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

[Canon Rumors]

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II here.

[Atonegro]

The link is not working.

Or maybe I am too fast ?

[RS2021]

Good review Justin.  Excellent lens; the only gripe I have with this lens is it is heavy... but life is full of compromises.

[Dylan777]

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II here.

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

[ewg963]

I have the non IS version. I'm looking to upgrade to this beuty!!!

[RS2021]

Quote from review:               
               "the white-Canon barrel paint is a distinctive “big lens” giveaway, and while the 200mm reach will buy you some space from your subjects, I can’t say that this is an ideal inconspicuous street portrait lens. It’ll also slow you down if you try and run away – but the weight could come in handy as a weapon if you find yourself in a sticky situation."

*Chuckle* this is so true though... the white L's are the result of Canon's branding obsession... they could easily make it a less conspicuous black. A friend and I  had a near call in a bad neighborhood recently, but I dont' think using the 70-200 II as a heavy metal pipe would have helped if the thugs had guns...which they probably did...we didn't stop to find out.

[stoneysnapper]

Excellent review. I've had this lens for nearly 2 years and use it primarily for shooting football (soccer) matches and it is just superb. Matched with the 1Dx I rarely miss a shot and if I do its usually my fault for setting the camera/autofocus wrong. I agree the only real downside is the weight, it really is heavy at circa 1.4kg. The use of a Black Rapid strap has helped big time though.

If you can afford it this lens is without doubt the medium tele-zoom to buy. That said I've considered re-purchasing the F4 non IS, just for its low weight, it is a great lens too.

[RLPhoto]

If they made a 135mm f/1.8 IS, I'd lose complete interest in this lens. Until then, I continue to weight the value of this lens in my work.

[kukhuvud]

Yup, I've been renting one of these babies when I need it; it'll surely be the next lens I actually buy.

Unless I happen to come into some 200mm f2 money. 

[eli72]

I shoot a lot of sports, and if I had to choose only one lens, this would be the one.

[Standard]

If they made a 135mm f/1.8 IS, I'd lose complete interest in this lens. Until then, I continue to weight the value of this lens in my work.

The current 135L is every bit as good. I really see no reason to hold your breath.

[skitron]

I just got a 70-200 IS2 in last week and it is an absolute gem. I liked it so much and it tested out so well that I immediately went to Canon USA website and registered warranty, no way this one is going back.   

The price and size/weight are pretty hefty over my 200L 2.8 but the zoom and IS are worth it for my primary use case. That said, the 200L 2.8 is also so stinking good, plus small, better bokeh and cheap, I may keep it as well for times I don't need zoom and IS and want to be inconspicuous. AF on both is top notch.

[localhost]

This is my favorite lens - almost 80-90% is on the camera. Even for every day shots with the family.

Here is a sample shot   

[Robert Welch]

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?

[ddashti]

There can never be enough to say about this lens!