Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS USM

CSB

CSB

Messages
1,989
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
Yes
Has anyone ever regretted buying this lens?

I'm thinking of buying one for family portraits mainly but its a lot of money to spend. I'm a bit of a pixel peeper, I always inspect my shots at 100% to see how sharp they are. I've heard this lens is soft wide open, test chart shots on the-digital-picture.com back this up, but I was wondering what it is like in real world use?

Other lenses in my short list are the Canon 70-200 F4.0L IS USM which looks to be sharp wide open although a stop slower, or the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 which has dodgy focusing according to some people and no IS.

Any help in making a decision is greatly appreciated.
 
I had a Canon 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) for a while. Optically it was excellent - it's usually considered one of - if not the - best mid-range zoom lenses available. But I didn't use it much. The reason was that it was simply too heavy to carry around. Most of the photography I do (probably 70%) is in the wide to standard range, so for the occasions when I needed something longer I preferred to be lugging less weight. I've now got the f4 (non-IS) version which is much lighter.

For comparison, according to a current Canon lens brochure, the 70-200 f2.8 IS is 1470g while the f4 IS lens is 760g. Also worth considering are the 135 f2 and 200 f2.8 primes, which are both around the same weight as the f4 zoom.
 
I bought the f2.8 IS version after selling the F4 non-is version - If I had to choose, the f4 version was a sharper lens, and a hell of a lot lighter (ie. more portable), but the f2.8 version images have a certain look and feel to them that I find hard to quantify, but I prefer them.

The f2.8 also has the advantage of the cross AF points.

In hindsight, I wish I had kept both copies, but I fear the wife would have killed me!
 
Furtim said:
the f2.8 version images have a certain look and feel to them that I find hard to quantify, but I prefer them.
Click to expand...

Can you post some examples to show what you mean?
 
Never had the f4 versions, I've got the 2.8 IS and it is the bee's knees!

I tend to shoot weddings with it, usually wide open or close to (had it on 3.2 - 3.5 mostly on Sunday) and 99% of the shots have come out fine...and are spot on with a little sharpening in DPP.

To be honest...I find it contradictory of you to ask what it is like in real life use when you admit to being a pixel peeper, there will be very few occasions where you have time to set up the shot perfectly to get it right. The 2.8 IS has never actually let me down and I've always gotten the shot. Shooting weddings in low light, it will knock the socks off the f4 as it'll just get shots that the f4 won't. I'd rather have an ever so slightly soft RAW file that'll sharpen up a treat, than a sharp blur ;)

Just my personal experiences....for portraits, the f4 might be better economically! That's your choice ;)
 
I have both f2.8Lis and f4Lis and both have there use, I would not look in to the the DP crops to mutch as in real worl shots theres not a lot in it, If you need 2.8 thats the lens you want, it also handles the 1.4 tc very well, but if all you want to do is look at 100% crops go for the f4.:D
 
I wouldn't say I regret it but I would say it's over hyped and over priced.

The F4 version is lighter, just as quick and just as sharp.

The other 70-200 I've had was the sigma which IMO was again at least as sharp as the Canon, just as quick to focus and better value. If the Sigma had weather sealing it's the one I'd have kept.
 
I've bought one and never looked back. Never had the other 70-200 Versions to compare it with though. My first white lens. No regrets. Lovely sharpness, clarity, colour and bokeh.
 
I've had both the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS and currently have the Sigma 70-200 (sold the Canon to my brother as I rarely use that range) and the difference is negligible. Both excellent lenses with the Canon heavier and sturdier and weatherproof as has already been noted. If cash is a factor, buy the Sigma, if not, get the Canon.

Although for portraits you'd be better off getting an 85mm or 135mm 2.8 prime. Do you really need the zoom capability?
 
CSB said:
Can you post some examples to show what you mean?
Click to expand...

Not at my home PC at the moment, but if I had to put my finger on it, it would be a combination of the colour and bokeh.

I don't regret buying the lens - it's one of my main two. For great pictures it's a great lens, no doubt. The bokeh, colour, speed and reliability are brilliant. In my opinion, it's not as sharp as the f4 version, but it's more than sharp enough and would not be described as soft to any extent. My concern was if you are hooked on pixel peeking, you may not be 100% satisfied with your £1700 investment. I learnt long ago that pixel peeking is really counter productive!

On the cons, it's very big and very heavy. My camera bag (2 x bodies, 24-70, 70-200,100mm and 50m + flash etc) comes in at 23lbs, so leaving one of the heavy two lens at home often becomes a necessity.

Would I buy one again - absolutely.
 
How refreshing to have someone confess to being a pixel peeper ;) :D

Suggest you bone up on MTF tests here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml and then fill yer boots on the graphs here http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=153 You have a crop camera so anything beyond 10-12mm from the centre is irrelevant.

If your priority is sharpness, then primes usually win, especially edge sharpness but for portraits maybe this is less important, so the zoom is back in contention. On the other hand, shallow depth of field and bokeh are often important in portraiture, which swings it back to primes.

In terms of sharpness it's very hard to split the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and f/4, aperture for aperture. The penalty for getting f/2.8 is mainly in size, weight and price. They are both stunningly good.

