|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
The Digital Picture
Bryan has completed his review of the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.
Quote from TDP
I consider the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens to be the second most important lens in my kit with the first being a more general purpose lens in focal length range. It is not an inexpensive lens, but it is very worth the price in my opinion – and very worthy of its red ring. While this is a completely pro-grade lens, you definitely do not have to be a pro to appreciate it. Get the “II”!
More Reviews
If you haven't already, be sure to read Justin's review of the lens here at Canon Rumors.
EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II Stock
B&H Photo has them in stock @ $2499
Adorama has them in stock @ $2499
Both are currently closed for passover and will ship when they open back up.
*UPDATE* Jeff Ascough and his “stealth” rangefinder
A few people have commented and emailed me thinking he's setting up an April fools joke.
Sounds plausible.
It's an early April Fool's joke. He's written about the AF performance. Enough said!
Nice one Jeff.
cr
first!
I have this lens and I can tell you it is better in every way than the old one which wasn’t bad at all! It’s sharper, has more contrast, focuses quicker and has a shorter MFD.
Is it worth the $800 or so more you’ll pay? that’s a tricky question. For me it is since three of the four advantages I listed above save me editing time, gets me a higher keeper rate and a higher quality image than I have ever had. The fourth makes my lens more useful. To me that’s worth the extra money.
Then, what’s the first most important lens?
85 1.2 II
In regards to Jeff Ascough’s possible April Fools Joke, it definitely seems that way now.
First off, there’s the facts about the camera/lenses. AF Rangefinder, full-frame, 35 1.2, etc. They sound too good to be true.
Then, he tweets that he posted some sample photos on his blog. I see his tweet after about 15 minutes, I go to check the photos (although he created a separate folder for this post on his blog…another red flag?) and he writes that he had to take down the images because the site traffic caused his server to crash. He has only about 100 followers on twitter…
But, all in all, I really hope it ISN’T an april fool’s joke. I would love to play around with this camera if it is real.
If it IS a joke, he certainly got me haha
His favorite general purpose lens is the 24-105L.
http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
I guess it could be Jeff’s way of driving up his site traffic.
here’s to wishing it isn’t an april fool’s joke. I’d love to get a hold of a canon-mount rangefinder camera as well, or an EVIL camera even
the kit lens 18 55 plastic :-)
This is sure a great lens, but too expensive for me. I’m hoping the f/4 II is on its way.
Lloyd chambers had a whole different take on this lens and he found strange issues passed f/4. worth reading his detailed research. He is one of the best equipment reviewers out there.
24-70mm
Dumb comment. The F/4 hardly needs a revision yet.
Is Jeff A. writing the lens review on that website?
I really wish I had a friend with that lens. :)
The fact that it ‘autofocuses well’ is enough to prove it’s a fake.
And what about that ‘magnesium alloy electronic shutter’. I thought ‘electronic shutter’ meant the sensor controlled the exposure time, so what part of that could be made of magnesium? Poor wording or dead giveaway?
Yes, but he just updated his comments again after other owners demonstrated that they did not see the same degradation in image he did. For now it looks like he got two bad copies.
That is of course ridiculously bad QC from Canon for such an expensive lens, but at least it doesn’t seem to be a design flaw.
To this I would add that the resolution it achieves shows up in remarkable detail on 200-400% crops on a monitor. Prints are rich and detailed and really pop. IS is a stunner. 1/20th at 200 mm sharp handheld. As an upgrade to my 70-200 f/4 IS I am quite impressed. It exceeds it for me in every way minus weight and price.
I’ve just bought the first version. Got it for £1280 so that’s a bargain really. Can’t really justify the extra £1000 for the Mk2. My other important lens? My 85mm 1.2 L is serious. My 1.2 50mm is also up there. I think the 85mm wins due to its beautiful glass and light sucking ability.
love it. they just need to get the new version out dammit so i can buy the old one used!
