Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM

[kakamac]

Hi All,

I am on a bit of a tight budget and as much as I'd like to get the upgraded model I can't afford it at present. Added to this I have seen a couple of second hand models of the newer version for sale but have been dubious when I've gone to take a look at them. I've heard a lot of good things about this lens. Anyone able to speak from experience and shed some light on the good and bad points about this lens? It would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
Jade

[Warbler]

I've got one. Great lens. Unless you absolutely have to have IS, then this lens will give you beautiful results. I bought my copy back in 2002 and still use it as much as I can even though it looks pretty ratty these days. It has a smooth bokeh and is lovely and warm in colour with good contrast and sharp as a tack.

[Mary Anne]

I have the f/4 IS USM version a lovely light lens and I cant fault it, would be cheaper if you wanted to go that way.

[Warbler]

I have the f/4 IS USM version a lovely light lens and I cant fault it, would be cheaper if you wanted to go that way.


USD$1099 for the F4 IS and USD$1249 for the F2.8 non-IS. Pretty close and of course the F2.8 is a full stop faster. The F4 non-IS is bargain basement at USD$599 too if you're really strapped for cash, but still want Canon instead of 3rd party lenses.

[Brian500au]

Although I have not owned the non IS version of this lens I have owned the both the V1 and V2 IS version of this lens and also the F4 non IS version. I currently still own the V2 IS series of this lens.

This is one of those lenses where you are spoilt for choice - in other words when it comes to quality of the output you cannot go wrong on either lens you choose. It really comes down to other factors in making your decision.

Do you do portraits or very low light photography? If the answer is yes AND you don't mind the extra weight of a F2.8 lens then this is a good choice. The newer version IS v2 is the king of the field here but you would not be disappointed with either the IS or non IS of the first version. You can pick both the first version up second hand and I have seen the non IS version for under a $1000 on various sites.

If portraiture is not your main driver (but still up there for as a driver) then maybe you should look at either the F4 versions. Both are incredible sharp with the IS version just a tad sharper. The F4 IS version is rumoured to be the sharpest of all the V1 lenses in this range (including the F2.8 versions). This lens is a very versatile lens and has the advantage of both weight and price over the F2.8 lenses.

Last but not least if travel, zoo wild life, and still people photography are on the list of drivers I would strongly recommend the 70-300 F4-5.6L IS. This is an incredibly sharp lens. It is light and compact, has 4 stop IS and the results are astounding. I have used it as my main travel lens for all situations including portraiture. It is not my prime portrait lens but I would not hesitate to pull it out when I am on holidays to use for photographing people.

The below shot is one of my favourites with the 70-300

https://photos.smugmug.com/Travel/Asia/Cambodia/i-BhffcR2/0/XL/IMG_0477-Edit-XL.jpg

Best of luck which ever lens you choose.

[kakamac]

Thanks everyone for your feedback so far. I am going to use the lens for a range of situations including some low light photography. I do photography of captive and wild animals, people, surfing etc. So I guess i might have to save and get the lens with IS? Any and all feedback is appreciated :) Thanks again.

[piczzilla]

I have a third party lens of this focal length range (Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS) for Nikon mount - third party because I couldn't afford Nikkor lenses and would rather spend that extra $$$ for another lens. While it is a good sharp lens and I am absolutely in love with it, I find myself using it less and less, mainly because of the lens weight. If you have weak physique (like me), and are primarily a handheld shooter (like me), it might be worth getting the IS version to reduce the shaking from that weight, especially for low light situations (unless your camera is good at handling high ISO).

This is where I check lens reviews before I commit any purchases - very detailed and technical with sample images
http://www.lenstip.com/

Also a good idea to check some youtube reviews, so you can (sorta) get eyes on the lenses.

All the best with your purchase.

[Morgo]

Have you been able to try one before?
I ask as a 70-200 can be a little short for wild animals and surfing. You could probably pick up a 70-300L or 100-400L (both around $1000 used in VGC) paired with a canon 85 1.8 ($250-300) for a similar price to a 70-200 2.8

[Mary Anne]

Thanks everyone for your feedback so far. I am going to use the lens for a range of situations including some low light photography. I do photography of captive and wild animals, people, surfing etc. So I guess i might have to save and get the lens with IS? Any and all feedback is appreciated :) Thanks again.

I use my 300mm f/4 IS USM for shooting Surfers when I am on holidays and plenty of times that is not long enough even when I crop at 100%
Either is shooting captive animals at Australia Zoo and they are a fair distance away, the Rhinos, Zebras and Giraffes especially.
Curious what size lens you use now for your Birding, Wildlife and Surfing.. As I would be looking for a lens at the least 400mm for those two Genres and maybe an extender.

[kakamac]

Thanks Morgo,

I have been talking with Kel via private message and getting some great info. I feel I am better off with the 100-400 at this stage. Thanks again :)

- - - Updated - - -

Hi Mary Anne,

I was using a straight 400mm Canon f5.6 for a while there and was happy with the results however it was a friends and so I gave it back. It's main problem was obviously when you were too close to an animal which was often an issue in a captive environment. Up until recently I have been using very basic entry level lenses and it is now time to get something better. Because I was looking at diversifying I thought I'd go for the 70-200 f2.8 and using a converter however it looks like I will go with the 100-400. Thanks for your input :)

Regards,
Jade

[Mary Anne]

Yes a much better choice and I know what you mean about Prime lenses I find the 1.5mt closest focal length on my Prime ok for our backyard Birds.
Though it could be too close for Animals in Captivity at Zoos that don't have open plains, it may take longer to save for this 100-400mm but will be worth it.
And Thanks for letting us know what you have decided on.

