Canon Lnes 70-200L 2.8 IS

[shafiq]

I am thinking of getting the 70-200L 2.8 IS as my first lens along with a 50mm 1.8 prime.

This will be used with a Canon 10D body.

As the 70-200 will be my primary lens...and I have never owned a zoom lens before, I need advise from the forum on my decision to purchase this lens.

Any comments would be welcome...

Thx

[Marky UK]

Hello Shafiq,

I have the same lens, it is big, heavy and awesome :)

Can be a bit heavy to carry all day, but the picture quality makes up for it.


Mark.

[PacAce]

shafiq wrote:
I am thinking of getting the 70-200L 2.8 IS as my first lens along with a 50mm 1.8 prime.

This will be used with a Canon 10D body.

As the 70-200 will be my primary lens...and I have never owned a zoom lens before, I need advise from the forum on my decision to purchase this lens.

Any comments would be welcome...

Thx

I guess it would all depend on what your primary or general purpose use of the lens is going to be. If you're going to be doing a lot of indoor group or landscape shooting, you might find the 70-200 a little on the "too long" side. However, it would be great for indoor available-light closeup shots and portrait work.

[Tonique]

I don't think this is a good primary lens. It's an excellent lens but if you only have a 50 and a 70-200, you'll have the 35mm equivalent of an 80 and a 112-320. That means that you don't even have a normal lens and no wide angle. You'll be really limited for landscape, group shots and a lot of stuff.

Personally I got the 50 and the 17-40 F4 and I'm pretty happy with that. the 17-40 gives a 35 mm equivalent of 27.2-64. You could also go with the 24-70 2.8 if you want top quality or the 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS would get you a good range covered and would save you some money.

[lime]

shafiq,
If your budget allows it, you might as well get it, 'cause if you don't get it you're going to want it later, like me.
Also from what I've read, it's one of the best Canon has to offer, you can't go wrong.
If weight becomes an issue, try using a different neckstrap, I have one from optech. It made a difference with my 100-400.

I have the following:
50 1.8II
135L 2.0 (amazing lens, on 10D 85%)
100-400L
28-135IS (not used as much)

Good Luck,
Emil

[Mills]

It is one of 4 L lenses that I have for my 10D. Can't say enough great things about it!

[mkaplan]

marky UK wrote:
I have the same lens, it is big, heavy and awesome :)

Can be a bit heavy to carry all day, but the picture quality makes up for it.
Mark.

I agree with Mark, It is one awsome lens. Yes, it is heavy but worth every pound and once you get IS you won't want to be without.

[Marignan_1515]

why not 70-200L f/4?

you have no IS, start at f/4, but you'll pay half the price and have a 700g lense instead of an heavy 1500g

I'm asking that, because I'm looking at 700-200, but for $1000 gap btw f/4 and f/2.8-IS, you don't get much :
+ 1kg (2lb)
+ IS (you can shot a few speed-stop faster w/o tripod
+ f/2.8 (only 1 f-stop) - I've take most of my portraits or blured background pics btw f/4 f/5.6 f/8, rarely at f/3.5 with my previous 28-300 f/3.5-6.3

Lens Price US weight
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 USM L.............$600......705g
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L.......$1 150...1 310g
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS...$1 650...1 470g

All 3 lenses are rated amoung the top ones
Optical Verdict:...excellent 4.7/5.0
AF Speed:...........fast to extremely fast
Build Quality:......superb

[mkaplan]

marignan_1515 wrote:
I'm asking that, because I'm looking at 700-200, but for $1000 gap btw f/4 and f/2.8-IS, you don't get much :
+ 1kg (2lb)
+ IS (you can shot a few speed-stop faster w/o tripod
+ f/2.8 (only 1 f-stop) - I've take most of my portraits or blured background pics btw f/4 f/5.6 f/8, rarely at f/3.5 with my previous 28-300 f/3.5-6.3
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS...$1 650...1 470g

You can get the70-200 2.8L IS for $1539
You can hand hold it 3-4 stops and you gain 1 extra stop with the 2.8. That is (for those of you math deficient) 4-5 stops faster. A day and night difference unless you always shoot in a lot of light and use a tripod then the F4 is a wonderful lens as is the 2.8 without IS.

[Marignan_1515]

Michael is right about the lens beeing able to do 4 or 5 f-stops faster. As I've said, it's obviously the advantage btw both lenses (f/4 vs. f/2.8 IS).
but the question is: do you use it very often? Does this worth $1000 more?
I've looked back at my pictures (with a f/3.5 lens), and I wasn't able to find one with a lowest aperture than f/4. Even f/4 was pretty rare, I'm mainly shoting my best pics at f/5.6 and get a great blured backgound (I've never really checked before about f/stop statistics).
However, I've looked back in my archives and find some bad "shaked" pictures I've taken w/o tripod @ 200mm and over. From these ones, I would have saved some of them if I had used an IS.