I have done some testing in response to that proposed issue and have found there to actually be little change in image quality between F/2.8 and F/11, probably because at F/11 the smallest bit of diffraction might be setting in on high res sensors (not getting into that debate …). If you are doing just a “back of the screen test”, the new 70-200 F/2.8 IS II is basically stupid sharp regardless of the aperture you use it at :-D
lmao
“The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens is now my favorite and most-used lens.”
I’ve been completely satisfied with my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (first gen). It’s good to hear the new one has some nice improvements for those willing to pay for it, but the price hike is pretty stiff. I got mine new for around $1,400. I’m not about to pay $1k more when the first gen is already an excellent lens.
I couldn’t agree with you more. I own and love the first gen 70-200 2.8L IS. While the MKII is surely a great lens from what I have read, it’s not worth the extra $800-$1000 more than the old version. I doubt you will ever be able to tell the difference between the two lenses unless you really blow up your photos.
I must say my 70-200 2.8L IS II is very sharp, like a prime.
It’s the f/2.8 version of the 70-200 f/4L IS.
Pity 12MP is all I need and the 5DII AF is a joke.
Not that I’m trolling, just stating facts.
GUYS GET A SENSE OF IRONY. IF YOU KEEP FEEDING GUYS WHO POST LIKE THIS YOU’LL ONLY ENCOURAGE THEM.
I hope you’ve all learnt your lesson from my escapades.
I’ve been “super trolling” for days and you still get upset. Don’t let trolls bother you so much.
I’m surprised you haven’t gotten the massive irony in the statements.
Still I did seem to get a rating system put in… which is cool.
:D
The troll fest ends now.
Good night and thanks for the troll food. LOL.
LOL
You guys will probably give this dude thumbs down now because you want to cover up you got fooled.
Classic.
I have the Mk1 and sold it to make way for the Mk2. Why is it that owners of Mk1 engage in denial saying the Mk2 is not worth it when simple truth is they cant afford it and trying to kid themselves. The difference between the 2 lens is a country mile like comparing a consumer grade lens with an L in terms of IQ. The Mk2 can deliver the sort of IQ that is on par with L primes such as the 85mm f1.2L, 100mm f2.8L IS Macro, 135 f2L, 200mm f2.8L, together with latest IS and flexibility of a zoom For people who pay a premium for IQ and invest in primes the Mk2 is a no brainer.
LOL even I get a thumbs down for suggesting it.
I love “ranking” systems. CR guy is turning this into youtube.
You mean you bought the latest and greatest and you engage in denial since you spent a country mile to upgrade.
Now you have to justify your new purchase. Like I said, I doubt you can notice any difference in your photos unless you really blow them up in size.
This is enough to have me sell My current My current one and get the new version.
No need to be so snarky about it, Simon. Nobody’s attacking you for your purchase. I could pay cash for a Mk II today but see no need to when I’m so happy with my Mk I. The Mk I is a darn good lens (my copy is, anyway), and the introduction of the Mk II doesn’t change that. I’m not the type who has to have the latest and greatest moment to moment. I don’t doubt the Mk II is better, but is it $1k better? Not to me.
None of this is an attack on those who have bought the Mk II. Enjoy your lens. I admit I would like to have one (who wouldn’t?), but I’m not Jonesing for one when the price is $1k more and I’ve been so well served by my Mk I. That’s all I was saying.
What I would like to know is the IQ difference between it and the 70-200/4 IS. Any owners of the two lenses who can compare it at f/4? TIA.
Okay, after extensive comparison on TDP’s excellent ISO 12233 chart tool, I therefore conclude that the 70-200/2.8 IS Mk.II is as sharp & contrasty at f/2.8 as the 70-200/4 IS is at f/4. The use of CaF2 on this model clearly had the same benefit as it did on the f/4 IS version (the Mk.I didn’t have Fluorite). Time to sell my f/4 IS to get this beast.
Thumbs up. Hats off to you.
Well trolled sir. Hats off to you.
