Recommendation: Tele lens for 60D

[vuilang]

I suggest get the 70-200ISII.. Otherwise you'll keep thinking about that lens... and eventually, you will upgrade it later.. which will cost time, thinking energy, selling&buying... AND MISSING the shot you could have been taken with the best lens available (but that's just me)

[scrappydog]

Thanks for the input! I was hoping to find someone who had been in the same position I am 

I was, sort of.  I have a 60D.  For me, it was the f/4L IS or the f/2.8L II.  I chose the f/4L IS.  I later got the f/2.8L II.  Although both are wonderful, vuilang is right - you will wish you bought it and will later upgrade.  I have not shot with the other variants of the f/2.8, but it is hard to imagine a better lens than the 70-200 f/2.8L II.  Good luck!

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I have used both the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS v1 and the Canon 70-200mm F4L IS on my 60D. These are both great lenses. They are sharp from center to corners on my 60D, and they both have color and contrast that I find very satisfying. I have not used the 70-200mm F2.8 IS v2, but I am sure that it is a great lens and likely better in terms of sharpness than the older lenses based on the reviews I've read. The questions are, what do plan to use the lens for, and how big to you plan to print your photos? The older lenses are plenty sharp for prints up to A3 (~12 X 17 inches, largest I've done). The F2.8 lenses will be better for sports and portraits, but the F4 lens is much smaller and lighter so it has a big advantage for travel, hiking, etc. Good luck.

I agree.  I've owned the 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS, 4 of the 20-200mm f/2.8 IS, and two of the 70-200 f/2.8 MK II, as well as the 70-200mm f/4 IS.  I've carried them on my 40D, 7D, 5D MK II, and 5D MK III.

I finally decided that the f/4 IS is the one to keep.  The f/2.8 was not fast enough for my low light theatre shooting, and packing all that weight around for outdoor shooting was not necessary.

For low light, I've been using and expanding my collection of prime lenses, I can take shots that my f/2.8 zooms could not touch.

So it comes down, as usual to you!  It does not matter what I like or someone else likes, since we all made a choice based on what we do.  If you can, rent for a week and see what you think.  You also have a 30 day return period to Adorama, and return shipping is less than rental cost in the event you do not like it.

The MK II is a wonderful lens, just not for everybody.

[00Q]

I have the sigma version with OS. Its a good lens. Sharp and fast and the OS works great.

[stabmasterasron]

Sigma is supposedly coming out with the stabilized version of the 50-150 f/2.8 zoom.  I rented the mkii version of the unstabilized 50-150  f/2.8.  Very nice lens, very good build quality.  This lens is crop sensor only, but in exchange for that concession, you get a small package compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for full frame.  The lens I rented was very nice and well constructed.  I am not a pixel peeper or test chart shooter, but from what I could tell it had very good image quality.  That lens is no longer available, but Sigma is releasing the long awaited update with image stabilization.  If it has good image quality, I am definitely jumping all over it, as i shoot crop.

[cton0385]

Thanks for your insightful input. There's definitely advantages with the f/4 over the f/2.8. I travel quite a bit and wouldn't mind doing a bit of hiking too. Wouldn't be economical if I get both (would like to!),  if I were to choose 1 right now I'm leaning towards Mk.2 as the price difference isn't too substantial and that there won't be anything better at that range to tempt me .

I have used both the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS v1 and the Canon 70-200mm F4L IS on my 60D. These are both great lenses. They are sharp from center to corners on my 60D, and they both have color and contrast that I find very satisfying. I have not used the 70-200mm F2.8 IS v2, but I am sure that it is a great lens and likely better in terms of sharpness than the older lenses based on the reviews I've read. The questions are, what do plan to use the lens for, and how big to you plan to print your photos? The older lenses are plenty sharp for prints up to A3 (~12 X 17 inches, largest I've done). The F2.8 lenses will be better for sports and portraits, but the F4 lens is much smaller and lighter so it has a big advantage for travel, hiking, etc. Good luck.

[cton0385]

I totally agree 

I suggest get the 70-200ISII.. Otherwise you'll keep thinking about that lens... and eventually, you will upgrade it later.. which will cost time, thinking energy, selling&buying... AND MISSING the shot you could have been taken with the best lens available (but that's just me)

[cton0385]

Yes, I very much agree with you. Will give it a long think

So it comes down, as usual to you!  It does not matter what I like or someone else likes, since we all made a choice based on what we do.  If you can, rent for a week and see what you think.  You also have a 30 day return period to Adorama, and return shipping is less than rental cost in the event you do not like it.

