best 70-200 lens for Canon!

J

Jonny breeze

Messages
21
Name
Jonny breeze
Edit My Images
Yes
After my last post I've decided on a 70-200 lens and then save for a 300 or 400 prime. However I'm not sure which one! I would preferably like a canon L lens for their auto focus and build quality however i don't know which one to choose. The F4, the F4 is, the F2.8 or the F2.8 is. My questions are does Is make a huge difference on these lenses? And will I find myself stopping down on the F2.8 lenses for sharpness. I don't mind about the weight difference or the size however I would like to keep the cost low. The cheapest F2.8 is lens I saw on the website was around £650 and I would like to try and keep it not much higher than that. Also are there any strong third party 70-200 lenses? I shoot on a canon 5d mark ii. PS I definitely can't go over a thousand!!
 
The problem with 2.8 lenses is weight , I've had a few 70-200 f/4 non IS and can recommend them 100% , all mine have been excellent and not like carrying a lump hammer around all day , a £1000 budget would leave you some cash free for a 400mm f/5.6 so you're covered for most situations, another great lens.one advantage Canon has over Nikon is they do an affordable enthusiast range of lenses

Buy used well looked after lenses and your ownership cost with be close to zero, I've never bought a new lens, I just wait for the new super IS (one more step to the Terminators arm) to come out then look around for someone with upgradeitis, it's so much better, only another £1000
 
andrewc said:
The other models are older versions, sometimes without IS. They're all good lenses and a good compromise. They'll take teleconverters if necessary as well. Monopod recommended.
Click to expand...
What do the cheapest ones go for? Trying to get the most out of my money!
 
wack61 said:
The problem with 2.8 lenses is weight , I've had a few 70-200 f/4 non IS and can recommend them 100% , all mine have been excellent and not like carrying a lump hammer around all day , a £1000 budget would leave you some cash free for a 400mm f/5.6 so you're covered for most situations, another great lens.one advantage Canon has over Nikon is they do an affordable enthusiast range of lenses

Buy used well looked after lenses and your ownership cost with be close to zero, I've never bought a new lens, I just wait for the new super IS (one more step to the Terminators arm) to come out then look around for someone with upgradeitis, it's so much better, only another £1000
Click to expand...

Are there any situations where you miss IS? I have an 70-200L non-IS and find it an excellent lens.
 
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II

Buy now and sell it in ten years and you will get most of your money back probably if its in very good condition with you.
 
I had the 70-200 F2.8L non IS and was superb.

I didn't use it a lot due to the weight.

If I bought another one I'd go for the F4 L IS I think.
 
Be careful with Sigma lenses on a 5d MK2, sometimes they don't work at all. Canon don't tell anyone how their lenses communicate with their bodies, some older Sigmas don't work because of this.
70/200 f4 IS (Canon) is a stunning lens, some say sharper than the 2.8, it takes a 1.4 extender well too, giving you almost 300 (at f5.6 though).
 
Jonny breeze said:
Would a f2.8 with a 2x converter not be better?
Click to expand...
No. 2x extenders tend to slow the AF a lot and reduce iq by quite a lot. Having said that I used my 70/200 f4 with a 2x and it was ok but not as good as with the 1.4
Matt
 
What are you going to be shooting? And do you need f2.8?

This makes a big difference, because handholding a 70-200 f2.8 for a long period whilst trying to track moving subjects can get tiring after a while. Yet alone trying the same with the Sigma 120-300 Sport, whilst it is a fantastic lens (I use one for motorsport) after a day of shooting, my shoulders let me know about it.

For me if money is no object and 70-200 is what you want then the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS ii

Next in order would be the later Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC models. I had the first and it was excellent, about 95% of the performance at half the cost. I could barely notice the difference in AF speed. If I was buying again I would choose the later version, purely so that you can upgrade firmware etc

Finally if you don't need f2.8 then definitely the Canon 70-200 f4 L IS. Sharp, fast focusing and light. I replaced the Tamron with this as I wanted something more lightweight. When I get home mine will be going into the classifieds, purely because I have switched to Sony and although it works, I don't have the full AF functionality of the A7Rii with it
 
Archie747 said:
Are there any situations where you miss IS? I have an 70-200L non-IS and find it an excellent lens.
Click to expand...


The only lens I've ever had with IS was a 17-55 , I don't think I ever has IS switched on as far as I can remember
 
On the 70/200 f4 it isnt just the IS which makes it a better lens than the non IS version, for starters it's weatherproof i.e. it has a gasket on the lens mount end.
Additionally it is also of different internal construction, elements and groups differ so that helps in the "sharpness" of then lens when compared to the other 3 in the group.
 
Any of the Canon 70-200 are good lenses. My choice was the f4is only one stop different but do much lighter
 
I agree with wave01. The f4 l is a great lens due to the weight, it is also very sharp. One may be appearing in the classifieds soon as I have recently switched to Sony ;)
 
I'm Nikon and use 70-200 F4. Canon is of same quality I believe so recommended.
 
Been using sigma 70-200 (specifically had a couple of the older first generation macro versions) for years with no bother. Super fast af and accuracy on 1dmk3 and 5dmk2.

MatBin said:
Be careful with Sigma lenses on a 5d MK2, sometimes they don't work at all.
Click to expand...

Cant vouch for newer model sigmas but used..

70-200 f2.8
120-300 f2.8
50 f1.4
24-70 f2.8
And I think even 14 f2.8 aspherical before I sold it as had no use for it

.. All on 5dmk2 with no bother.
 
To answer the question in the subject line

canon 70-200 f2.8 L mkII
No stopping down for sharpness its pin sharp at 2.8
This is fact not opinion..


Then you went on to widen the goalposts... To proper advise we would need to know what your shooting.. if low lght or indoors then f4 not much good

sigma 120-300 as suggested is also good but not better than 70-200 and hard to hand hold unless the newer version is much lighter than the one i had :)
 
Op asked about 3rd party.

The 120-300 is definitely a beast. But a fantastic one at that. Hand holdable for short periods but monopod is advisable.

70-200 2.8 is more than hand holdable for long periods.
 
The OP did that thing where the title doesn't really describe the actual question:

The best 70-200 is clearly the Canon mkII IS

Then there's confusion as to the budget; for £650 choices get limited and depend on priorities that we have no detail of. Opens up 3rd party lenses or the f4

But for less than £1000, it's probably the MkI version of it.

If you want to save money and arm muscles, get the f4 IS and get drunk on the rest of the money :)
 
neil_g said:
Been using sigma 70-200 (specifically had a couple of the older first generation macro versions) for years with no bother. Super fast af and accuracy on 1dmk3 and 5dmk2.
Click to expand...
It used to be where a new body (or firmware upgrade) had problems with older Sigma lenses that couldn't be reprogrammed or updated, obviously Sigma have learnt from this in recent years and it would seem there isn't so much of an issue, but if buying second hand and not knowing how old the lens is could result in buying a lens that doesn't work, or only partially working.
Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top