I'm looking for a telephoto zoom, but I've been underwhelmed before.

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,912
7,988
jdramirez said:
kirispupis said:
Canon 100-400 - similar AF to the 70-200 + 2x. marginally better image quality.
I hear such amazing things about the 70-200 f2.8l is mkii, I find it hard to believe it is as wonderful as its reputation. I do see the photos online and I wonder if that is the lens, the body, or the photographer who make it great. I've never heard the 100-400 referred to as better than the 70-200... so that detracts from the credibility of your opinion.

Might want to read a little more carefully before questioning someone's credibility.

He's saying the 100-400 has marginally better IQ than the 70-200 II with a 2x TC. The fact that a bare zoom lens delivers only marginally better IQ than the 70-200 II with a 2x is a testament to the outstanding optical quality of the 70-200 II.
 
Upvote 0

jdramirez

EOS R6
May 31, 2011
2,950
0
45
eml58 said:
neuroanatomist said:
Your story is like Thom Hogan's article on tripods - start with a cheap one with a pan-tilt head, get better legs, then get a cheap ballhead, then a better ballhead, then better legs, finally you wise up and get Gitzo (or RRS) legs and a top quality head.

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. It's Canon's best zoom lens, and quite likely the best zoom lens available from any manufacturer. If you want the best, you'll end up there - so skip any more intervening steps and get the best.

I agree totally, this is where you'll end up so just go there, I shoot Wildlife & use the 70-200f2.8 V2, 300f/2.8 V2, 400f/2.8V2 & just added the 600f/4 V2, 50% of my shots are still with the 70-200f/2.8, simply a great Lens, great low light, sharp & fast spot on IQ.

I think y'all have convinced me. I will have to wait for a deal, but I doubt there will be a real competitor to the 70-200 that will change my mind.
 
Upvote 0

jdramirez

EOS R6
May 31, 2011
2,950
0
45
bwfishing said:
bdunbar79 said:
The 200 f/2.8L is a really nice lens. However, it AF's way slower than the 70-200L and offers a lot less flexibility, which is why I don't think it'll help him much for sports, whereas the zoom, and yes quite expensive, will. It'll be a tough choice. Two bodies/two primes or a single body and the zoom.

The EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens AF it's plenty fast for me. Fast enough for birds in flight. Now the last time I checked humans are slower than birds. My kid is crazy fast maybe a track star one day, but I have no issues capturing him with the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens either. It sounds like the OP enjoys prime lenses. This one is affordable and can do the job, what is not to like?

If he is stuck between these two amazing lenses then why not rent both and see which one is better for the type and style shooter he is now and wants to become?

I generally don't rent... I'll buy at a cheap price and if I don't like it I'll sell it for what I bought it or maybe even more. the difficulty is finding a good price where I can... do that.
 
Upvote 0

jdramirez

EOS R6
May 31, 2011
2,950
0
45
RLPhoto said:
If you don't need a zoom, get the 135L. It is a razor.

If you need a zoom, the 70-200LII is also a razor but just a heavier, bulkier, more expensive and slower razor.
I remember five years ago when I first heard about the 135... I thought, there is no way I would spend a grand on a specialty prime lens. Little did I know I would lose my mind only a few years later.
 
Upvote 0

bdunbar79

EOS R6
May 16, 2012
3,152
0
43
Wadsworth, OH
jdramirez said:
bdunbar79 said:
f/4 really isn't going to work in indoor sports, even with a 5D3, and since you mention you need IQ and fast AF, then the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS is really the only option.
I know you're right... I tried to use my 24-105 with diffused flash and it worked well, but I always felt like a distraction when the shot went off.

You definitely don't want to rely on flash for sports. I'm not allowed to even use a flash or strobes for any sport I shoot, so f/2.8 is the narrowest I shoot in most cases. This is good because if you are way overexposed at f/2.8, just speed up the shutter speed. Indoors this won't be an issue, as at f/2.8 I've shot at ISO 6400.
 
Upvote 0

jdramirez

EOS R6
May 31, 2011
2,950
0
45
neuroanatomist said:
jdramirez said:
kirispupis said:
Canon 100-400 - similar AF to the 70-200 + 2x. marginally better image quality.
I hear such amazing things about the 70-200 f2.8l is mkii, I find it hard to believe it is as wonderful as its reputation. I do see the photos online and I wonder if that is the lens, the body, or the photographer who make it great. I've never heard the 100-400 referred to as better than the 70-200... so that detracts from the credibility of your opinion.

Might want to read a little more carefully before questioning someone's credibility.

