess lol
 
I love the 135mm prime because its light and does f2 but its a little long to use indoor and outdoor it means me have to position myself well for the shut also i find that its not that sharp at f2 and find myself having to shoot a f2.8.
 
in that case 70-200 is good option. Now that you mention indoor and outdoor shots, so the f2.8 is good option. The IS is useful too.

in term of sharp images, most lens is sharper when stop down
 
badboy1984 said:
I know his talking about the mkII version but for some reason i always thought he had a 70-200 f4 IS. I still believe the 70-200 f4 IS is sharper, but thats only if i pixel peep. I've try my friends L glass and did a compare.

I think his other point is not the weight of the lens, he mention he don't use 70-200 much so weather i f2.8 or f4 doesn't matter i guess lol
Click to expand...

yes whether he uses the 70-200 or not is an issue only he can answer why...... I had the 70-200f4L and although great I found it needed decent light - wthout IS it suffered a little.

The f4L IS for most would be perfect but if you intend to use the lens indoors at all then the extra stop really is worth it. The weight of it thiough is an issue! Even compared to the MkI it's heavier....
 
I have the mark ii, I decided to get it and its left me passing on buying primes in that range. When I look at anything like 85mm through 135mm on the iso comparison charts the mark ii is always as good if not better. The only thing is if you want to shoot at say 85mm with it and get in really tight its min distance for focus is 1.2m. So you have to zoom in and obviously that changes the image so if it gives you what you want then great, just depends on what sort of shots you want close up. Oh and it's bloody heavy :)
 
It's always funny that nobody ever mentions what they actually want to photograph on these threads.

As mentioned above, for low light, sports and anything that is a bit more challenging than a well lit day outside with good light then you won't need the 2.8.

There is an interesting review of the 2.8 vs the 4 in advanced photographer this month, prob worth looking at.
 
bmwoner said:
As mentioned above, for low light, sports and anything that is a bit more challenging than a well lit day outside with good light then you won't need the 2.8.
Click to expand...

Should that not read WILL

That's exactly the scenarios that the 70-200mm f2.8L IS MkII (or MkI) excels at.

Perfect for sports if you're close to the action and excellent in low light with a large 2.8 aperture.
 
I don't use the 70-200mm f4 is because i find myself using my 24-105mm thats my reason for getting the 2.8
 
romeo21 said:
I don't use the 70-200mm f4 is because i find myself using my 24-105mm thats my reason for getting the 2.8
Click to expand...

That confuses me.... Why would you use the 24-105 instead of a 70-200?

Would you perhaps be better with the 24-70 f2.8L?
 
The mkii is nothing short of stunning. I owned it at the same time as the 135L and I would never have gone for the 135L over it unless weight was going to be an issue.

The 70-200IS II is the pick of Canon's lenses. It and the 85Lii are the two most amazing portrait lenses/general use lenses I have owned.
 
draiman said:
The mkii is nothing short of stunning. I owned it at the same time as the 135L and I would never have gone for the 135L over it unless weight was going to be an issue.

The 70-200IS II is the pick of Canon's lenses. It and the 85Lii are the two most amazing portrait lenses/general use lenses I have owned.
Click to expand...

I do agree. The 70-200II is the finest lens I own :)
 
I've just sold my 70-200 f4 non IS to put the money towards a 2.8 IS, but it'll have to be a MkI as I just cannot afford the MkII. The f4 was a hell of a lens, very sharp all the way and nice and light, but I did find I was having to do a lot of shots with a flash indoors so I decided on the 2.8, and while I've got enough money to get one with IS i figure why get one without and wish.
I know most people with the MkII are saying it's better than the MkI, but before the MkII came out all these people with the MkI was saying how good that was anyway, and it doesn't become a bad lens just because a new version has been released.
 
Last edited:
The MkI is a great lens. You may find though that indoors you may still need flash depending on what you are shooting! IS does not help moving subjects if that is what you shoot.
 
