Canon EF 70-200MM F2.8L

[Jill Morgan]

Yesterday I had the pleasure of using this lens for my day down in Toronto.

 

My son is a film student so got it on loan for the day from his college.

 

I want one!

 

Every image I took with this lens is just fantastic. Not one slight tremor or blur in any of the 600 pics I took with it.  Every detail, evening at the 2.8 was great. And considering the weight of this sucker, I was sure I would have a few trembles in there as I was not using a tripod.  But I got used to the weight.

 

But considering I don't have an extra $2000+ floating around, I'll have to be content to use it once in awhile.

 

Also, does anyone else think this lens when standing alone, looks like a coffee thermos?

 

Jill

[Richard Coombs]

Got one for sale if you want it.

[Ed Endicott]

There are two versions of this lens....the 70-200 f/2.8L IS (no longer in production)  and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II.  I have used/owned both versions.  The newer version has a noticable difference from the first version (at least my copy).  It is one of my favorite lenses - I've used it from gathering reportage to taking portraits in studio.  It's a great lens.

 

Sigma recently came out with a 120-300 f/2.8 with image stabilization for about $3,500 that has gotten my attention...and it might end up replacing my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II

[John Gaffen]

I have the first version (70-200 f/2.8L IS). Its a great lens and can produce very sharp images even when hand held, given the right light conditions! It’s a bit of a beast to carry around all day though! I've used it in many different circumstances,  from sport,  event photography and reportage!  No plans to replace it any time soon though!

[Martin P Wilson]

I have the pre-IS version and love the results although until recently it rarely left the cupboard.Now I am rebuilding my sports photography career it is my standard lens again - I recently got pictures into Bild and Spiegel, German newspapers (Not through Alamy) using it with a 2x extender.

 

And yes, now you mention it, it does look rather like a Thermos flask when standing on end with the lens hood reversed.

[Doc]

Hi Jill,

 

I got the newer Mk2 version about a year ago - it is a fantastic lens! I also have the 100-400 L 4-5.6, but frankly the 70-200 with the x2 converter Mk3 gives just as good results, is lighter to carry around and I get much better results from the 70-200 on its own than I got from the 100-400 at the lower end of its range, so from my POV the 100-400 is fairly redundant now!

 

I think its the best lens I have, even if it does, as you say, look like a thermos!!

 

Cheers

 

Kumar

[Chuck Nacke]

There are two versions of this lens....the 70-200 f/2.8L IS (no longer in production)  and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II.  I have used/owned both versions.  The newer version has a noticable difference from the first version (at least my copy).  It is one of my favorite lenses - I've used it from gathering reportage to taking portraits in studio.  It's a great lens.

 

Sigma recently came out with a 120-300 f/2.8 with image stabilization for about $3,500 that has gotten my attention...and it might end up replacing my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II

Ed,

 

if you test the Sigma 120-300 I would love to hear what you think of it. I've been seriously thinking of picking one up.

I've worn out my NIKKOR 80-200 2.8

 

Chuck

[Lynn Palmer]

_{I have the Canon non-IS f/4 version and it's a good lens but I would love to have the f/2.8L IS lens.  Maybe someday if my stock sales ever take off...}

[Jill Morgan]

Hi Jill,

 

I got the newer Mk2 version about a year ago - it is a fantastic lens! I also have the 100-400 L 4-5.6, but frankly the 70-200 with the x2 converter Mk3 gives just as good results, is lighter to carry around and I get much better results from the 70-200 on its own than I got from the 100-400 at the lower end of its range, so from my POV the 100-400 is fairly redundant now!

 

I think its the best lens I have, even if it does, as you say, look like a thermos!!

 

Cheers

 

Kumar

 

I didn't know you could even get extenders. (Shows my ignorance from being away from photography for so long). I'll have to check if my son's college loans those as well.  Would love to try this lens at 400mm

[wiskerke]

Canon calls extenders what all others call converters,

 

wim (mk1+f4-IS)

[Ed Endicott]

 

There are two versions of this lens....the 70-200 f/2.8L IS (no longer in production)  and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II.  I have used/owned both versions.  The newer version has a noticable difference from the first version (at least my copy).  It is one of my favorite lenses - I've used it from gathering reportage to taking portraits in studio.  It's a great lens.

 

Sigma recently came out with a 120-300 f/2.8 with image stabilization for about $3,500 that has gotten my attention...and it might end up replacing my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II

Ed,

 

if you test the Sigma 120-300 I would love to hear what you think of it. I've been seriously thinking of picking one up.

I've worn out my NIKKOR 80-200 2.8

 

Chuck

I will Chuck - it will more than likely happen early next year.  This is the review that caught my attention...

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-120-300mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-OS-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

especially the 300mm photo at 1/13 second handheld.

[Chuck Nacke]

Thanks Ed,

 

The review said pretty much what I expected it to say, IE the 120-300

will not replace 80-200 and 300 2.8's

[Paulstw]

I have the 70-200 2.8L IS mkII  as well. It's a fantastic lens when you nail it, however, when you don't it can leave you feeling a bit upset. 

[Gervais Montacute]

I use a 70 -200mm 2.8 Nikon Mk II and you do  have to nail it. When you nail it, it's probably as sharp as anything out there. But I came unstuck recently with it trying to photograph the Breitling wingwalkers air display team. Found it very difficult to get it really sharp from a distance.

[Paulstw]

I use a 70 -200mm 2.8 Nikon Mk II and you do  have to nail it. When you nail it, it's probably as sharp as anything out there. But I came unstuck recently with it trying to photograph the Breitling wingwalkers air display team. Found it very difficult to get it really sharp from a distance.

 

Exactly my experience with shooting Kingfishers lately. At a distance if I don't use Spot AF on the 7D then nothing at distance is worth even putting on the computer, however in the right range WHAMMY! Veronica Corningstone. 

[MMiller]

I've got the 70-200 f4 non IS and the 70-200 2.8 IS. Both are fantastic. I find I prefer the IS lens better to have around for the grab shots. But put that f4 lens on a tripod and it's one of the sharpest lenses I have ever seen. Plus a used one can be had for around $500. As far as sharpness at a distance mentioned above, tough to say what the issue may be, but it could simple be atmosphere, not the quality of the glass. I've shot (excuse me, photographed) animals at over 200 yards with the f4 non-IS on a tripod (at f8 ofr f11), on a very, very clear day with no atmospheric heat waves, mist, etc, and the detail on the animal even at that distance is very nice.

 

My only issues (my fault I'm sure) are I am not sure I am getting the near shots as sharp as possible with the f2.8 IS lens on a 7D. So I am wondering if it's a good idea to calibrate the lens/body combo on the 7D Custom Functions? Just as well leave that stuff alone, but maybe that would make a difference on the near and close -up subjects?

[Paulstw]

My only issues (my fault I'm sure) are I am not sure I am getting the near shots as sharp as possible with the f2.8 IS lens on a 7D. So I am wondering if it's a good idea to calibrate the lens/body combo on the 7D Custom Functions? Just as well leave that stuff alone, but maybe that would make a difference on the near and close -up subjects?

 

I had to dial in a +5 MFA at the 200 end to correct a back focussing issue. I can't believe I had to do that with this high end gear. It was originally +6 but at the 70 end was a little out. MFA is designed for primes and can make things worse on zooms, however I've been lucky with it. Remember too that f/2.8 DOF is razor thin at the 200 end. Ever more than a 1.4 prime. The line between nailing focus at f/2.8 is very slim, especially if you're not using AI Servo.