70-200 2.8 advice

[nc0b]

I have both the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, the f/4 IS version, plus both the 1.4X III and 2X III TCs. The f/2.8 is an astounding lens you should consider if the weight is acceptable. It is sharper and focuses faster than the f/4. That said, I don't always need that level of performance for everything I do. The 1.4X TC works well on the 70-200mm f/4 if you need the reach and can give up 1 f stop for the TC and stopping down 1 more f stop to improve sharpness. The 6D is so good with higher ISO levels that you can usually make up for the light loss. The 2X TC, on the other hand, is a compromise with the 70-200mm f/2.8 from the aspect of auto focus. If you are shooting relatively stationary or slow moving objects, it is one reasonable way to get to 400mm. If you want to shoot birds in flight, forget it. I finally purchased the 400mm f/5.6 for BIF. If a raptor is perched on something, the zoom and the 2X will work, but once it takes off, you are likely to lose focus in the sky and never reacquire focus. The zoom and the 2X get lost, even with the close focus limit set to 2.5 meters. I don't know anything about the other brands, but I think you may regret it from a resale standpoint. The only non-Canon lens I have is a Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 that is wonderful. If the f/2.8 cannot be justified from a cost standpoint, go with the Canon f/4 IS. If I had to shoot a wedding, however, the f/2.8 would be my hands down choice.

 

[Heavyweight67]

I have both the 70-200 2.8 ii is and the 70-200 f4 is, if weight and money aren't an issue go for the 2.8 ii is, it really is an amazing lens, everytime I put it on my 5Diii it just astounds me how good it is, that being said the f4 version is brilliant as well....most times the F4 is attached to my "walkaround"7D, the reduce weight of the f4 makes it easier to throw it around.

I purchased the f4 version first then saved for the f2.8, Sometimes, when I look at my gear, I think do I really need both of these 70-200, the answer is "yes" because I have two bodies....if it was only the 5Diii I would only have the f2.8..

There are some great third party lenses out there, but the 70-200 2.8 l is ii, really is the best " one lens to rule them all"

 

[scottkinfw]

FWIW, I have both for my 5DII &II The 2,8 is very thin dof. The lens is very heavy after a while, it is long and has b big diameter.I find the image as good as my F4L is, lighter, shorter, smaller diameter, and easier to use. May even give some better shots. I yo can afford it I see no reason to get rid of this gem.

I have both the 70-200 2.8 ii is and the 70-200 f4 is, if weight and money aren't an issue go for the 2.8 ii is, it really is an amazing lens, everytime I put it on my 5Diii it just astounds me how good it is, that being said the f4 version is brilliant as well....most times the F4 is attached to my "walkaround"7D, the reduce weight of the f4 makes it easier to throw it around.

I purchased the f4 version first then saved for the f2.8, Sometimes, when I look at my gear, I think do I really need both of these 70-200, the answer is "yes" because I have two bodies....if it was only the 5Diii I would only have the f2.8..

There are some great third party lenses out there, but the 70-200 2.8 l is ii, really is the best " one lens to rule them all"

 

[Arctic Photo]

Just get the 70-200mm L II IS. It's like, what $1800? Not that much more than the others given that it's exactly what you want.

Financial responsibility is an important and valuable life-skill. Nobody questions the awesomeness of the 70-200mm L II IS, but if it's a $$ reach too far, and it's not earning money for you then the alternatives must considered.

The viable alternatives I'd be looking at would be a pre-owned EF 70-200 f/2.8 MkI, with or without IS, and certainly check prices for a pre-owned MkII IS as well. These are tough, long lasting lenses. Most pros give them a solid daily workout and they last for years. The other alternative mentioned by other posters is the EF 70-200 f/4, with or without IS. Read up; this is a lens with a great reputation.

-pw

As much as I promoted the MkII, I agree with pw. Don't stretch financially unless you can. Before I got my MkII I bprrowed a friend's MkI and I must say that was quite something special also.

Good luck!

 

[ashmadux]

get the v2.

Like others has stated, its just a beautiful piece of kit. i have yet to use it on FF, but on my t2i this thing just makes magic.

