Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Quote from review:
"the white-Canon barrel paint is a distinctive “big lens” giveaway, and while the 200mm reach will buy you some space from your subjects, I can’t say that this is an ideal inconspicuous street portrait lens. It’ll also slow you down if you try and run away – but the weight could come in handy as a weapon if you find yourself in a sticky situation."
*Chuckle* this is so true though... the white L's are the result of Canon's branding obsession... they could easily make it a less conspicuous black. A friend and I had a near call in a bad neighborhood recently, but I dont' think using the 70-200 II as a heavy metal pipe would have helped if the thugs had guns...which they probably did...we didn't stop to find out.
"the white-Canon barrel paint is a distinctive “big lens” giveaway, and while the 200mm reach will buy you some space from your subjects, I can’t say that this is an ideal inconspicuous street portrait lens. It’ll also slow you down if you try and run away – but the weight could come in handy as a weapon if you find yourself in a sticky situation."
*Chuckle* this is so true though... the white L's are the result of Canon's branding obsession... they could easily make it a less conspicuous black. A friend and I had a near call in a bad neighborhood recently, but I dont' think using the 70-200 II as a heavy metal pipe would have helped if the thugs had guns...which they probably did...we didn't stop to find out.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Yup, I've been renting one of these babies when I need it; it'll surely be the next lens I actually buy.
Unless I happen to come into some 200mm f2 money. :
Unless I happen to come into some 200mm f2 money. :
Upvote
0
I just got a 70-200 IS2 in last week and it is an absolute gem. I liked it so much and it tested out so well that I immediately went to Canon USA website and registered warranty, no way this one is going back.
The price and size/weight are pretty hefty over my 200L 2.8 but the zoom and IS are worth it for my primary use case. That said, the 200L 2.8 is also so stinking good, plus small, better bokeh and cheap, I may keep it as well for times I don't need zoom and IS and want to be inconspicuous. AF on both is top notch.
The price and size/weight are pretty hefty over my 200L 2.8 but the zoom and IS are worth it for my primary use case. That said, the 200L 2.8 is also so stinking good, plus small, better bokeh and cheap, I may keep it as well for times I don't need zoom and IS and want to be inconspicuous. AF on both is top notch.
Upvote
0
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?
Upvote
0
Robert Welch said:
I owned version I of the lens...when I saw the sharpness of the II version...I gulped at the price...but made the leap, selling my version I to help finance my lens mania, LOL. Every time I shoot with the lens I now get to gulp at the images...the sharpness ALWAYS wows me! Every time. ...but yes as usual in photography...it comes with a trade off..the bokeh is more "nervous"...but for me the sharpness is so astounding thru the zoom range that I accept the trade off.
If I really need to get serious about bokeh I pick up my 85mm f/1.2...and I am considering picking up a 135mm f/2.0 so that I can have fast AF AND creamy backgrounds when needed, as the 85L does not lend itself to fast AF....Seems that you just cannot have it all!!!
Upvote
0
I just upgraded from an 70-200L 2.8 USM to the IS II. Well, I'm afraid that my English isn't good enough for telling you how worth this was. I never shot at f/2.8 with the version I cause the IQ never satisfied me on open aperture. From aperture 3,5 on it was getting better, even quite good. But nothing of this fits to the IS II. From three shots, the first f/11, second f/8 and third with f/2.8, (from a tripod) you can't even see any difference in IQ in the center frame. Its so amazing! And there is nearly non CA on open aperture. The focus fits on my 7D and is minimum as fast as the old one. But I have to check this on the racetrack to be definitely sure . The in the review mentioned vignetting on open aperture is the only negative thing I recognised by now. But all in all I can assure to you that this lens is worth the money. By the way, it is quite easily possible to get sharp images on 200mm with 1/30 or even less on my 1.6x crop body.
Kind regards, Robert
. The in the review mentioned vignetting on open aperture is the only negative thing I recognised by now. But all in all I can assure to you that this lens is worth the money. By the way, it is quite easily possible to get sharp images on 200mm with 1/30 or even less on my 1.6x crop body. Kind regards, Robert
Upvote
0
Do you care about IQ?Dylan777 said:
70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...
Upvote
0
- Status
