Canon 70-200 f2.8

Hi all

I know there is three generations of this lens

Can anyone tell which one this is please?

https://www.jbhifi.com​.au …-70-200mm-f-2-8l-usm-lens

Thanks in advance

Two things to be aware of:
1. The lens you linked to does not have Image Stabilization (IS)
2. That lens is not fully weather sealed
I believe it was first released at least 16 years ago and is the last of Canon's non-IS 70-200mm f2.8 lenses.

Apologies if you are aware of this but wouldn't want you to purchase the wrong lens.

At that price you can buy for a few hundred more the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark III.
Wouldn’t go near that lens as it does not have Image Stabilization. Not only does IS help in slower shutter speeds, IS also stabilizes the subject or target in your viewfinder, achieving critical focus. This lens is big and heavy and at times fatigue can set in. For me IS is a must.

I see that you're located in Australia so I don't know about the exchange rate off hand but $1699 seems quite steep for the original version of the 70-200/2.8L. This past March, I bought a mint copy of the first IS version for US$800 and it performed great shooting a hockey tournament. I would figure out your budget and try to find an IS version whether I, II or III that fits within that budget.

thank you very much, the retailer sent me two different links for gen one and 3 but said the image was right

thank you really appreciated, def want a gen 3

buy once cry once

not so much a budget but have around $800 of vouchers for the store, thus if it was 2/3 making it reasonably cheap.

but didn't want a gen 1 that's for sure

thanks for your help!

That’s a mki or mkii at mkiii pricing.

unfortunatly got to love a weak australian dollar, canon lists the mk3 at $2999 AUD

is the MK3 that good? i dont mind spending the coin. primarily for basketball so liked the f2.8 or should i look towards this similar price

https://www.canon.com.​au …8-300mm-f-3-5-5-6l-is-usm

I just watched a review on the mkiii. From what the guy said, they updated the coating on the glass to help reduce lens flair, and they changed the color slightly. I’d say if you can find a mk ii in good shape, do that.

I saw this as my mkiii showed up yesterday.

camarogod93 wrote in post #19074052
I just watched a review on the mkiii. From what the guy said, they updated the coating on the glass to help reduce lens flair, and they changed the color slightly. I’d say if you can find a mk ii in good shape, do that. ...

Sometimes I wonder to myself, "how much better does ______ need to be?" I have the Mk II version of that lens and I really like it a lot. And I use it a lot. The only thing I don't like about it is that it draws a lot of attention from onlookers. Sometimes I don't care about that (like when I'm working and I'm expected to have "a nice camera"). But other times it's nice to be subtle and not have a lens that has the same colors and size as a Storm Trooper's arm.

Anyway, I can't recall EVER having a problem with lens flare with that (Mk II) lens. So if the Mk III has improved things to reduce flare, then I go from zero problems to ... (hmm, still?) zero problems. Yeah, the Mk II is good enough for me that I don't even think about the Mk III. Without hands-on experience, I might wonder about "what might have been". But with that direct experience, I know that I'm not suffering and that a Mk II is good enough.

Definitely hold out for IS. Beyond that, my thought is to feel good about the best deal on a Mk II or III.