EF 70-200 f/2.8L II Horror Stories

[MonteGraham]

I hear such wonderful post about this lens. Has anyone had a bad experience or dislike of this lens?

 

[Pi]

If you really want to know:

http://www.lightingmods.blogspot.pt/2013/08/halo-problems-on-canon-lens-70-200-l-is.html

 

[lucuias]

Beside weight and price.This is an amazing lens

 

[K-amps]

This lens is the reason I am with canon....

 

[Max ☢]

Beside weight and price.This is an amazing lens

Great shot! I really like this close-up, but the subject's skin look kinda "plastic", or unnaturally smooth at best. Did you do some heavy photoshopping on this one? if so, it really shows. Otherwise, the rendering seems to indicate that the protagonists have been dipped in resin just prior to the photo session, which would be fine for a Barbie commercial. (sorry if my comment appears sarcastic, that's not the intention, I think this is a great work apart from the skin rendition)

back to the original post: I went through many user's reviews when I had to pick my next telephoto lens, and so far I haven't read anything negative about the 70-200L/2.8 beside its weight. I ultimately went for the 70-300L because of its lower weight (i.e. portability), longer range and better rendering at the longer end than the 70-200L/2.8 with TC. If you don't mind the weight and shorter range and need a shallower DoF, then the 70-200L/2.8 is definitely the sure thing.

 

[Viggo]

I have owned three copies, because I couldn't decide between the 85 L and the 70-200.

I have had one copy that was completely useless, I had it in for repair, they changed TWO AF-moduls and TWO IS-units, they took out the front end, and three glass-elements and re-aligned the glass and when it came back the AF worked perfectly, but the IS was still not starting as quick as the previous copy, and it jumped, and often worked only one direction, and made a very weird, loud noise. It was VERY soft at 200 when I sent it in, and after all the re-alignment of the glass and front end it came back exactly the same. I sold it for cheap and had the buyer try it to see if if he liked it, and he bought, so I got a third copy, which like the two others had the issue of IS not being perfect, sometimes too slow to start, sometimes only one direction stabilized. But the AF and sharpness and overall image quality and build is as good as it gets. Wonderful lens. Just not as good as the 200 L, which is the reason I no longer have it

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I have owned three copies, because I couldn't decide between the 85 L and the 70-200.

I have had one copy that was completely useless, I had it in for repair, they changed TWO AF-moduls and TWO IS-units, they took out the front end, and three glass-elements and re-aligned the glass and when it came back the AF worked perfectly, but the IS was still not starting as quick as the previous copy, and it jumped, and often worked only one direction, and made a very weird, loud noise. It was VERY soft at 200 when I sent it in, and after all the re-alignment of the glass and front end it came back exactly the same. I sold it for cheap and had the buyer try it to see if if he liked it, and he bought, so I got a third copy, which like the two others had the issue of IS not being perfect, sometimes too slow to start, sometimes only one direction stabilized. But the AF and sharpness and overall image quality and build is as good as it gets. Wonderful lens. Just not as good as the 200 L, which is the reason I no longer have it

I had a ef 200mm f2.8 II L and it was a stunning optic, slightly sharper than my 135L. When I got my 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, I compared it to my 200L and found that the zoom had better contrast and colours. Sharpness tthere was littel between them, manybe a slight nod to the prime wide open. But with teleconverters, the zoom was a lot better. The Zoom has the latest IS unit, faster and quieter AF and it focusses closer too. The bokeh of the prime and general flare control was better than the zoom. The prime is a lot lighter and less obtrusive.
I felt that for my needs, the zoom was a better optic.

 

[hawaiisunsetphoto]

I have owned three copies, because I couldn't decide between the 85 L and the 70-200.

