Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II

[infared]

I have the first version of this lens and am very happy with it. One knock I've seen commented on about the mkII is the bokeh is a bit more 'nervous' as compared to the first version. Not to say it's bad, but just not as 'creamy' as the original version. Aside from the cost to upgrade, this one quality is of concern to me in contemplating an upgrade. Can anyone comment on this comparison, is it fair to say the mkII isn't quite as nice in this one respect as compared to the original 70-200/2.8 IS?

I owned version I of the lens...when I saw the sharpness of the II version...I gulped at the price...but made the leap, selling my version I to help finance my lens mania, LOL. Every time  I shoot with the lens I now get to gulp at the images...the sharpness ALWAYS wows me! Every time. ...but yes as usual in photography...it comes with a trade off..the bokeh is more "nervous"...but for me the sharpness is so astounding thru the zoom range that I accept the trade off.
If I really need to get serious about bokeh I pick up my 85mm f/1.2...and I am considering picking up a 135mm f/2.0 so that I can have fast AF AND creamy backgrounds when needed, as the 85L does not lend itself to fast AF....Seems that you just cannot have it all!!!

[mrmarks]

How does the IQ of the 70-200L2.8II compare with the non-IS version? Anyone done a comparison with both lenses on a FF body? Thanks

[eLroberto]

I just upgraded from an 70-200L 2.8 USM to the IS II. Well, I'm afraid that my English isn't good enough for telling you how worth this was. I never shot at f/2.8 with the version I cause the IQ never satisfied me on open aperture. From aperture 3,5 on it was getting better, even quite good. But nothing of this fits to the IS II. From three shots, the first f/11, second f/8 and third with f/2.8, (from a tripod) you can't even see any difference in IQ in the center frame. Its so amazing! And there is nearly non CA on open aperture. The focus fits on my 7D and is minimum as fast as the old one. But I have to check this on the racetrack to be definitely sure . The in the review mentioned vignetting on open aperture is the only negative thing I recognised by now. But all in all I can assure to you that this lens is worth the money. By the way, it is quite easily possible to get sharp images on 200mm with 1/30 or even less on my 1.6x crop body.

Kind regards, Robert

[Viggo]

Once again I have decided to sell the 85 L to buy a 70-200, 5th time now I think

[PavelR]

Without reading the review, just give me this lens and 24-70 f2.8 II on FF...........I'm done

No need to carry: 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, and 200L

Do you care about IQ?
70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...

[neuroanatomist]

Do you care about IQ?
70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...

IQ?  The 70-200 II is equal to or better than most of the primes in it's focal range in terms of IQ - basically, the differences are so minor as to be marginal in rigorous testing (charts/Imatest) and practically irrelevant in real-world shots.  The reason for the fast primes used to be IQ, shallower DoF, more light, and smaller/lighter (for a single lens, not the set).  At this point, for all practical purposes, it's down to shallower DoF, more light (debatable with a newer FF body and the excellent high-ISO performance) and smaller/lighter. 

[Viggo]

Do you care about IQ?
70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...

IQ?  The 70-200 II is equal to or better than most of the primes in it's focal range in terms of IQ - basically, the differences are so minor as to be marginal in rigorous testing (charts/Imatest) and practically irrelevant in real-world shots.  The reason for the fast primes used to be IQ, shallower DoF, more light, and smaller/lighter (for a single lens, not the set).  At this point, for all practical purposes, it's down to shallower DoF, more light (debatable with a newer FF body and the excellent high-ISO performance) and smaller/lighter.

Which is exactly my reasons for getting primes in the first place, but now I see the 24-70 and the 70-200 mk2's and to ME the incredible AF-speed of the zooms along with equal or better IQ, I'm getting rid of some primes. I'm keeping the 35 and 50 as the shallow dof favorites and getting the 24-70 instead of my 24 f1.4.

As always the 85 L is incredible! but what good does that do when the AF just can't cope with tiny rapid movements or my kids walking across the floor, to get sharp images I need to get more dof, stop it down to 2,8 helps, why not then use a 70-200 instead.

The only reason for fast primes for me now is shallow dof. I get MUCH better indoor images at iso 400 and flash to the roof than with 1,4 and iso 6400....