He's saying the 100-400 has marginally better IQ than the 70-200 II with a 2x TC. The fact that a bare zoom lens delivers only marginally better IQ than the 70-200 II with a 2x is a testament to the outstanding optical quality of the 70-200 II.
Ok that does make more sense... my apologies...
 
Upvote 0

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,820
38
bdunbar79 said:
jdramirez said:
bdunbar79 said:
f/4 really isn't going to work in indoor sports, even with a 5D3, and since you mention you need IQ and fast AF, then the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS is really the only option.
I know you're right... I tried to use my 24-105 with diffused flash and it worked well, but I always felt like a distraction when the shot went off.

You definitely don't want to rely on flash for sports. I'm not allowed to even use a flash or strobes for any sport I shoot, so f/2.8 is the narrowest I shoot in most cases. This is good because if you are way overexposed at f/2.8, just speed up the shutter speed. Indoors this won't be an issue, as at f/2.8 I've shot at ISO 6400.

Going back as little as 10 years, ISO 800 was the limit. 3 stops difference. The challenges we faces as film shooters :eek:
 
Upvote 0

bdunbar79

EOS R6
May 16, 2012
3,152
0
43
Wadsworth, OH
RGF said:
bdunbar79 said:
jdramirez said:
bdunbar79 said:
f/4 really isn't going to work in indoor sports, even with a 5D3, and since you mention you need IQ and fast AF, then the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS is really the only option.
I know you're right... I tried to use my 24-105 with diffused flash and it worked well, but I always felt like a distraction when the shot went off.

You definitely don't want to rely on flash for sports. I'm not allowed to even use a flash or strobes for any sport I shoot, so f/2.8 is the narrowest I shoot in most cases. This is good because if you are way overexposed at f/2.8, just speed up the shutter speed. Indoors this won't be an issue, as at f/2.8 I've shot at ISO 6400.

Going back as little as 10 years, ISO 800 was the limit. 3 stops difference. The challenges we faces as film shooters :eek:

Yes I remember and I certainly don't miss it.
 
Upvote 0

bwfishing

EOS M6 Mark II
Feb 12, 2013
62
0
bdunbar79 said:
bwfishing said:
bdunbar79 said:
The 200 f/2.8L is a really nice lens. However, it AF's way slower than the 70-200L and offers a lot less flexibility, which is why I don't think it'll help him much for sports, whereas the zoom, and yes quite expensive, will. It'll be a tough choice. Two bodies/two primes or a single body and the zoom.

The EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens AF it's plenty fast for me. Fast enough for birds in flight. Now the last time I checked humans are slower than birds. My kid is crazy fast maybe a track star one day, but I have no issues capturing him with the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens either. It sounds like the OP enjoys prime lenses. This one is affordable and can do the job, what is not to like?

If he is stuck between these two amazing lenses then why not rent both and see which one is better for the type and style shooter he is now and wants to become?

That's great. I'm sure it does very well for BIF and kids running outside. Try it in a dark gym. Then it isn't. That's all I was trying to say. I too am not suggesting for him to buy a lens that costs +2K. I'm just objectively comparing the lenses since I've done it myself and chose the zoom, because of what I already said, AF and flexibility, not to mention IQ and IS. Expensive, yes. Maybe the 200 prime is the best for him, who knows.

Good idea to rent each.

Going to try to keep this post nice. After all it's a holiday. ;D
I'm not sure I understand your post regarding a dark gym. Both lenses wide open are f2.8? Not to worry, this will be my last post to this discussion. Please don't hear me wrong the 70-200 is a GREAT lens. Zoom lenses can be a wonderful solution. I think sometimes it is taken too far regarding it being "the only real solution". You don't have to take anyones word for as they are sharper prime lenses than the 70-200, even Canon's own mtf charts will tell you that, but the real test is when you have the lens in your own hands and compare the result(s) for yourself. Depending on the indoor sport you maybe able to get the shots you need with 85mm f1.8, 135mmL f2.0 or even one I don't think I've seen posted yet: 200mmL f2.0 or just take the f2.8 telephoto zoom and crank up the ISO and fix in post no big deal. I've taken a portrait on a crop body using the 300mmL f2.8 (+ extension tub to reduce MFD) lens and guess what, they are pretty good. Now is that "traditional" no, but who cares? If it fits your style and purpose then no harm right? The point is that no one lens has to be everything to everybody. From the almost rude nature of a few of the post on this thread appears that this logic maybe lost on those few. Maybe sometimes the best lens is the one you already have on your camera? Maybe its not just your gear that makes a good or even a great image...