I have had one copy that was completely useless, I had it in for repair, they changed TWO AF-moduls and TWO IS-units, they took out the front end, and three glass-elements and re-aligned the glass and when it came back the AF worked perfectly, but the IS was still not starting as quick as the previous copy, and it jumped, and often worked only one direction, and made a very weird, loud noise. It was VERY soft at 200 when I sent it in, and after all the re-alignment of the glass and front end it came back exactly the same. I sold it for cheap and had the buyer try it to see if if he liked it, and he bought, so I got a third copy, which like the two others had the issue of IS not being perfect, sometimes too slow to start, sometimes only one direction stabilized. But the AF and sharpness and overall image quality and build is as good as it gets. Wonderful lens. Just not as good as the 200 L, which is the reason I no longer have it

I had a ef 200mm f2.8 II L and it was a stunning optic, slightly sharper than my 135L. When I got my 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, I compared it to my 200L and found that the zoom had better contrast and colours. Sharpness tthere was littel between them, manybe a slight nod to the prime wide open. But with teleconverters, the zoom was a lot better. The Zoom has the latest IS unit, faster and quieter AF and it focusses closer too. The bokeh of the prime and general flare control was better than the zoom. The prime is a lot lighter and less obtrusive.
I felt that for my needs, the zoom was a better optic.

I think he means the 200mm f/2.0L IS, not the 200 f/2.8L....

 

[M.ST]

The 70-200 2.8 II is one of the Canon workhorse lenses.

I like my lens and get oustanding results with it.

But a few month ago I test for a friend a new 70-200 2.8 II lens and it was totally useless for taking pictures. But that was only a exception.

I can highly recommend the lens. If you don´t have the lens, buy it.

 

[Viggo]

I have owned three copies, because I couldn't decide between the 85 L and the 70-200.

I have had one copy that was completely useless, I had it in for repair, they changed TWO AF-moduls and TWO IS-units, they took out the front end, and three glass-elements and re-aligned the glass and when it came back the AF worked perfectly, but the IS was still not starting as quick as the previous copy, and it jumped, and often worked only one direction, and made a very weird, loud noise. It was VERY soft at 200 when I sent it in, and after all the re-alignment of the glass and front end it came back exactly the same. I sold it for cheap and had the buyer try it to see if if he liked it, and he bought, so I got a third copy, which like the two others had the issue of IS not being perfect, sometimes too slow to start, sometimes only one direction stabilized. But the AF and sharpness and overall image quality and build is as good as it gets. Wonderful lens. Just not as good as the 200 L, which is the reason I no longer have it

I had a ef 200mm f2.8 II L and it was a stunning optic, slightly sharper than my 135L. When I got my 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, I compared it to my 200L and found that the zoom had better contrast and colours. Sharpness tthere was littel between them, manybe a slight nod to the prime wide open. But with teleconverters, the zoom was a lot better. The Zoom has the latest IS unit, faster and quieter AF and it focusses closer too. The bokeh of the prime and general flare control was better than the zoom. The prime is a lot lighter and less obtrusive.
I felt that for my needs, the zoom was a better optic.

I think he means the 200mm f/2.0L IS, not the 200 f/2.8L....

Thanks, you beat me to it, I am talking about the 200 f2.0 yes.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

Its my most used lens.
Excellent in IQ and the IS is very helpful.
Love it!

 

[pwp]

70-200 f/2.8isII horror stories? It's almost a contradiction.

You won't hear much other than high praise for this lens. Like any manufactured goods, regardless of factory quality control standards, the occasional "Friday afternoon" lens may slip through. Any horror stories are most likely to originate from damaged/poorly repaired lenses bought second hand in good faith.

The only horror story for me is the rare occasion that I'm without my 70-200 f/2.8isII. It's far and away my most used lens.

-pw

 

[Marsu42]

Beside weight and price.

Yes, "beside" and add "bulk" since it's an internal zoom... all three factors being potential problems according to personal preferences and circumstances.

So for pro use and if you have the $$$ and don't mind carrying/holding this thing, it's great, but for outdoor/travel seeing people carrying a 5d3+70-200/2.8 through nature or foreign places seems a bit awkward... consider the 70-300L in this case and a faster prime like the 135L for portrait. Also the 100L is a single-focus replacement for the 70-200L and also adds macro capability.

 

[K3nt]

Simply an awesome bit of kit. Love mine which has been perfect from day one. My friend was a bit unlucky and his copy blew out the AF motor within a month. Warranty fixed it and it has been working like a charm ever since.
Wouldn't (and couldn't) live without it.

 

[MonteGraham]

70-200 f/2.8isII horror stories? It's almost a contradiction.

