# Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

Boile said:


> I don't know about Canon IS, but on the Nikon side, there is a substantial difference in sharpness between their pro and consumer grades.
> No software will do $hit for overall sharpness, without increasing noise and other artifacts.


There's *a reason* why Canon decided to work on a V2 of the glass

V2 is brand new, unlikely to find a used one.

And you're right about sharpness, and that's why I suggest avoiding V1.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Griffoun said:


> There's *a reason* why Canon decided to work on a V2 of the glass
> 
> V2 is brand new, unlikely to find a used one.


If you think that "reason" is significant and not just marketing hype, then man up and pay.
Why are you asking him to buy non-IS? That'd be even worse for sharpness.


----------



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

Boile said:


> If you think that "reason" is significant and not just marketing hype, then man up and pay.


And did you click on the links? The "reason" IS significant, even on paper.



Boile said:


> Why are you asking him to buy non-IS? That'd be even worse for sharpness.


Depends on what he shoots. If his flickr pictures are any indication, he may not need IS.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Griffoun said:


> And did you click on the links? The "reason" IS significant, even on paper.
> 
> Depends on what he shoots. If his flickr pictures are any indication, he may not need IS.


Yes, the IS in your link is very good.
But how good is the non-IS that you're recommending?


----------



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

Boile said:


> Yes, the IS in your link is very good.
> But how good is the non-IS that you're recommending?


Not sure if OP and Jon are referring to the f/4 L or not... but the f4 70-200 L and non-L are both great. non-IS f/2.8 is on par with non-IS f/4

But we all know 2.8 has better DoF and bokeh than f/4's... something IS can't do. The f4s weighs only half of the f2.8s, however.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

it's generally widely-accepted that the 70-200 f4 is sharper than the old 70-200 2.8. i bought a 70-200 f4 is used off of CL for $900 and sold it 4 months later for $940.

dpreview has a decent review of the new lens. here's a summary:

The Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM comes as a welcome update for Canon's professional fast telephoto zoom. While we liked the old version when we reviewed it two years ago, the rapid increase in pixel count on the latest generations of cameras (coupled, it must be said, with Canon's insistence that all those extra pixels are there to provide a greater scope for cropping) has placed its optical qualities and autofocus capabilities under ever finer scrutiny, and as a result it has been found increasingly wanting (especially on the likes of the EOS 7D).

The new version changes all that, providing quite simply breathtaking optical performance on both APS-C and full-frame bodies. It's exceptionally sharp, even wide open at F2.8 - so much so that there's practically no visible improvement in the center on stopping down, and just a little at the corners. Chromatic aberration is extremely low (helped no doubt by that fluorite element), distortion well under control, and vignetting more or less average for its class. This all makes for a hugely impressive showing in our studio tests, especially when compared to its predecessor. However it does come at the expense of the quality of the rendition of out-of-focus regions of the image (or 'bokeh'), which tend to look a bit more 'busy' and obtrusive compared to the old lens.

According to our tests and shooting experience, Canon has also made good on its promise to improve the image stabilization system, which now delivers sharp images hand held at shutter speeds about a stop slower than before. Couple this with fast and reliable autofocus, and the lens simply delivers the goods time after time with the minimum of fuss - exactly what you'd hope for (and expect) at this level.

In terms of build and handling, there's very little to complain about either. The lens maintains the same solid metal-bodied, dust- and water-sealed construction as the older version, and the slightly wider focusing ring and locking button on the lens hood come as small but welcome improvements. About the only remaining (minor) criticism is with the design of the tripod mount ring, which can't be removed without detaching the lens from the camera body, and has no alignment markings for shooting in portrait format.

Perhaps the one blot on the landscape is relatively unimpressive image quality at close focus distances, making the shorter minimum focus, and improved maximum magnification, a little less useful than it looks on paper. However it must be noted that our test sample clearly displayed some asymmetry in the optics at close focus distances, with the right side of the frame becoming visibly softer than the left - something which may not be representative of the design as a whole.