The 24-105 is my second favorite lens, but its look is nothing like the 70-200

 

[mycanonphotos]

Try to grab a nice used 70-200 f2.8 IS I (one) the first 2.8 IS from canon. I bought one and save a bunch, wish I never would have bought the Sigma 70-200 2.8 os hsm...it was good for about two years then started having IS issues and ring issues...anyway..luck of the draw I guess...I'd rather send a Canon in for repair then a Sigma. Plus the Canon always has a higher resale value, just take care of it

 

[greger]

I recommend the 70-200 2.8 IS USM lens. Financial Responsibility may be for some. But this is for our pleasure as well as for show. I get great joy out of sharing pics with my friend. Sometimes his are better and sometimes mine are better. I have the 70-200 f4 IS USM lens which I purchased with the 1.4 Extender. I used this combo until I needed more reach. Adding the 2X Extender didn't work as well as I hoped. I then bought the 100-400 f4.5-5.6. The 2.8 IS wasn't out when I bought my 70-200 f4 IS which is newer than the original 70-200 2.8 which has been a workhorse lens for some people.
If you haven't purchased the 2.8 IS USM by the time you shoot your friends wedding, rent it. If you don't buy the lens you desire, you will always wish that you had.

 

[pulseimages]

I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L IS I isn't as sharp as the IS II or non-IS versions. True?

 

[Northstar]

I've had a dozen different lenses over the years and the 70-200 2.8ii is my favorite. It is a phenomenal lens. It is an asset, not an expense.

If you don't get the canon 70-200 2.8ii, the thought of owning it will always be lurking in the back of your mind, and if you continue to grow as a photographer you usually tend to eventually want more from your gear or better gear.

That said, if you truly can't afford the lens, then look at the canon 70-200 f4 IS version over the Tammy and sig.

 

[Northstar]

I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L IS I isn't as sharp as the IS II or non-IS versions. True?

True!

 

[tomscott]

I have the 70-200mm L F2.8, its sharper than the IS version I and you can pick them up for good prices.

Love it and works great with 1.4x tele converter and at a push a 2x

 

[ashmadux]

I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L IS I isn't as sharp as the IS II or non-IS versions. True?

Yep. Pretty huge difference.

 

[kubamadej]

Wow, this got a lot more interest and replies than I thought. Thanks for everyone who took the time to answer, a lot of great advice was offered.

I saw a bunch of recommendations to invest in the canon f2.8 ii IS. While I have no doubts it's a fantastic lens, I can't help but make the comparrision to when I was buying my camera body a few months back. I was looking at a 6D vs. a 5Dm3 and also got a lot of ''get the 5D, it's the best'' (excluding the 1DX) and many people saying I'll regret the AF system in the 6D. But I got the 6D (for 1400$ new), and I'm thrilled with it. It takes stunning pictures, the AF has 99% been flawless and the few times it hasn't, I've made adjustments and got on with it. I borrowed a friends 5D for a day and while it's a better camera, I can't help but feel I got 90% of the camera for half the price.

Point of that was to say I don't feel I need the best of the best, I'm more looking for excellent quality without resorting to robbing a bank. Therefore I feel I just can't justify the extra money the canon will cost me. If I'm going down the used or refurbished (something I did for my other lens and I'll gladly do again), the tamron offers me savings of at least 600$.

As for the other options mentioned, the canon f4 IS looks fantastic, my only concern is that if i decide to attach a 2X converter, I'd loose autofocus. The converter would be a last option, but it would be nice to have that reach if I so decide. I'm also concerned about people posting that the m1 version of the 2.8 IS has much worse IQ. Can Tamron and Sigma really not make a lens in the same ballpark as canon? Both the sigma and tamron are newish lens as well.

Again, thanks for all the great replies, keep them coming.

 

[magna42]

Wow, this got a lot more interest and replies than I thought. Thanks for everyone who took the time to answer, a lot of great advice was offered.