Well, I understand the OP does not wish to rent, they are also good retailers that will let you return a lens within 30 days of purchase. So perhaps try a few of them and return the ones that don't make the cut?

jdramirez: I hope the lens you do select in the end works well for you. To be honest it sounds like if you do choose from the lenses already posted that you really can't go wrong ;D

Good Luck and Happy Shooting!
 
Upvote 0

jdramirez

EOS R6
May 31, 2011
2,950
0
45
bwfishing said:
bdunbar79 said:
bwfishing said:
bdunbar79 said:
The 200 f/2.8L is a really nice lens. However, it AF's way slower than the 70-200L and offers a lot less flexibility, which is why I don't think it'll help him much for sports, whereas the zoom, and yes quite expensive, will. It'll be a tough choice. Two bodies/two primes or a single body and the zoom.

The EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens AF it's plenty fast for me. Fast enough for birds in flight. Now the last time I checked humans are slower than birds. My kid is crazy fast maybe a track star one day, but I have no issues capturing him with the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM prime lens either. It sounds like the OP enjoys prime lenses. This one is affordable and can do the job, what is not to like?

If he is stuck between these two amazing lenses then why not rent both and see which one is better for the type and style shooter he is now and wants to become?

That's great. I'm sure it does very well for BIF and kids running outside. Try it in a dark gym. Then it isn't. That's all I was trying to say. I too am not suggesting for him to buy a lens that costs +2K. I'm just objectively comparing the lenses since I've done it myself and chose the zoom, because of what I already said, AF and flexibility, not to mention IQ and IS. Expensive, yes. Maybe the 200 prime is the best for him, who knows.

Good idea to rent each.

Going to try to keep this post nice. After all it's a holiday. ;D
I'm not sure I understand your post regarding a dark gym. Both lenses wide open are f2.8? Not to worry, this will be my last post to this discussion. Please don't hear me wrong the 70-200 is a GREAT lens. Zoom lenses can be a wonderful solution. I think sometimes it is taken too far regarding it being "the only real solution". You don't have to take anyones word for as they are sharper prime lenses than the 70-200, even Canon's own mtf charts will tell you that, but the real test is when you have the lens in your own hands and compare the result(s) for yourself. Depending on the indoor sport you maybe able to get the shots you need with 85mm f1.8, 135mmL f2.0 or even one I don't think I've seen posted yet: 200mmL f2.0 or just take the f2.8 telephoto zoom and crank up the ISO and fix in post no big deal. I've taken a portrait on a crop body using the 300mmL f2.8 (+ extension tub to reduce MFD) lens and guess what, they are pretty good. Now is that "traditional" no, but who cares? If it fits your style and purpose then no harm right? The point is that no one lens has to be everything to everybody. From the almost rude nature of a few of the post on this thread appears that this logic maybe lost on those few. Maybe sometimes the best lens is the one you already have on your camera? Maybe its not just your gear that makes a good or even a great image...

Well, I understand the OP does not wish to rent, they are also good retailers that will let you return a lens within 30 days of purchase. So perhaps try a few of them and return the ones that don't make the cut?

jdramirez: I hope the lens you do select in the end works well for you. To be honest it sounds like if you do choose from the lenses already posted that you really can't go wrong ;D

Good Luck and Happy Shooting!

I think what I was hoping for was that someone would tell me that there is no real world difference between the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD Large Aperture and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii... Sure the canon wins at 100% and with pixel peeping, but other than that... no difference. Buy it for a grand, and then have a grand left over to buy a 135mm or whatever. But I think that is indeed wishful thinking.
 
Upvote 0

jdramirez

EOS R6
May 31, 2011
2,950
0
45
jdramirez said:
I think what I was hoping for was that someone would tell me that there is no real world difference between the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM OS FLD Large Aperture and the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii... Sure the canon wins at 100% and with pixel peeping, but other than that... no difference. Buy it for a grand, and then have a grand left over to buy a 135mm or whatever. But I think that is indeed wishful thinking.

I went to dpreview... did a side by side comparison of both 70-200's... and without question the Canon is the winner. So... yeah... no thank you Sigma. :(
 
Upvote 0

chauncey

EOS RP
Jun 5, 2011
564
1
Geez, does no one here rely as heavily on Canon's own MTF characteristics as I do?
Just look at the charts to find those lenses with nice horizontal squiggly lines, not the ones that slope down, the straight ones.