[William W]

Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM . . . I am on a bit of a tight budget and as much as I'd like to get the upgraded model I can't afford it at present. . . I've heard a lot of good things about this lens. Anyone able to speak from experience and shed some light on the good and bad points about this lens? . . . I do photography of captive and wild animals, people, surfing etc. . . .Because I was looking at diversifying I thought I'd go for the 70-200 f2.8 and using a converter however it looks like I will go with the 100-400. . .


I can speak from experience.

For the Sports that I cover, the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L USM is my most used lens.

I have used all five (5) of the Canon 70 to 200 L Zoom Lenses: the EF 70 to 200 L USM is, in all aspects, the second best of the three (3) F/2.8 versions – it sits behind the EF 70 to 200 F/28 L IS USM MkII.

What camera(s) are you using? Considering your criteria and your intended usage - your camera’s high range ISO is an important factor.

*

Apropos ‘Surfing’ and the “100 to 400L”: the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L USM works very well with both the x2.0 Extender EF MkII and MkIII. However, for ‘Surfing’ you might require a 500mm or 600mm Lens, depending upon your Camera Viewpoint you can attain and the Camera Format you are using.

*

Apropos “low light photography”: what are the SUBJECTS?

Image Stabilization is only useful for arresting Blur caused by Camera Shake, so (for one example) if it is ‘low light photography’ of people, then you will still require an appropriate Shutter Speed to arrest SUBJECT MOTION, and this is often a fast enough Shutter Speed that will also arrest the blur caused by Camera Shake – this is especially so if you are using a Monopod.

*

I have also used two copies of the EF 100 to 400 F/4.5~5.6L IS USM, one was just after it was released and the other was several years later. Although not an update there were some modifications to the latter. This is a good lens. But the point is, you state various uses for the lens you want to add to your kit and you also state that you are on a budget – therefore I suggest that you do not dismiss the idea of the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L USM and an EF converter without more dedicated research into that option; because in practical terms, that option provides you with two lenses - a 70 to 200 at F/2.8 and also a 140 to 400 at F/5.6 – both lenses are with a non varying maximum aperture - but of cause lack IS.

*

These are examples of the Subject Separation and Bokeh of the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8L USM the firts in daylight and the second in 'low light':

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/18070798-lg.jpg



http://gallery.photo.net/photo/18070797-lg.jpg

and

These are examples of the same lens used with a x2.0 Extender EF MkII

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/10291550-lg.jpg

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/10291553-lg.jpg

WW

All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2016 WMW 1965~1996

[erkin]

Great Lens, apart from the models all 70-200mm f2.8 L are has great optic performance.
Only I wish about the lens is it was not that much heavy.

I have the lens, but I have another question.
How is the performance with 1.4 extender. Anyone experienced the lens with the extender?

Thank.

[Morgo]

I've used both 1.4x and 2x MK III's on my 70-200 2.8 IS II. The 1.4x is ok the 2x I don't like though I'd don't like using extenders on it at all and fortunately I don't have too.

[William W]

Great Lens, . . . I have the lens, but I have another question.How is the performance with 1.4 extender. Anyone experienced the lens with the extender?

I use the lens with the x1.4 MkII Extender EF and the results apropos oerall Image Quality are beter than the results with the x2.0MkII Extender EF - as examples the swimming images above make excellent prints at 20 inches along the long side - where the x1.4 Extender is better is apropos the IQ when the lens is used at its maximum aperture.

There is a bit of CA introduced with both Extenders EF MkII but this an be addressed in Post Production.As already mentioned I have used all five 70 to 200L Lenses, and I have also used all four extenders EF, (MkII and MkIII versions) the best combination.

The best lens with any of those four Extenders EF is the 70 to 200F/2.8 L IS MkII USM, followed by the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L USM: both the MkIII Extenders EF show a marked improvement over the MkII versions when the lenses are used wide open.

If I were buying new now, I would buy the EF MkIII version Extenders. And if I were buying new now I would also buy the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L IS MkII USM rather than the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L USM that I own - but at the time I bought my 70 to 200/2.8 it was the superior optic and the superior lens to use with both MkII extenders.

*

Note that poor technique, especially an inappropriate choice of Shutter Speed for the Shooting Scenario and/or inappropriate/inadequate Sharpening Techniques in Post-production is/are often the cause of a poor quality Final Image - and sometimes the blame for that poor image quality is wrongly attributed to the optical performance of the Extenders EF MkII / MkIII.

In Summary to answer your question - either the x1.4 Extender EF MkII and MkIII can produce high quality images when used with the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L USM.

WW

[Babu]

Don't muck about. Just buy a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and a 100-400m f/ 4.5-5.6 L IS II. When you don't want to be in people's faces and want to take natural looking candids at events, take the 70-200. The 100-400 is the zoo lens which still gives good results with the 1.4x TC. I typically use the 70-200 on a full frame and the 100-400 on a crop factor body.