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

[fotografiasi]

I use this lens on a 5d3 and on a 50D, usually for weddings. I need it in bigger churches to catch family expression. At the reception (then I am also a bit more tired) I put it on a monopod. I am really happy with it to for dancing (if I am far enough people do not observe me and they feel much more free and act funny). For the rest of the time, at home or at weddings, I use the canon 85 1.8, when I want to be more inconspicuous. I use those two lenses in conjunction with canon 28 1.8 and canon 17-55 2.8 is

 

[qianp2k]

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II here.

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

That's what I did to get two Canon F2.8 II zoom and 17 TS-E in the holiday season with Amazon 10% off sweet deals on top of Canon best instant rebate. Yes I'm done with 5DIII I don't need those L primes but may get Sigma 35/1.4 or 85/1.4 (hope Sigma updates it) later as they are very good but 1/2 price of Canon counterpart.

 

[I Simonius]

I entirely concur with the review.

I have previously owned the F4 (with and without IS) and the 2.8 versions of this zoom and can say unequivocally that this lens is noticeably better in every regard, image-quality-wise, to those other zooms. Its one major drawback is the weight. You will notice it if carrying for any length of time.

Image-wise, it is IMO significantly better then any other lens in the same focal range with the possible exception of the 200 f2. So yes , it is better than the 135 that I had, except of course it is no where near as inconspicuous as the 135. The only portrait lens I have had that had a 'better' image quality was the 85 f1.2, where the bokeh is truly creamy and beautiful, but that lens only outdoes this one when fully open and is only useful for static subjects as the 1.2 lens' focussing is horribly slow, whereas the 2.8 zoom is fast and crisp, and has better IQ when stopped down than the 1.2 (which while contrasty doesn't have the same resolving power)

The IS on this lens is phenomenal, I have perfectly sharp test images hand held at 1/4 second.

However, because of it's weight I never take it when landscape shooting (which is exclusively what I do nowadays) and because of its size and colour it's no good if you're trying to be inconspicuous.

For Indoor sports (like martial arts) and portraits and wedding type events is it far and away the best zoom lens there is for the ultimate IQ .

I bought mine purely for my daughter's wedding but due to it's weight haven't used it since, so if, like me, you no longer shoot weddings, portrait etc and have a bad back, I'd think twice about getting it. I'll be reluctantly selling mine just because if the weight, but I find it hard to let go of, as I've never had a zoom as sharp.

For landscapes, if you want this sort of resolving power, be prepared to cary some weight for the day. (although longer FL lenses are heavier still )

So, for portraits, especially weddings, and sports this zoom cannot be matched.

 

[RLPhoto]

The 70-200II is not better than the 135L for IQ at any aperture.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[syder]

Measurement Photozone

Lets be honest... If you have a problem with sharpness with either the 135L or the 70-200 2.8 ii the problem isn't the glass

For video IS is pretty much mandatory for any tele lens that isn't going to be on a tripod 100% of the time, as your shutter speed is largely fixed at 1/50th (if you want natural looking motion blur). 135 is a nice length because it's the traditional length for close ups, but the extra flexibility in terms of both zoom range and stabilisation that comes with the 70-200 makes it a more attractive option for moving images. The weight also tends to be far less of an issue when mounted on a rig (a 5dm3 + rig + 70-200 ii is still lighter than most of the ENG cameras I've used - but having things balanced on your shoulder means that weight isn't the same issue as if its your arms taking the strain).

 

[Loswr]

The 70-200II is not better than the 135L for IQ at any aperture.

True...but nor is it worse (Klaus at PZ gives slightly higher numbers to the 70-200 II across the frame at most apertures, although probably not real-world relevant). That being the case, from an optical standpoint the only benefit to the prime is that it's one stop faster. That can be very important in some situations, but the zoom certainly wins on versatility with no sacrifice of IQ.

 

[RLPhoto]

The 70-200II is not better than the 135L for IQ at any aperture.

True...but nor is it worse (Klaus at PZ gives slightly higher numbers to the 70-200 II across the frame at most apertures, although probably not real-world relevant). That being the case, from an optical standpoint the only benefit to the prime is that it's one stop faster. That can be very important in some situations, but the zoom certainly wins on versatility with no sacrifice of IQ.

It has slightly less vignette @ 2.8 but that's about it. Neither are terrible lenses but to claim either is vastly superior in IQ is nonsense.

The prime certainly wins on speed, weight, bulk, price, and stealth. If only it was a bit faster and had IS.

 

[PavelR]

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.

Thus you are lucky man not seeing the difference of 85,135,200 vs 70-200 - all @ 2.8 and your bag can be pretty light.
But I can clearly see that zoom @ F3.5-4+ can match (contrast + sharpness) the prime @ F2.8, but @ F3.5-4 there is less subject/background separation, thus If I want best IQ, I take only 24-70 II + longer primes.
(BTW: 24-70 II is nothing special till F3.5-4 too.)