The 70-200/2.8L IS II is very very good. But also quite big and heavy as well as an attention-getter especially with the lens hood on (which should be on there always instead of a UV filter if you ask me).

You will miss the 135L but you'll love the 70-200 more.

Go for it.

And it works pretty well with a 2x extender too (this @400mm):
IMG1083-X2.jpg
 
I replaced my 70-200 f4 with the 2.8 IS MK2 and use it far more simply due to the ability to use it in lower light. Also I can use it on my 7D with a 2x converter and have a 640mm f5.6 and retain autofocus.
I've also got the 135mm f2 and think its an amazing lens but havent really used it since getting the 70-200 2.8.
 
Giles2373 said:
I replaced my 70-200 f4 with the 2.8 IS MK2 and use it far more simply due to the ability to use it in lower light. Also I can use it on my 7D with a 2x converter and have a 640mm f5.6 and retain autofocus.
I've also got the 135mm f2 and think its an amazing lens but havent really used it since getting the 70-200 2.8.
Click to expand...

i thought you loose autofocus with a 2x converter on all camera's apart from the 1d?
 
The 2x extender costs you 2 stops of light so the 70-200 becomes a 140-400/5.6 which still autofocuses on all EOS bodies. For smaller max aperture you need a 1-series. Third party lenses that are f/6.3 at the Tele end fake this towards the camera, telling it f/5.6 to maintain AF.

The 135L can take stacked 2x and 1.4x btw... 378/5.6 :D
 
vaizki said:
The 2x extender costs you 2 stops of light so the 70-200 becomes a 140-400/5.6 which still autofocuses on all EOS bodies.
Click to expand...
Correct. non 1d series bodies allow focusing up to f5.6 and 1D bodies at f8.

vaizki said:
For smaller max aperture you need a 1-series. Third party lenses that are f/6.3 at the Tele end fake this towards the camera, telling it f/5.6 to maintain AF.
Click to expand...

The lens still reports the maximum aperture of the lens - for example the long lens like the 150-500 f5 - 6.3 the camera still sees it as an f5 lens so will AF through the range but with the converter on that max aperture is now f7.1 (with the 1.4x).
 
Last edited:
The MkI is a great lens. You may find though that indoors you may still need flash depending on what you are shooting! IS does not help moving subjects if that is what you shoot.
Click to expand...

I know it won't help with moving subjects per se, but it will help me to maintain focus on a moving subject while panning. If it's as good as the IS on the 100-400 L I'll be happy enough with that.
Typical of me, I've just sold a 2x TC that would of worked well with the 2.8, and bought a Kenko 1.4x instead to work with the f4, but as I've got a 100-400 that works with the TC I'm not too worried about the 70-200 with it.
 
modchild said:
I know it won't help with moving subjects per se, but it will help me to maintain focus on a moving subject while panning. If it's as good as the IS on the 100-400 L I'll be happy enough with that.
Typical of me, I've just sold a 2x TC that would of worked well with the 2.8, and bought a Kenko 1.4x instead to work with the f4, but as I've got a 100-400 that works with the TC I'm not too worried about the 70-200 with it.
Click to expand...

It's better than the IS on the 100-400. 3 stops of IS on the MkI 70-200.
 
vaizki said:
The 2x extender costs you 2 stops of light so the 70-200 becomes a 140-400/5.6 which still autofocuses on all EOS bodies. For smaller max aperture you need a 1-series. Third party lenses that are f/6.3 at the Tele end fake this towards the camera, telling it f/5.6 to maintain AF.

The 135L can take stacked 2x and 1.4x btw... 378/5.6 :D
Click to expand...

Hadnt tried that combination - so even using two converters you still retain autofocus?

With a 7D I can get 432mm f4 with the 135 and 2x converter due to the crop factor.
 
Add a 1.4 and you get a 605mm f5.6 :) You will see a drop in quality with stacking though I'm sure.
 
Thanks for the help guys i have decided to get a 70-200mm f2.8 II have put my 2 lenses in the clasified
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top