You won't hear much other than high praise for this lens. Like any manufactured goods, regardless of factory quality control standards, the occasional "Friday afternoon" lens may slip through. Any horror stories are most likely to originate from damaged/poorly repaired lenses bought second hand in good faith.

The only horror story for me is the rare occasion that I'm without my 70-200 f/2.8isII. It's far and away my most used lens.

-pw

+2 Im starting to realize that!!

 

[AlanF]

Beside weight and price.

Yes, "beside" and add "bulk" since it's an internal zoom... all three factors being potential problems according to personal preferences and circumstances.

So for pro use and if you have the $$$ and don't mind carrying/holding this thing, it's great, but for outdoor/travel seeing people carrying a 5d3+70-200/2.8 through nature or foreign places seems a bit awkward... consider the 70-300L in this case and a faster prime like the 135L for portrait. Also the 100L is a single-focus replacement for the 70-200L and also adds macro capability.

Why do people ignore the 70-200mm f/4 IS? It is stunningly sharp, almost as sharp as the "best" f/2.8s, and a fraction of the weight and price.

 

[Marsu42]

Why do people ignore the 70-200mm f/4 IS? It is stunningly sharp, almost as sharp as the "best" f/2.8s, and a fraction of the weight and price.

For me: Because there is no significant iq or speed difference between 70-200/4L & 70-300/4-5.6L, but the 70-200L is bulkier (longer), has less reach and costs nearly as much. The one point for the 70-200/4L is the constant f-stop, but that only matters if you shoot full m a lot or are doing video.

 

[Pinchers of Peril]

Has anyone had a bad experience or dislike of this lens?

No

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Beside weight and price.

Yes, "beside" and add "bulk" since it's an internal zoom... all three factors being potential problems according to personal preferences and circumstances.

So for pro use and if you have the $$$ and don't mind carrying/holding this thing, it's great, but for outdoor/travel seeing people carrying a 5d3+70-200/2.8 through nature or foreign places seems a bit awkward... consider the 70-300L in this case and a faster prime like the 135L for portrait. Also the 100L is a single-focus replacement for the 70-200L and also adds macro capability.

Why do people ignore the 70-200mm f/4 IS? It is stunningly sharp, almost as sharp as the "best" f/2.8s, and a fraction of the weight and price.

I found that my f4 LIS (which I wish I hadn't sold) was a tad sharper...but there wasn't much between them. I think my f4 version was slightly better at MFD, where as my f2.8 is slightly better at infinity. Both are great lenses but you are quite right, the f4 LIS is often over looked because it's older (the mkII 2.8 created quite a fuss when it came out) and it's slim features are often over looked by it's less bright f4 aperture. For many, this is all they need. For domestic and travel use, I'd say it's a hard choice between the 70-200 f4 LIS and the 70-300 LIS.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Beside weight and price.

Yes, "beside" and add "bulk" since it's an internal zoom... all three factors being potential problems according to personal preferences and circumstances.

So for pro use and if you have the $$$ and don't mind carrying/holding this thing, it's great, but for outdoor/travel seeing people carrying a 5d3+70-200/2.8 through nature or foreign places seems a bit awkward... consider the 70-300L in this case and a faster prime like the 135L for portrait. Also the 100L is a single-focus replacement for the 70-200L and also adds macro capability.

Why do people ignore the 70-200mm f/4 IS? It is stunningly sharp, almost as sharp as the "best" f/2.8s, and a fraction of the weight and price.

I found that my f4 LIS (which I wish I hadn't sold) was a tad sharper...but there wasn't much between them. I think my f4 version was slightly better at MFD, where as my f2.8 is slightly better at infinity. Both are great lenses but you are quite right, the f4 LIS is often over looked because it's older (the mkII 2.8 created quite a fuss when it came out) and it's slim features are often over looked by it's less bright f4 aperture. For many, this is all they need. For domestic and travel use, I'd say it's a hard choice between the 70-200 f4 LIS and the 70-300 LIS.

For travel I'd definitely take the 70-300L - particularly if you are shooting full frame. I love mine. That being said, with this generation of ISO performance I think that many people who shoot events could use the f/4L IS without a hitch. I often use the 135L with and without the 1.4x tele and it is a great, light combination, but the lack of IS is a factor, and the f/4L IS would probably serve as well in that setting.