Michael, I've spent some time on your website too, and was able to find only one picture taken with f/2.8 within a range of 70-200mm
http://mikuna.image.pbase.com/u16/mkaplan/small/20144370.StreetFlowers.jpg (Street Flowers 1/8s f/2.8 at 170.0mm iso100) http://www.pbase.com/image/20144370
and I guess you were using a tripod (1/8s) so the IS wasn't really used in this case.
Also, I do not see so much blur on the background as I would expect (except the trees far on the right upper corner).
All your other pictures (btw very nices!) are taken with f/4, f/4.5 and f/5.6 - except when using your 50mm. (eg.
"Photo Of The Day" 1/125s f/1.8 at 50.0mm iso400) http://www.pbase.com/image/17314875
excellent shot, great composition, great light effect)

my issue is that I understand pretty well both lenses gap, but I don't know if I will really benefit it enough to justify the $1000 (I can get several good add'l lenses for this money)... I don't want to buy the absolute best lens, I want to buy the best lens for my absolute needs.
I'm also concerned with the weight. 705g vs 1470g.. it's 765g more. The canon D-body are usually pretty heavy (855g/D30-60 875g/10D). Add to that a 500g wide zoom or a couple of prime lenses and you go hicking or walking with a over 3kg bag (almost 7lb).... half of my baby's weight :D I can do it, but I need to be sure I will really use the extra 800g. If I come back with no pictures at f/2.8, or at 200mm/>1/125, it would meant I've carried 800g unusefull load and $1000 less money :)

I hope I've clarified my hesitation/questions.

Did anyone noticed that a lot of their best pictures are at f/2.8 or below btw 70 and 200mm ?
Did anyone dropped this lens at home for some hiking trip because of the weight?
If yes, can you explain what you find great, and why you really need this 4 fstops... I need advice and experience of such cases.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Another reason to go with the f/2.8,. whether you go IS or not,. is that the 70-200mm f/2.8s are some of the best zoom lenses around for use with a teleconverter...

With the IS version and the 2X converter,. for an extra $250.00 you get a lens with very similar performance to the 100-400mm IS... Not a bad little savings!

[codeglue]

It all depends on what you are shooting.

I have a number of lenses, including a 28-70 L, 200 2.8 L telephoto, and 100-400 IS L.

The 28-70 isn't wide enough, the 200 is either too much or too little zoom, and the 100-400 is about right for zoom.

For me, a 70-200 would be extemely limiting, too narrow yet not enough zoom, very tough to use it as your primary....

My 200 2.8 L offers stunning shots, by far the sharpest in my bag. Just hard to use as it is a tele. The rep. of the 70-200 is not that far from the prime that I have. The zoom ability will give you a better shot at framing pics than the telephoto.

Get to a store and play with this stuff if you can. A few minutes will sort most of this out for you.

Good Luck,

Lee

[riveragaryj@juno.com]

I had the 80-200 2.8 (predecessor to the 70-200) zoom and it is a great lens. The 80-200 did not have the IS but it was just a perfect fit.

[lime]

It does depend on what you'll be shooting, and if you ever decide to upgrade to a ID/1Ds, then the allweather capability will be a big plus.

Emil

[spark]

If a superb lens...also it reminds me of carrying for 2 days and the 3rd day I can't lift my arms....

[Marignan_1515]

spark wrote:
If a superb lens...also it reminds me of carrying for 2 days and the 3rd day I can't lift my arms....
Thanks for the feedback - That's the main reason I'll choose the f/4 (705g-1.6lb) vs f/2.8 (1310g-2.9lb) or f/2.8IS (1470g-3.2lb)

twice the weight for one fstop... after a few miles of hiking, you may regret your add'l fstop...
from a optical quality stand point f4 anf f2.8 are very equivalent and anyway at the top of the category

[NILOLIGIST]

shafiq,

It all depends on what you are going to be shooting and what is important to you right now. I know when I got my 10D, all I got was the 28-135 IS, I didn't know what I wanted to do and that to me is a all around lens.

Now, I have added the 100-400L IS and I am happy with that. Now, I plan on getting the 100mm Macro and then I will get the 70-200L 2.8 IS, I really feel like I need that lens.

Make your choice based on what you need. These lenses are expensive, you don't want to get a lens that you really don't need or want. I am glad I took my time, it gave me a chance to save and to be real clear on my needs.

HAPPY AS A 10D...LOL

NiL,

[sjprg]

I'm using a 70-200 f/2.8L with a 2.0TC, which will only work with a 2.8. This is a great combo for long stills with a circ polorizer on it. They can be purchased used for $800-900 for the 2.8L and $279 for the TC. I also use a 24mm 2.8 at about $380. Makes a good setup.
I also have a 75-300 5.6 which was my first lens, that is also good for medium length shots.
Put the 70-200 on a tripod and carry the tripod over your sholder. You don't need the IS. Its nice but its only fluf. Make your self a small pad for your sholder. DO NOT carry with the neck strap on the camera. Thats a LOT of weight on the camera flange.