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

[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]

Re: Review -

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).

 

[RVB]

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

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

Low weight of primes is a big plus,if you don't carry it then you don't shoot it...

 

[skitron]

Low weight of primes is a big plus

Maybe not so much with the 200L f/2.0 though I'd love to have one of those too.

 

[RS2021]

Re: Review -

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.

+1... I cannot agree more.

On the one hand this has emerged as that "must have lens" based on reputation and those who think this gives them street "cred" as having "arrived" (you know who you are...don’t deny it! ..) ...and yes The overall IQ is superb...no arguments from me.

But I have always had issues with the bulk, weight, and obviousness of this lens...these are not small issues.

So let me think this aloud...I guess it comes down to what one uses it for so read the rest as a personal musing...not a broadswipe at this excellent performer.

For tele "reach" this is an intermediary zoom at 200mm...doesn't get you close enough to the birds or the players as a 400mm would without extenders the use of which does knock a few pegs off IQ. This lens probably does best in "near" sports venues... soccer parents, basketball games, and nearer wild-life shots like squirrel and blue jay on your backyard rail or that swan in the park pond. While I have dabbled in this very occasionally, this is not my forte...and whipping out a foot-and-a-half long rather thick lens with hood among decent people is just head-turning.

Yet, it weighs a ton and if you have it around on the bleachers it weighs down on you, gawkers are starring, and when you walk in the dark alley, good luck.

As portraits go, it does a sharp job, but at f/2.8 it is not a full substitute for a much lighter, real portrait primes at f/1.4 or f/2 even. For portraiture I have several much faster primes (85L II, 135L, and 35L for wides) in the range not to mention their size, weight, and portability!!. And if you tripod the zoom for indoor portraits or anywhere, then the IS becomes a nonissue...in fact you have to turn it off!

May be, above all, I am conscious about the zoom's weight and size and certainly unable to carry it for long on the 1 series or the 5 series bodies, and on my little toy crop it is an unbalanced monster of a lens...and I have always been concerned about the "obviousness".

If you don't use it much, which unfortunately I don't, I guess the high IQ really doesn't matter. I think the house cat plays with it more when I unpack camera bags.

Oh dear, I may have suddenly arrived at a Cathartic moment here...

 

[Dylan777]

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

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...

I wouldn't spend my money on 24-70 f2.8 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II, if IQ is not important in photography.

 

[shinjuku-thief]

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.

Quick question, you're using it with a 1.4x or 2x? The one time I used it, I found shooting football (soccer) that the long end on a crop is good to just over the half way line. Would you agree?

 

[RS2021]

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.

Quick question, you're using it with a 1.4x or 2x? The one time I used it, I found shooting football (soccer) that the long end on a crop is good to just over the half way line. Would you agree?

70-200s are mid-range teles which do best in smaller venues...when used for large football fields by usually eager parents it happens in less formal play, school, or local teams and they can get closer to the action by foot by crossing the green or moving to the perimeter of the field where action is closest.... In big ticket professional games, 200mm will not get you close to even the mid field action from the bleachers...let alone far field...you can always crop. Extenders are possible for the price of a few IQ points but ... even they will fall short for really far field scrums. 400mm is a fair bet and 600mm is a sure thing...whichever way you can achieve those...via native zooms, primes, or extender combos... Mind you, a lot of great sports shots have been taken with 70-200 ...however, you gotta be in the right place, is all.

 

[birtembuk]

Re: Review -

(((lost the quote thing ))
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.
(((quote)))

Agree with that. Have both 70-200/II and 85L but I use them in different type of situation. I don't bother to try shooting moving targets with 85L and won't go night street-photo with 70-200.

 

[shinjuku-thief]

70-200s are mid-range teles which do best in smaller venues...when used for large football fields by usually eager parents it happens in less formal play, school, or local teams and they can get closer to the action by foot by crossing the green or moving to the perimeter of the field where action is closest.... In big ticket professional games, 200mm will not get you close to even the mid field action from the bleachers...let alone far field...you can always crop. Extenders are possible for the price of a few IQ points but ... even they will fall short for really far field scrums. 400mm is a fair bet and 600mm is a sure thing...whichever way you can achieve those...via native zooms, primes, or extender combos... Mind you, a lot of great sports shots have been taken with 70-200 ...however, you gotta be in the right place, is all.

I got some shots that I was very happy with, so I know it can do the job, provided I'm in the right place of course. As a somewhat aspirational amateur, limited on most occasions by stadium rules, the longest lens I can carry in is 200mm. Next time I hire one I might try it with an extender, just to see the difference. Thanks for the reply.

 

[Aglet]

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've shot all 3 of Canon's EF 70-200 2.8 L's
You can not beat this latest v2 for sharpness, it's fantastic! So is the IS, very capable.
A bit of CA in FF corners but that's minor.

But yes, it's bokeh, at least in some situations, can be hideous and distracting, especially, in my findings, at wider apertures if there were fine structures just out of the focus plane (tree branches for example). Unfortunately I ran into too many other compositions where the background blur quality was really poor, even when separated from the in-focus subject by a large distance.

I think this is one of those unfortunate compromises when an incredibly sharp zoom is built that has a lot of corrections to fix everything that's IN focus, the stuff that's OUT of focus can sometimes suffer.
I can also create an attractive bokeh, but I've preferred the look of the original non-IS lens for that at times. The v1 IS was so not-sharp at the long end I got rid of it quickly.

Go play with one in the store. You can see some of this effect even in a viewfinder as you adjust focus and zoom. Can be really apparent if you can point out a window at some trees or shrubs where there's some fine structural elements and you'll see the kind of distortion caused as you the controls or even pan the scene. I posted a sample in the lens gallery here.

My new Nikon 70-200/4 VR also does the same thing to a slightly lesser extent which some have referred to as "radial bokeh." I need to do more testing before I determine which lems is more agreeable to me now that the 6D is a camera I also find capable of agreeable image quality to match.

If bokeh quality is as important to you as extreme sharpness then you have a tough decision to make.
I'm also waiting to see how the new stabilized Tamron 70-200/2.8 performs. I've had good results from the earlier version.
I haven't played with any of Canon's f/4 Ls in this range.

 

[RVB]

Low weight of primes is a big plus

Maybe not so much with the 200L f/2.0 though I'd love to have one of those too.

I have the 200f2 also,it's a monster, I mostly use it in a indoors ,the DOF is razor thin when shot at f2 and the bokeh is beautiful.. its an exceptional lens but not one you could carry around for very long unless your built like a tank (just like the lens is ).. lol