Overall, then, the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM gains about as close as it gets to an unqualified recommendation, given the price. Its combination of exceptional optics and quirk-free design even manages to surpass Nikon's equivalent that we tested recently, stealing the crown of 'Best in Class' by a whisker. It's a significant improvement over what was already an accomplished lens, capable of consistently delivering results that will satisfy the most demanding of users, and you can't ask for much more than that.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_70-200_2p8_is_usm_ii_c16/

unless you need the extra stop, i'd go f4 IS.


----------



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

I found someone at work that has the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS version 1 so I will probably borrow his for my upcoming trip to Chicago and give that a try before going out and buying any of the versions discussed in the thread.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

chicagofan00 said:


> I found someone at work that has the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS version 1 so I will probably borrow his for my upcoming trip to Chicago and give that a try before going out and buying any of the versions discussed in the thread.


Come on Adam, this lens is cheap until you start thinking of buying the 300mm f2.8, your next acquisition? The Nikon version is always more expensive than the Canon counterpart.


----------



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

Dave 330i said:


> Come on Adam, this lens is cheap until you start thinking of buying the 300mm f2.8, your next acquisition? The Nikon version is always more expensive than the Canon counterpart.


I mainly used wide angle lenses so this was just going to be an added bonus to my lens collection at this time. I'll give the co-workers lens a try and see how I like it and how much I really do use it while in Chicago. If I don't use it much, then no sense in buying one when I can just borrow the co-worker's every so often.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

chicagofan00 said:


> I mainly used wide angle lenses so this was just going to be an added bonus to my lens collection at this time. I'll give the co-workers lens a try and see how I like it and how much I really do use it while in Chicago. If I don't use it much, then no sense in buying one when I can just borrow the co-worker's every so often.


Leach. :rofl:


----------



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

Boile said:


> Leach. :rofl:


----------



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

So?


----------



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

Griffoun said:


> So?


I am borrowing the first version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens from a co-worker for my trip back to Illinois this next coming week. I'll see then how much I like it. I've taken a few test shots and so far really like it just from that alone. He's thinking of selling it too so if it all goes well in Chicago I may just buy that from him instead of shelling out for the newer version.


----------



## Dave 330i (Jan 4, 2002)

chicagofan00 said:


> I am borrowing the first version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens from a co-worker for my trip back to Illinois this next coming week. I'll see then how much I like it. I've taken a few test shots and so far really like it just from that alone. He's thinking of selling it too so if it all goes well in Chicago I may just buy that from him instead of shelling out for the newer version.


Depends on your photographic needs, this (Nikon version) lens is great for all around sports actions. Outdoors, it is a backup to my 30mm f2.8. Indoors, I like its flexibility as my primary lens with a 85mm as a backup.


----------



## IlyaN (Mar 6, 2006)

chicagofan00 said:


> I currently have the 70-300 but ever since I got the 24-70mm f2.8L, I've had the bug to upgrade my telephoto lens to some L glass. :eeps:
> 
> After reading some more reviews, I'm even considering the 70-200mm f/4L as well. I keep hearing how that was the sharpest lens of the 70-200mm bunch. At least until the new 70-200mm f/2.8 came out recently. I'm just afraid that if I were to go with the f/4 I would later regret not getting the f/2.8.
> 
> Decisions, decisions. Thanks for the feedback everyone!


I'm in exactly the same sittuation as you (was at least a few years back). I now have a 7D and 24-70 f/2.8L and I have a 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

I was also considering an f/4, but as good as the deal may sound... 2.8 wins hands down. Also remember, loosing two f-stops is a big deal when you shoot at 200mm  smallest shake at lower speeds and IS won't help, so there's a huge difference between 2.8 and 4.

As of the newer version... IMHO I wouldn't go for it with that price difference. Especially, after using my 2.8L for a few years now and knowing what it can do, I doubt IS II will do a much better job.

In any case, if you get one of those, you will NOT regret and every shot will make you happy. I used to have 70-300 before getting the L and what a difference!!!

Good Luck! :thumbup:


----------