I’ll be honest, I got the MKI. Because here, it’s a 800 euro difference between MKI en MKII. Although the MKII has better contrast when light is entering the lens (near frame for example) and backlit, 800 euro is alot of cash that can be invested in other photography stuff. Eventually the MKII wil drop to Nikon 70-200 II prices I asume, untill then.. I’ve been enjoying my MKI :-)
Jeff Ascough is a pratt.
Norma Stits,
You must have been very unhappy in your life, perhaps being looked down by people or by yourself?
Do you also put all your anger to your family members? I hope you don’t. Don’t transfer your anger to others. One gotta solves his own problem by himself.
Project much?
The F/4 is one of Canon’s more recent (2006) and optically superb telephoto lenses.
Calling for a Mark II version at this point is dumb, and I was just calling a spade a spade.
I own both. They look really similar, but the 2.8 IS II beats the 4 IS in CA, contrast, and vignetting in my opinion.
I believe you will be very happy so long as you are OK with more weight.
Lulz. 0wnz0r3d. Thumbs up this reply to 0wn kok some moar!!11
Sweet.
I had a contax G1 and it had AF….
That’s a great point. I completely forgot about that camera.
Love the glowing yet obvious paid and biased review from the digital picture website praising this lens. I don’t think I’ve ever read a review
with such over the top words and descriptions. It’s a shame it wasn’t an honest review. Remind me never to visit that site again.
Don’t be so sure the alluded-to rangefinder is all entirely an April Fool’s joke. Jeff may be having a laugh, but it’s while he’s under (no doubt) a very restrictive NDA, with a neat new camera in his hands (he’s among the privileged few), and it’s about to be April Fool’s Day. Were I in his position, I doubt I could pass up the opportunity to mess with people’s minds…
Cheers,
Basil
Never visit that website again.
If Canon gave you a copy of the lens gratis, you would praise the heck out of it too I suppose if for no other reason than to keep the equipment flowing out of the free Canon spigot. I wish I had access to one of them spigots like he does.
“Nice one Jeff.”???
I always thought humour was an essential part of an April Fool
I agree. Frankly, most of the bogus announcements that come as April Fool’s ‘jokes’ are completely devoid of any humor outside the mind of the author.
Why thank you. as you can tell by the “thumbs down” number, it certainly had the desired effect. LOL
The 70-200 4 IS had one great advantage over the old 2.8 IS. That’s it’s sharpness. With the introduction of the 70-200 2.8 IS II, Canon have a 2.8 lens that matches the (legendary) f/4 IS.
Well done Canon!
I doubt that most will notice much of a difference between the new and the old lenses unless they really blow up the image. The old lens produced images that graced some of the top publications worldwide for the last 10 years with nothing but praise. Canon has effectively fooled you all to push though a huge price increase never before seen for an upgrade of the same type lens. It seems the consumer is once again the victim and they don’t even realize it! LOL
yeah they spent all that time developing an exact same lens to fool us dumb pro’s that wouldn’t notice we were scammed???dont be stupid, theres no question that the lens is better.the question is if its worth the extra price.
That’s the $2499 dollar question isn’t it? Sound like you just agreed with me in a sort of nasty kind of way eh?
I doubt a “dumb” pro like you will even notice the difference unless you do some mighty hefty cropping. Perhaps then the upgrade may have some value. I am only focusing on the price increase relative to what Canon is actually giving you versus the old model. In that case it doesn’t look so attractive.
I did the same comparison on the-digital-picture.com. This is a great tool by the way for camparing lenses. It shows you the level of perfection Canon has achieved on the 70-200 2.8 is usm ii. I have convinced myself therefore that by buying this lens I will have the 70-200 focal range coverd for the next 10, if not 20 years. After all Canon introduced the first revision 9 years ago and many of the owners of it are still very happy and don’t see a need to step up. As time passes the mark ii will become more and more needed though to satisfy continuously increasing camera resolutions. It is the sharper lens.