[cton0385]

The Simga 50-150mm f/2.8 came into my mind when I bought my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VS (awesome for its price). I was close to getting it, till I found out it's for crop sensor bodies only. I guess getting the 70-200's will save me time in the long run.

Sigma is supposedly coming out with the stabilized version of the 50-150 f/2.8 zoom.  I rented the mkii version of the unstabilized 50-150  f/2.8.  Very nice lens, very good build quality.  This lens is crop sensor only, but in exchange for that concession, you get a small package compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for full frame.  The lens I rented was very nice and well constructed.  I am not a pixel peeper or test chart shooter, but from what I could tell it had very good image quality.  That lens is no longer available, but Sigma is releasing the long awaited update with image stabilization.  If it has good image quality, I am definitely jumping all over it, as i shoot crop.

[D.Sim]

The 2.8L IS II definitely... if you wanted a cheaper option, I'd go for a f/4 IS over the other two choices. Not a fan of the Sigma, and the MkI, while still good and fast, just doesnt compare to its newer brother.

I had the option of getting the Mk I second hand, much like you, but went for the f/4 instead. Will be upgrading to the 2.8 though, like its been said...  you'll always be thinking of it.

Personally, if I had to choose...

2.8 L IS II > 4 L IS > 2.8 L IS > Sigma

[Marsu42]

The 2.8L IS II definitely...

I know the op only wrote about 70-200 lenses - but I just decided that even on a crop body, 200mm doesn't qualify as a tele lens for me. If anyone is interested in the competition up to 400mm - see the good thread in: rumors -> lenses -> Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L

[Tijn]

- Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the best choice if you have a big budget, and if you need the f/2.8 aperture. Sharpest of the lot (though the two lenses I mention below here are almost just as sharp - differences are minor), heaviest of the lot, most expensive of the lot. It's so sharp that you can use a 1.4x teleconverter with it without too much of an IQ penalty.

- Canon 70-200 f/4L IS is the best choice if your budget is a bit smaller, if you don't need f/2.8 too desperately (for low light shooting or extra high background blur portraits), or if the weight from the f/2.8 is an obstruction (1.3kg vs 760g for the f/4L IS version). For me personally for example, my budget wasn't quite high enough for the f/2.8L IS II; f/4 was plenty for me (as I usually shoot outside in daylight) and I wanted to be able to take it hiking. So I got this one.

- Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS is the best choice if you want the most versatile lens that is pretty much just as sharp as the above two (which is really sharp), for a good price. Bigger range, only slightly smaller aperture than the 70-200 f/4. (Not internal zooming though.) Weight is somewhere in the middle, at 1.05kg.

[stabmasterasron]

Sigma is supposedly coming out with the stabilized version of the 50-150 f/2.8 zoom.  I rented the mkii version of the unstabilized 50-150  f/2.8.  Very nice lens, very good build quality.  This lens is crop sensor only, but in exchange for that concession, you get a small package compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for full frame.  The lens I rented was very nice and well constructed.  I am not a pixel peeper or test chart shooter, but from what I could tell it had very good image quality.  That lens is no longer available, but Sigma is releasing the long awaited update with image stabilization.  If it has good image quality, I am definitely jumping all over it, as i shoot crop

By the way, I have also rented the 70-200 f/4 L IS.  This is an awesome piece of equipment.  It isn't much bigger than the sigma I mentioned above and is probably bette constructed.  It is only f/4, but has awesome IS. If you are shooting in good light I definately recomend this lens. It is truely impressive.  And it also has coverage for full frame, if you want to go that way.

[EOBeav]

I'd suggest you consider a 70-200mm f/4L if you are going to carry the lens / camera around with you, or at least rent one and try it.  It is large!

I have that one, and in many situations you have to shoot at a high ISO in order to handhold.  It's a great lens, and an excellent value, but it's not fast.

[Dylan777]

just bite the bullet and get the mark II

I had mrk I before, but I sold it right after testing the mrk II.

What I like about mrk II:
1. Tack-Sharp even @ f2.8
2. Speed
3. Very quiet