It's not rocket science here...set your budget/requirements/wants, order it/chect it out/keep it or send it back, and repeat process.
As someone else mentioned, don't try to get off going cheap...that doesn't work for ____!
 
Upvote 0

jdramirez

EOS R6
May 31, 2011
2,950
0
45
chauncey said:
Geez, does no one here rely as heavily on Canon's own MTF characteristics as I do?
Just look at the charts to find those lenses with nice horizontal squiggly lines, not the ones that slope down, the straight ones.

It's not rocket science here...set your budget/requirements/wants, order it/chect it out/keep it or send it back, and repeat process.
As someone else mentioned, don't try to get off going cheap...that doesn't work for ____!

mtf charts annoy me. I did like the mtf charts from dpreview... but they didn't have mtfs for all of the lenses I'm interested in. I'm mulling over selling my macro and getting the 135 and the zoom. it seems like a better use of resources than having all three.
 
Upvote 0
H

Hobby Shooter

Guest
jdramirez said:
kirispupis said:
I know you're looking for a zoom, but to be honest aside from the mythical 200-400/1.4x a decent zoom telephoto for Canon does not exist. I have owned almost every choice at one time or another.

Sigma 80-400/OS - extremely slow AF, unacceptable image quality
Canon 70-200/2.8 II + 2x III - better, but still slow, AF. borderline acceptable image quality
Canon 100-400 - similar AF to the 70-200 + 2x. marginally better image quality.

The best two choices, and I own both of them, are the 300/4 and 400/5.6. For most occasions I prefer the 400/5.6 because it has better image quality at 400mm and has the fastest AF of the choices. I mainly use the 300/4 for occasions when I can easily get close to wildlife (zoo) or for small wildlife that I need to get close to for a decent shot (dragonflies, lizards).

I hear such amazing things about the 70-200 f2.8l is mkii, I find it hard to believe it is as wonderful as its reputation. I do see the photos online and I wonder if that is the lens, the body, or the photographer who make it great. I've never heard the 100-400 referred to as better than the 70-200... so that detracts from the credibility of your opinion.
I don't understand where he gets that from regarding the 70-200, I have had mine only three months now but I am overwhelmed of the performance. Everything is good with it, IS, controls, zoom speed, IQ, colours, sharpness etc. Only negative is that it's white so it's hard to blend in. Get it, you will never regret it. It will be the benchmark lens for you.
 
Upvote 0

J.R.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jan 13, 2013
1,749
0
if the 70-200 f/2.8 II doesn't cut it for you, I doubt anything else will.

Anyhow, compromising is a lose-lose situation because getting the Siggy will have you yearning for more. It's better to buy 70-200 II rather than buying something halfway only to upgrade later on which will eventually cost you substantially higher than getting the 70-200 II outright.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,328
16,792
sandymandy said:
Zooms just dont deliver the same IQ at all focal ranges they offer. Its the culprit of zooms. Theyre ALWAYS a compromise between affordability and IQ. If that doesnt cut it for you then better get primes.

Usually, but not always true: here is a comparison of the amazing 70-200mm f/4 IS showing it holds its own against the best Canon primes, and it isn't that expensive.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11

And, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is at least as good as the f/4.
 
Upvote 0

J.R.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jan 13, 2013
1,749
0
AlanF said:
sandymandy said:
Zooms just dont deliver the same IQ at all focal ranges they offer. Its the culprit of zooms. Theyre ALWAYS a compromise between affordability and IQ. If that doesnt cut it for you then better get primes.

Usually, but not always true: here is a comparison of the amazing 70-200mm f/4 IS showing it holds its own against the best Canon primes, and it isn't that expensive.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/999/cat/11

And, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is at least as good as the f/4.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is supposedly even sharper than the 200mm f/2.8 prime. You may go here and check it out -

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
 
Upvote 0

jdramirez

EOS R6
May 31, 2011
2,950
0
45
To sum up... I actually bought a used 70-200mm f/2.8L IS mkii today for $1700. Per the person, it has been sparingly used during that year and it was collecting dust... which I totally can understand because I have all but abandoned using my 50mm f/1.4 over the past year and change.

Two quick things... I know how to read the manufacture date for a lens so I will be able to tell if it was made in 2010 v. 2012, but is there anything else I should check for to see how much it was used? I'm inclinded to say scratches wear spots, etc... but I don't think that is going to be an issue.

I really did want to get a 5d mkiii next... but this was just too good of a deal to pass up. Now I'm about 4 to 500 short of being able to afford the mkiii... but I can make that up before Christmas pretty easily.
 
Upvote 0