I saw a bunch of recommendations to invest in the canon f2.8 ii IS. While I have no doubts it's a fantastic lens, I can't help but make the comparrision to when I was buying my camera body a few months back. I was looking at a 6D vs. a 5Dm3 and also got a lot of ''get the 5D, it's the best'' (excluding the 1DX) and many people saying I'll regret the AF system in the 6D. But I got the 6D (for 1400$ new), and I'm thrilled with it. It takes stunning pictures, the AF has 99% been flawless and the few times it hasn't, I've made adjustments and got on with it. I borrowed a friends 5D for a day and while it's a better camera, I can't help but feel I got 90% of the camera for half the price.

Point of that was to say I don't feel I need the best of the best, I'm more looking for excellent quality without resorting to robbing a bank. Therefore I feel I just can't justify the extra money the canon will cost me. If I'm going down the used or refurbished (something I did for my other lens and I'll gladly do again), the tamron offers me savings of at least 600$.

As for the other options mentioned, the canon f4 IS looks fantastic, my only concern is that if i decide to attach a 2X converter, I'd loose autofocus. The converter would be a last option, but it would be nice to have that reach if I so decide. I'm also concerned about people posting that the m1 version of the 2.8 IS has much worse IQ. Can Tamron and Sigma really not make a lens in the same ballpark as canon? Both the sigma and tamron are newish lens as well.

Again, thanks for all the great replies, keep them coming.

I think you made a well thought out choice with the 6D. Throwing this into the mix, it sounds like 400mm may be in your future. Get the 70-200 F4 and keep your eye on prices and reviews for the Tamron 150-600. When you're ready for the longer lens you may find that you'll have a few more affordable options other that using a converter

 

[BoneDoc]

Like yourself, I would consider myself an entrance amateur. I decided to stick with the Tamron after having both the time on and the Canon Mark II with me for at least one week and shoot side-by-side. Again, the Canon is a little bit better, but it is not $500 better. What swayed me toward getting the Tamron also is because when I travel around Europe, I would like to have a black lens and not a white lens that would attract even more potential fees.

I just shot a wedding of almost 700 people in attendance this past weekend. I could not be any happier with my Tamron. It performed flawlessly. I was up at iso 2000 through 25,600 most of the time due to the low light condition. If you do any lowlight events like these, you definitely need 2.8.

One thing I noticed though, is that this lens is big. So, in retrospect, I don't think it makes a difference whether this is a white lengths or a black lens, because it's just a honkin big lens.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Wow, this got a lot more interest and replies than I thought. Thanks for everyone who took the time to answer, a lot of great advice was offered.

I saw a bunch of recommendations to invest in the canon f2.8 ii IS. While I have no doubts it's a fantastic lens, I can't help but make the comparrision to when I was buying my camera body a few months back. I was looking at a 6D vs. a 5Dm3 and also got a lot of ''get the 5D, it's the best'' (excluding the 1DX) and many people saying I'll regret the AF system in the 6D. But I got the 6D (for 1400$ new), and I'm thrilled with it. It takes stunning pictures, the AF has 99% been flawless and the few times it hasn't, I've made adjustments and got on with it. I borrowed a friends 5D for a day and while it's a better camera, I can't help but feel I got 90% of the camera for half the price.

Point of that was to say I don't feel I need the best of the best, I'm more looking for excellent quality without resorting to robbing a bank. Therefore I feel I just can't justify the extra money the canon will cost me. If I'm going down the used or refurbished (something I did for my other lens and I'll gladly do again), the tamron offers me savings of at least 600$.

As for the other options mentioned, the canon f4 IS looks fantastic, my only concern is that if i decide to attach a 2X converter, I'd loose autofocus. The converter would be a last option, but it would be nice to have that reach if I so decide. I'm also concerned about people posting that the m1 version of the 2.8 IS has much worse IQ. Can Tamron and Sigma really not make a lens in the same ballpark as canon? Both the sigma and tamron are newish lens as well.

Again, thanks for all the great replies, keep them coming.

I'd say the Tamron is definitely in the ballpark.
However, try all the lenses before you buy.
All theoretical discussions are pointless if you don't like what you are going to use.
I tried the 70-200 II long back, when it first came out, in a store and I wasn't even looking to buy a lens that day. But as soon as I tried it, I knew I want it some day. 3 years and half a dozen upgrades later, I have it.
So give all these lenses a whirl- I am sure that is a better way to find the right lens for you than asking a forum.