[TexPhoto]

"(technically the front 77mm lens element requires a filter to be fully weather sealed)"

I have always wondered about this.  On this lens and others that make this statement, why make it in a way that needs a filter to make it weather tight?  It's like they worked really hard to make it weather tight until they got to the front and said, oh who cares, lets require a filter. 

How can I be sure my filter is weather tight? How can Canon?

To be honest, I put my gear away when it starts to rain, an I don't run my gear under he faucet to clean it.  I just wonder why they "require a filter".

[neuroanatomist]

"(technically the front 77mm lens element requires a filter to be fully weather sealed)"

I have always wondered about this.  On this lens and others that make this statement, why make it in a way that needs a filter to make it weather tight?  It's like they worked really hard to make it weather tight until they got to the front and said, oh who cares, lets require a filter. 

How can I be sure my filter is weather tight? How can Canon?

To be honest, I put my gear away when it starts to rain, an I don't run my gear under he faucet to clean it.  I just wonder why they "require a filter".

That statement in the review is not correct.  There are only a few 'sealed' lenses that require a front filter to complete the sealing - the 16-35L I/II, 17-40L, and 50L.  Those lenses have a front group that retracts into the lens barrel with zooming/focusing, and for those lenses, the requirement for a front filter to complete the sealing is clearly stated in the manual for the lens. 

Chuck Westfall has recommended the use of a front filter with all sealed lenses that take one, but he didn't state that it was required.  Basically, a little extra insurance. 

[etg9]

I just got one for myself for the holidays and what a great present it is. I've been very happy with the look and feel of everything so far. This and the 16-35 never leave my bag.

[infared]

Do you care about IQ?
70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...

IQ?  The 70-200 II is equal to or better than most of the primes in it's focal range in terms of IQ - basically, the differences are so minor as to be marginal in rigorous testing (charts/Imatest) and practically irrelevant in real-world shots.  The reason for the fast primes used to be IQ, shallower DoF, more light, and smaller/lighter (for a single lens, not the set).  At this point, for all practical purposes, it's down to shallower DoF, more light (debatable with a newer FF body and the excellent high-ISO performance) and smaller/lighter.

+100...these new zooms are amazingingly sharp with great contrast!!!

[crasher8]

I'm pretty torn between this and the new Tamron 60-200 with VC. True, not bi directional and 4 stop VC but it is black AND 700 dollars less. Haven't found too many articles and comments persuading me to go with Canon. Maybe the TC compatibility issues and it being on a 5D3 (Kenko problems) might make me go for the Canon. Hmmmmm

[neuroanatomist]

I'm pretty torn between this and the new Tamron 60-200 with VC. True, not bi directional and 4 stop VC but it is black AND 700 dollars less. Haven't found too many articles and comments persuading me to go with Canon...

How about the difference in sharpness at 200mm? They're similar at the short end, but the Tamron 70-200 VC appears significantly worse at the long end.

[Standard]

Without reading the review, just give me this lens and 24-70 f2.8 II on FF...........I'm done

No need to carry: 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, and 200L

IQ?  The 70-200 II is equal to or better than most of the primes in it's focal range in terms of IQ - basically, the differences are so minor as to be marginal in rigorous testing (charts/Imatest) and practically irrelevant in real-world shots. The reason for the fast primes used to be IQ, shallower DoF, more light, and smaller/lighter (for a single lens, not the set).  At this point, for all practical purposes, it's down to shallower DoF, more light (debatable with a newer FF body and the excellent high-ISO performance) and smaller/lighter.

No doubt the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is a superb piece of glass, if not the best of the Canon zooms. However, I'd rather carry any, or several, of these primes over it. The primes are lighter, much easier to carry and conceal; more discreet to shoot with therefore will yield more quality and candid shoots. Try carrying a big, heavy white lens around for half the night in any major city and I think you'd wish you had a prime. As for image quality, I am sure it's good and won't argue about that but I think its image quality is comparable to that of primes but not better.

[Zlatko]

The only reason for fast primes for me now is shallow dof.

... and smaller and lighter is still a reason too (for me).