Going to get the 24-70 2.8 II. Want a 70-200 as well

[BrandonKing96]

If you are going to be shooting surfing regularly, you may want to test drive the EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. It's a great lens for the beach.

+1

[ewg963]

If you are going to be shooting surfing regularly, you may want to test drive the EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS. It's a great lens for the beach.

Aye aye on that I'm not taking anything away from the 70-200mm 2.8 IS or Non Is  both great lenses but you will need the reach of at least 300mm. I have both 70-200 2.8 Non Is and 100-400mm 4.5-5.6. I find myself using the latter for the water sports.

[AdamJ]

I use both the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and the 70-200mm f/4 IS. You won't be disappointed with the optics of either. I find it practically impossible to discern any IQ difference in the copies I have.

The f/2.8 II is more practical if you intend using teleconverters. On the other hand, I would consider the f/4 IS as a lightweight lens whereas the f/2.8 IS II is in the heavyweight class. If I were heading for a beach, I would definitely be packing the f/4 IS.

If I had to choose one, I'd have the f/2.8 II but only because of its versatility, not for any IQ reasons.

[discojuggernaut]

I agree on the focal length front.  300 or 400mm reach is the starting point.  I'd suggest 70-200 mkii + a teleconverter, or a 70-300L, 100-400, or a 300/400 prime, or a combination of any of these with a 7d/1d4.  Depending on the spot, even 300mm is pretty short.  I shoot surfing with a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x on a 5d3 and am anxiously awaiting a new 7d2 so that i can get that extra reach back (and FPS).

[Pixelsign]

if there is no more money for the 70-200 II, i would buy the tamron 24-70 (with vibration control!) instead of the canon 24-70 II. the tamron costs only half the price and is a very good performer. and then some money should be left over for the 70-200 II 

[surfer57]

I have a long lens for shooting from the beach already so the 70-200 wasn't going to fill that need, granted I do find myself pulled back to 200mm often for a more landscape style shot.

Instead of going longer after a bit of thinking for the future I instead went with the 16-35mm. I could use something wide as I only have a 10mm fisheye that I shoot with in the water on my 30D. In the future I'll be getting a housing for the 1Dx and the 16-35 is a great lens for in the water.

[RMC33]

If you are in the water often I would say that is a great investment. I find myself using my 70-200 mainly for kayaking, skateboarding, bmx and some skiing (I do some close quarters stuff too with an 8-15 fish) as the distances are not that great.

[ewg963]

Just pick up the non-IS version. It goes for $1200 right now. It's also arguably sharper than the II.

That's just plain wrong.  I have had every version and can state categorically that the 70-200 2.8L IS II is far sharper than the non-IS version.  Not even close.

This can also be verified at the Digital Picture.....
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Thanks for the info Harv. I have the 70-200mm 2.8 now I like the test results for the IS II

[Pixel]

Just pick up the non-IS version. It goes for $1200 right now. It's also arguably sharper than the II.

That's just plain wrong.  I have had every version and can state categorically that the 70-200 2.8L IS II is far sharper than the non-IS version.  Not even close.

This can also be verified at the Digital Picture.....
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=242&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Agreed, I wouldn't consider an original even if it were free. Go with the EF70-200 F4L IS until you can afford the 2.8.

[surfer57]

Got the lenses yesterday and am beyond happy with my choices. Just shooting around the house and the beach a bit the past two days. Super fast autofocus, quick to lock on in low light also. Feel so much better on the 1DX than my non L primes which were my go to's prior. Whether I get the 70-200 or a waterhousing for the 1DX next will depend on what the majority of my work is moving into the spring.

[acaurora]

One thing I don't see anyone suggesting here is to try using a lens rental service to see which works better for you - I use BorrowLenses.com but I know there are other services out there that you can try a lens out - it is how I came to determine I wanted the 70-200 f/2.8L II.

[sagittariansrock]

Agreed, I wouldn't consider an original even if it were free.

That's a bit extreme, isn't it? The Mark Is are excellent lenses- I just upgraded to the Mark II IS but I still like the background blur of my first one more. Wish I could post a comparison, but for some reason I can't upload anything to this site.
Besides, I bet IS wouldn't be of much help at the speeds one shoots surfing anyway.
Although I agree that in this case, f/4 IS would work fine- but after I tried the f/2.8 IS I was so smitten that I avoided buying the f/4 and waited to save up for the Mark I and then the Mark II.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Have the money to get the 24-70 2.8 II to pair with my 1Dx. It seems like a no brainer to me. I'll be using for event photography, portraits and will be getting into weddings. That said I'd really like to have a 70-200 as I love that range and use it often whether for surf photography or something else. Given the ISO performance on the 1Dx do I need IS (I really don't have enough money for the 2.8 IS II but may be able to swing the ver I)? Could I even go to f4 with good results or will I be spoiled by the sharpness of the 24-70?

200mm is a bit on the short side for surfing

[tomscott]

I have the 70-200mm L 2.8 non IS and it is wonderful but you do need to be careful. I have a pretty steady hand and have learned to get used to it and alter the shutter speed to compensate. I also use it with a 2x converter and get great results to reduce weight in the bag.


IMG_0474 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Thats a shot I took for my local newspaper covering a new development with an old 40D and the 70-200 with a 2x MKII extender F8 1/640 ISO 200 at 400mm (or 640mm as it would be on a crop camera with the 2x)

But the IS is brilliant and if I could afford it would I get it!? Without doubt.

But in terms of sharpness of the 2.8 it goes in this order.

70-200mm L F2.8 IS II
70-200mm L F2.8
70-200mm L F2.8 IS I

The non IS is a tad sharper than the VI IS. But I dont think you would notice. The 70-200mm L is about to be discontinued form the range and is a great price point as the IS II is nearly twice the price.   

[tomscott]

Also another couple of examples 70mm at F5.6 ISO100 shooting a BMW Z4M


BMW Z4M Coupe with CSL wheels by tom_scott88, on Flickr

with some extension tubes 1/50s F2.8 ISO500 on a tripod.


IMG_9407 by tom_scott88, on Flickr

BTCC Panning F5.6 1/200s ISO100


320si BTCC by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Antony Gormley another place, 145mm F4 1/400 ISO 400

Another Place, Antony Gormley, Crosby Beach, Liverpool by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Antony Gormley another place, 200mm F2.8 1/500 ISO 400


Another Place, Antony Gormley, Crosby Beach, Liverpool by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Lowther Castle, F4.5 1/250 ISO 320 130mm


Lowther Castle by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Penrith, F8 1/1000s 140mm with a 2x extender(280mm) ISO400

Penrith, Cumbria, South toward Ullswater by tom_scott88, on Flickr

Scarecrow, F11 200mm with 2x extender (400mm) ISO 200 1/320s

Scarecrow by tom_scott88, on Flickr

I do love this lens.