But if you want ultimate sharpness in a portrait focal length, then look at the EF-S 60mm macro, EF 100mm macro, and 135mm f/2 L. None of these has IS, but they are all optically amazing. Don't forget 85mm f/1.8 - gets very close to the perfect portrait lens on a crop IMHO.

The ultimate portrait package would surely be the 135mm f/2 L on a 5DII, but if it was my money, and taking sharpness, versatility, price, size, weight, and IS into account, then I wouldn't hesitate to get the 70-200mm f/4 L IS, or the f/2.8 version if I really needed the wider aperture. If you go for the f/4 lens, then you have plenty of cash left for an 85mm f/1.8 as well*. Sweet combo :)

* Or 85mm f/1.2 L if you're feeling silly ;) A friend has this lens and shoots nothing but portraits at f/1.2. Amazing depth of field effects that you just can't get any other way.
 
I use mine mainly on the 5D Mk II at the 70mm end, as I shot some portraits in indoor light handheld with IS enabled.

IMHO, it's sharp wide open but even sharper stopped down to 5.6. Haven't regretted buying the glass, but especially by today's prices, as Dod says, a little overpriced.

The price I paid for mine was £960 less £75 cashback, so at £885 it's reasonably priced, not so if buying right now at £1200+
 
neo2810 said:
Do you really need the zoom capability?
Click to expand...


Yes, I should have said that I mainly take candid portraits and I need the flexibility of a zoom lens.

HoppyUK said:
How refreshing to have someone confess to being a pixel peeper ;) :D

Don't forget 85mm f/1.8 - gets very close to the perfect portrait lens on a crop IMHO.
Click to expand...

I may just buy one of those and see how I get on with it. I cant help but view a picture at 100%, having a 24" screen doesn't help. I was so much more satisfied when I only had my 19" :LOL:
 
CSB said:
I may just buy one of those and see how I get on with it. I cant help but view a picture at 100%, having a 24" screen doesn't help. I was so much more satisfied when I only had my 19" :LOL:
Click to expand...

With your budget, and with portraits in mind, you'd be mad not to. That 85mm f/1.8 is a fab little lens. Fast, sharp, compact :) So much better than trying to wield a hefty and intimidating 70-200 2.8 in front of people. And no zoom can get near the narrow depth of field you get at f/1.8. If it cost £1k it would maybe have an even bigger fan base.

Nothing wrong with a bit of pixel peeping; everybody does it, whether they admit to it or not. I do it whenever I get a new lens, but only to see how damn good modern lenses are, and not to see how much better they could be, if that makes any sense.
 
I sold my f/4 IS, one of my least used lenses, and bought a f/2.8 IS which, in the short time I've had it, has become my most used lens!

The f/2.8 is much heavier, but it's a price I'm willing to pay for that extra stop. Do I notice a difference in sharpness? No, but then I've never shot any charts with it. That's not what I buy lenses for ;)

Do I regret the move? Hell, no!

Here's some pics; one was taken with the f/4 and the other with the f/2.8. Should they be used as a basis for comparison of the two lenses? No, they just prove to me that they both produce results that I like. (y)



 
I have a 70-200mm f4 which I love - probably one of my most used lenses. I do also have a 70-200mm f2.8 IS but haven't really used it that much due to the extra weight!

I have decided I don't need the extra stop on most occasions so I am going to stick with the F4 and use a 200mm F2.8 to hopefully achieve shots like that that red squirrel above :D
 
I've not regretted buying this lens for one minute. It's a bit on the heavy side to carry around in the kit bag and I'd be tempted to purchase the f4 version for traveling abroad but I love shooting it wide open.
 
Do I regret it...

My 70-200f2.8 IS hardly ever leaves the camera. It's been everywhere and been used on tens of thousands of shots.

I'd say a definite nope to buying regrets. The only time I wince is when I have to leave it at home when I head to the hills with boots and a rucksack, thats the only time when weight matters.
 
I consider myself to be an improving beginner....;) and I can honestly say that I love my 70-200f 2.8 L IS. Some of my best shots to date have been taken with that lens. Yes, it's a bit on the heavy side, but the quality of the images makes it worth while. Hubby loves it too as he finds it great for candids.
 
I think any potential owner has to evaluate the pros and cons for themselves. It's unrealistic to expect the image quality of primes, but if you're willing to accept that then it obviously shouldn't put you off. To some, it's too heavy. I consider it weighty, but not too heavy for me.

As can be seen here, some regret the purchase whilst others don't. Try it for yourself. Be sure, before you buy and you won't have any regrets.
 
DLS_Creations said:
I assumed the shallow DOF was achieved with the 2.8. I think that goes to show how close the results of these lenses are, unless you really need 2.8 and IS I think the F4 is great :)
Click to expand...

The f4 that took the pic has the IS.

I like it because it is light, already have enough gear to lug around most of the time. The lens speed isn't such an issue at the moment, mainly wildlife and scenery pics and portraiture. All outside as a rule and mainly good light.

If it was about inside, poor light and freezing action then I'd have gone for the faster lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top