Canon 70-200 f2.8 is ii - Equivalent??

R

Rosco88

Messages
53
Name
Ross
Edit My Images
Yes
Afternoon All,

I'm looking into getting a "canon 70-200 f2.8 is ii" lens.

But after talking with a friend, He suggested that I use a Nikon lens with an adapter and others have said use Sigma....

Does anybody on here have an insight into the best value for money on this type of lens??

Thanks
 
I can't see how using an adapter will give anything like the quality images the Canon lens produces. If you are unsure about the cost then it might be an idea to hire one first before shelling out your hard earned cash. I've had this lens now for over a year and it still my most used lens.
 
Thanks Both!

This will be my biggest spend on a lens so far....

Now i'm wondering do I got for the "Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM "

As it's half the price :-/

But im sure as with everything, you get what you pay for.....
 
Rosco88 said:
Thanks Both!

This will be my biggest spend on a lens so far....

Now i'm wondering do I got for the "Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM "

As it's half the price :-/

But im sure as with everything, you get what you pay for.....
Click to expand...

That is still a great lens but trust me the MkII is streets ahead of it.
 
Get the MKII from Kerso / Flash camera £1599.00 and canon cash back of £175 see the canon website for info.

£1424.00 all in.

Hope that helps with your choice.
 
Presumably you have a Canon? Then using a Nikon lens plus adapter is completely bonkers, and that's even without considering the fact that the 70-200 2.8 Mk is the best lens of that spec out there, bar none. It's fantastic.

There are lots of other choices, with the f/4 IS version being the best alternative if you don't need f/2.8.
 
Any of canon 70-200mm lenses will do - the question is do you need is, f/2.8, and sharp f/2.8? If anything 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is better than IS mk1 optically, but then it doesn't have IS. In short, if you can afford, get II.
 
Rosco88 said:
...after talking with a friend, He suggested that I use a Nikon lens with an adapter and others have said use Sigma....
Click to expand...

Presumably a Nikon shooter wishing to borrow a 70-200:naughty::LOL:

The only Nikon lenses I know of regularly being used on a Canon body by some including myself are the Nikon 50mm f1.4 because Canon's is crap and the 14-24 as Canon have no equivalent.

Given the 70-200mk II is better than both of Nikon's versions I wouldn't be rushing out to stick the Nikon one on a Canon body. Besides that, it's not an appropriate lens to only have MF on.

Value is much more subjective- I believe it's worth investing in premium gear- for one it takes the excuses out of the equation:D:p
 
Dr_O said:
The only Nikon lenses I know of regularly being used on a Canon body by some including myself are the Nikon 50mm f1.4 because Canon's is crap and the 14-24 as Canon have no equivalent.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but isn't the Sigma 50 better than either of Canikon's 1.4 offerings? (leaving the 50 1.2 for another discussion) And if you were going to manual focus anyway, why not go for the Zeiss or something like that?
 
Last edited:
If you can afford one then get one as everyone should have a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L in their arsenal, it flatters 'average' technique and keeps delivering the goods - Yes, the mk2 is better but I'm undecided on whether it’s worth the extra premium and as such, my mk1 is yet to be moved on.
 
Ksanti said:
Off topic, but isn't the Sigma 50 better than either of Canikon's 1.4 offerings? (leaving the 50 1.2 for another discussion) And if you were going to manual focus anyway, why not go for the Zeiss or something like that?
Click to expand...

The Sigma is arguably better but then there is that higher propensity for it to be not quite right on day one.
Part of the answer with using the 50 Nikkor is probably a)cost(cheaper than the Sigma and Zeiss) and b)having someone like me who doesn't like the focal length that much loan them the lens(on a permanent basis it seems:LOL:).

We're talking abut a minority of users but from my experience they are popular cross branding choices.
 
Dr_O said:
The Sigma is arguably better but then there is that higher propensity for it to be not quite right on day one.
Part of the answer with using the 50 Nikkor is probably a)cost(cheaper than the Sigma and Zeiss) and b)having someone like me who doesn't like the focal length that much loan them the lens(on a permanent basis it seems:LOL:).

We're talking abut a minority of users but from my experience they are popular cross branding choices.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say Sigma is better than Canon 1.4, but it depends how you look at it. Canon is just not very nice wide open, but it beats sigma at smaller apertures like f2.8 - which is more important for me. Canon 50/1.2L is a very different beast, and to be fair far from perfect - personally I'd get sigma as a better compromise.
 
daugirdas said:
I wouldn't say Sigma is better than Canon 1.4, but it depends how you look at it...
Click to expand...

That's why I said arguably- some people want it sharp wide open and think the Sigma has better corner to corner performance as well wide open. Both the canon and sigma 50's can suffer QC issues which I guess is why some turn to the Nikkor. After my mate had a couple of duff Canon copies I offered her the use of mine- being free probably helped that decision in this instance but I know it gets a lot of use- much more than I'd ever give it:LOL:.

It probably is a last resort option whereas Canon users who buy the 14-24 do so because they know it's the right thing to do:LOL::p
 
Going back to the 70-200 conversation i was in the same dilema as you a couple of months ago " do i buy a canon 70-200 2.8 os mk2 or the mk 1 non os? well in the end i decided on a sigma 70-200mm OS mk2 2.8 and all I can say it thats it was best best decision I could have made it hardly ever leaves my side!
 
Martyarty said:
Get the MKII from Kerso / Flash camera £1599.00 and canon cash back of £175 see the canon website for info.

£1424.00 all in.
Click to expand...

Having done this a fortnight ago it's actually £1444 as Kerso charges £20 P&P on this lens although I paid by credit card and I believe there's a discount for bank transfer payments...?

I'd heartily recommend this lens, it's absolutely superb and even with the 2x extender attached produces really sharp shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top