 

[Policar]

Wow, this got a lot more interest and replies than I thought. Thanks for everyone who took the time to answer, a lot of great advice was offered.

I saw a bunch of recommendations to invest in the canon f2.8 ii IS. While I have no doubts it's a fantastic lens, I can't help but make the comparrision to when I was buying my camera body a few months back. I was looking at a 6D vs. a 5Dm3 and also got a lot of ''get the 5D, it's the best'' (excluding the 1DX) and many people saying I'll regret the AF system in the 6D. But I got the 6D (for 1400$ new), and I'm thrilled with it. It takes stunning pictures, the AF has 99% been flawless and the few times it hasn't, I've made adjustments and got on with it. I borrowed a friends 5D for a day and while it's a better camera, I can't help but feel I got 90% of the camera for half the price.

Point of that was to say I don't feel I need the best of the best, I'm more looking for excellent quality without resorting to robbing a bank. Therefore I feel I just can't justify the extra money the canon will cost me. If I'm going down the used or refurbished (something I did for my other lens and I'll gladly do again), the tamron offers me savings of at least 600$.

As for the other options mentioned, the canon f4 IS looks fantastic, my only concern is that if i decide to attach a 2X converter, I'd loose autofocus. The converter would be a last option, but it would be nice to have that reach if I so decide. I'm also concerned about people posting that the m1 version of the 2.8 IS has much worse IQ. Can Tamron and Sigma really not make a lens in the same ballpark as canon? Both the sigma and tamron are newish lens as well.

Again, thanks for all the great replies, keep them coming.

Lenses are assets; bodies are liabilities. Look at how each depreciates in value.

I had a 70-200mm f2.8 and it was great. Tried my friend's 70-200mm f2.8 IS and it was similar, but with IS. Both are very good and you would be happy with them I think. You would also still wish you had the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS.

We both ended up selling those lenses. They weren't exactly what we wanted. The 70-200mm f2.8 II IS is.

It's not the sharpest lens I've used (the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 wins there), but it is a joy to use. You can look at test charts and user reviews all day and you'll see that the cheaper options are not that bad. However, the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS is Canon's flagship and everything about it is just made to be great. The packaging, the build quality, the look, the autofocus, the performance, etc. It's a totally no-compromise lens. The best in class.

Why go for second best, when best isn't that much more expensive (and the total cost of ownership, taking depreciation into account, is less)? Why do you have to justify it to yourself?

If it's a business expense get the cheapest you can get (or what will offer the most return on investment), if it's a toy get the best you can afford. Either way I think it's an easy choice. Wait for a refurb or for a sale. Mine was $1820 new or something. Worth every cent and more.

 

[kubamadej]

I'd love to give all these a try, sadly (or rather amazingly) I currently live on a small island on the tip of sicily (favignana), so renting is impossible. Any lens I buy, I get it to coincide (or have the lens wait for me) with my biannual visits to my parents who live in New York. So therefore kind strangers of the internet, you are my best bet. So for my next visit, i'd love to have one of those awaiting me.

And some people are making great arguments for the f2.8 ii IS, I'm just struggling to wrap my mind around that price tag. I kinda would want mine to be made from gold at that price...

And an ongoing thanks to those who took the time to share opinions and give advice, it's much appreciated.

 

[mycanonphotos]

I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L IS I isn't as sharp as the IS II or non-IS versions. True?

True!

Yes, It's not as sharp BUT its still pretty dang sharp.

 

[gargamel]

Not wanting to confuse you, and also not to extend the scope of discussion arbitrarily, but if f/2.8 is not a must, you might find this interesting, too:

Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VS Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 VC - AMAZING RESULTS!!

It can be had really cheap and seems to be surprisingly good. This is not to say that it's up to any of the 70-200s, but amazingly close, it seems. (Well, yeah, this is a Canon forum, and the video is from "that Nikon guy"...)

gargamel