 

[crasher8]

I'm sold. I hated the 24-70 for being a brick but I think I'll forgive this tank.

 

[Aglet]

It has slightly less vignette @ 2.8 but that's about it. Neither are terrible lenses but to claim either is vastly superior in IQ is nonsense.

The prime certainly wins on speed, weight, bulk, price, and stealth. If only it was a bit faster and had IS.

I suspect this prime is likely to have more consistently smoother bokeh and less CA than the battleship zoom. For that alone it's worth at least half the cost of the zoom.

 

[bdunbar79]

The big problem with the 135L is that it doesn't focus as quickly for indoor sports than the 70-200L. The keeper rate is much lower vs. the zoom. However, sometimes you need the extra stop of light, which I have needed at times. But certainly not my #1 indoor sports lens. I use the zoom for that.

 

[I Simonius]

Good reply and links - however as we all know the IQ of different copies varies and in real world tests I most definitely found the with the 70-200 I have and the 135 I had the zoom definitely outperformed the 135. No question. In fact the 135 wide open was downright dissappointing (for the 135)

 

[Viggo]

I got my 70-200 (bought used) the other day, and I'm really dissapointed. I have had this lens before and it was epic from start to finish, but this copy is nothing that compares to sharp. It is Reikan Focal adjusted to -8 at 200mm and -1 at 70mm, but even with LV it isn't sharp at 200mm. Does anyone else see or have seen this? Is it just my first copy that was insanely sharp or is this a dud? The first one I had I couldn't say it was less sharp than my 300mm f2.8 L IS (mk1) but this is worse than my 70-200 non-IS.

Top image is at 200mm lower is at 135mm. Please forgive the underexposure and noise, I was pi$$ed off and just shot a very repeatable and comparable shot. No NR, small amount of sharpening, same on both.

 

[Loswr]

@ Viggo - Unfortunately, it seems you may have gotten a dud. You say you bought this copy used, I wonder if the seller fully disclosed the motive behind sale?

 

[Viggo]

@ Viggo - Unfortunately, it seems you may have gotten a dud. You say you bought this copy used, I wonder if the seller fully disclosed the motive behind sale?

Thanks! That is really what I wanted to hear also. I remember this lens as an absolute killer, but both CA and contrast and sharpness is only good at 70mm and useless at 200mm, so I rather it be a dud than me remeber too great things about it.

I've asked him if he would take it back, awaiting reply. But yeah, even though it looked as new, it must be a reason he sold it... I´ve never gotten a bad copy, at least not to this extent before, bummer...

 

[JVLphoto]

@ Viggo - Unfortunately, it seems you may have gotten a dud. You say you bought this copy used, I wonder if the seller fully disclosed the motive behind sale?

Thanks! That is really what I wanted to hear also. I remember this lens as an absolute killer, but both CA and contrast and sharpness is only good at 70mm and useless at 200mm, so I rather it be a dud than me remeber too great things about it.

I've asked him if he would take it back, awaiting reply. But yeah, even though it looked as new, it must be a reason he sold it... I´ve never gotten a bad copy, at least not to this extent before, bummer...

Often, if a lens is dropped or damaged, image quality issues will be most obvious at the focal length extremes. I badly dropped my 17-40 once - and while it's not known as a sharp lens - 40mm was nearly unusable until I sent it back to Canon for a fix-up... which, if you can't get the seller to take it back, may be your only other alternative.

 

[wickidwombat]

how is the lens if you turn off the AFMA and just see how it is on 0?
any strange noises when focusing?
tried it with IS off too, if it has had a drop the IS could be a problem too

 

[Viggo]

Yeah, tried it first at 0 and it's sometimes a tiny high pitched squeak from the AF. Like it needs lube. IS on or off does not affect this. There's absolutely no sign of it being dropped, but that doesn't rule it out.

Thanks for the replies! Not quite sure what to so at this point, the seller wouldn't return it as he had already spent the money on a prostitute or some cr@p...

 

[wayno]

This exact thing happened to a colleague. 70-200 F4 IS over Fleabay.
$500 later at a lens repair place it's good as gold. Overall he ended up about $50 better off than retail. Silence, shrugs from the seller.

 

[Dylan777]

@ Viggo - Unfortunately, it seems you may have gotten a dud. You say you bought this copy used, I wonder if the seller fully disclosed the motive behind sale?

Thanks! That is really what I wanted to hear also. I remember this lens as an absolute killer, but both CA and contrast and sharpness is only good at 70mm and useless at 200mm, so I rather it be a dud than me remeber too great things about it.

I've asked him if he would take it back, awaiting reply. But yeah, even though it looked as new, it must be a reason he sold it... I´ve never gotten a bad copy, at least not to this extent before, bummer...

@ Viggo - this is #1 reason I stop buying used lens on CL. SORRY to hear that...I doubt he would take it back.