Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 06 Nov 2007 (Tuesday) 20:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200mm f/2.8L Shelf Life

 
Big ­ WIll
"Slight breach of etiquette"
Avatar
2,363 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Chester & Bucks UK
     
Nov 08, 2007 17:43 |  #46

My 70-200mm was created in 1997! Still works like it should. Hasnt been serviced or needed it. Perfect.


Computers blur the boundaries... We are being released from the suddenness of photography, the suddenness of the shutterhttp://www.photography​-on-the.net …p?p=1606920&pos​tcount=132

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
timbop
Goldmember
Avatar
2,980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
     
Nov 08, 2007 17:50 |  #47

TitusvilleSurfer wrote in post #4267202 (external link)
By the way I plan to use the lens for surfing photos and shooting my brother's band (hardcore) which will be in low light. What do you think about using it for birding with my grandpa on a 1.6 40D? Too short?

with a 1.4TC, it will be just long enough for medium sized birds. For your brother's band, it depends. f/2.8 is probably too slow, considering that they will likely be moving (I assume :-)). You might need to split your budget up into a 100-400 and 85/1.8 or 100/2. Or, a used 400L and 135/2


Current: 5DM3, 6D, 8mm fish, 24-105/4IS, 35/2IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.8, 100-400/IS v1, lensbaby composer with edge 80, 580's and AB800's
Formerly: 80D, 7D, 300D, 5D, 5DM2, 20D, 50D, 1DM2, 17-55IS, 24-70/2.8, 28-135IS, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4IS, 70-300IS, 70-200/2.8, 100 macro, 400/5.6, tammy 17-50 and 28-75, sigma 50 macro & 100-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FlyingPhotog
Cream of the "Prop"
Avatar
57,560 posts
Likes: 161
Joined May 2007
Location: Probably Chasing Aircraft
     
Nov 08, 2007 17:56 |  #48

TitusvilleSurfer wrote in post #4267119 (external link)
If frozen in a block of ice, a twinkie could last 2000 years.

Hell, you don't even need to waist the ice to get 2k years out of a Twinkie...

Use the ice for something more appropriate, like Scotch! ;)


Jay
Crosswind Images (external link)
Facebook Fan Page (external link)

"If you aren't getting extraordinary images from today's dSLRs, regardless of brand, it's not the camera!" - Bill Fortney, Nikon Corp.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
IB///M
Member
Avatar
227 posts
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Nov 08, 2007 18:56 |  #49

TitusvilleSurfer wrote in post #4274702 (external link)
I thought it was interesting that out of 20 randomly selected members, ¾ used the f2.8

f2.8 has been around for much longer. the F/4 IS is the best seller now in the shop I usually go. the next is the F/4 non-IS. But I see that you are going to shoot a band, then there is no question. F/2.8 is the best choice


5D mark II
17-40 f/4 L | 35 f/1.4 L | 70-200 f/2.8 IS L | 400 f/5.6 L | Kenko 1.4x | 580 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TitusvilleSurfer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
784 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Titusville, FL
     
Nov 08, 2007 22:31 |  #50

Yes I heard the F/4 came out in 2006, which really doesn't make it a fair statistic. I had not realized the 2.8 had been out for SO much longer though. This finding does however make me that much more confident combined with comments such as Shaktipalooza and Big Will's. This lens is going to take a HUGE hit on my spending money reserves...but hey, that's why its spending money right?! I suppose nothing is final until I pay money for it, but I really can't wait to start shooting with this lens!

That said, is anyone out there who has owned the lens NOT happy with its performance?


50D | G11 | 50mm f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8 IS | 580exII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Double ­ Negative
*sniffles*
Avatar
10,533 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Mar 2006
Location: New York, USA
     
Nov 09, 2007 08:22 |  #51

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #4280030 (external link)
Hell, you don't even need to waist the ice to get 2k years out of a Twinkie...

Use the ice for something more appropriate, like Scotch! ;)

ROFL! So true.

(I bet the Tangerei guy would beg to differ, though, heh)


La Vida Leica! (external link) LitPixel Galleries (external link) -- 1V-HS, 1D Mark IIn & 5D Mark IV w/BG-E20
15mm f/2.8, 14mm f/2.8L, 24mm f/1.4L II, 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L II, 135mm f/2.0L
16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, Extender EF 1.4x II & 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thelightofsound
Goldmember
Avatar
1,399 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Atlanta
     
Nov 09, 2007 09:25 |  #52

IB/M wrote in post #4280346 (external link)
=IB///M;4280346]But I see that you are going to shoot a band, then there is no question. F/2.8 is the best choice


small clubs will be too dark and too small for the 70-200. the 50 1.4 is the other holy grail of concert lenses. however, if you plan on shooting music in larger venues then you will kick yourself in the arse if you get the 4.0.


--atlanta photographer michael saba (external link) - music photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
marcus769
Senior Member
642 posts
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Minnesota
     
Nov 09, 2007 09:35 |  #53

I havent read all the posts in here. but has anything been changed/modified to this lens in the past couple years?


7D, 40D, 28-135mm IS, 50mm 1.8 II, 100mm 2.8L, 70-200mm 2.8L IS, 580 ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jim ­ M
Goldmember
1,656 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Aug 2006
     
Nov 09, 2007 09:43 |  #54

I'm not sure I've ever shot a picture at f/2.8, but it is a real godsend for focusing when the light gets low. 70-200 f/2.8 IS is my workhorse lens. I don't know how I managed without it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
StinkyGoalieGuy
Member
37 posts
Joined Nov 2006
     
Nov 09, 2007 15:11 as a reply to  @ Jim M's post |  #55

I'm also seriously considering this lens since the current BH price is so low (IS version). But I too am worried about durability. The IS part of the lens is electro-mechanical. All things mechanical wear out. I'm wondering if the non-IS version will last longer? I'll mostly be using it for sports, so I won't need the IS most of the time, but for the ~350 current price difference, I'm willing to get the IS... if it will last just as long as the non-IS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 546
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Nov 09, 2007 15:50 |  #56

TitusvilleSurfer wrote in post #4274702 (external link)
I suppose the main reason I will be using this is for surfing. The subject will be moving very fast horizontally (albeit in bright light). My little cousins also play basketball/volleyball/​football and I want to shoot them. My brother is in a band and I will be covering some of his shows (low to very low light). I realize 70-200 might not be enough reach, but at least until I get something else this lens will be used for birding with my family. I am a college student so price in a concern, but I would rather buy one very expensive lens that gets it done than 2 or 3 different lenses who combined don’t take as great of photos for a similar price.

I don't know abut the sports, but for the surfing and the birds I would want a TC -- I've done surfing pics at a good viewing location (next to other photogs) and shot with a super-zoom that had a field of view equivalent to using a 300mm on a crop body and it was one experience that convinced me that I really wanted a DSLR and a good telephoto!

With birds, you always need more:)! I shoot with a 100-400 on my 30D as well as with a 300mm f/2.8 with a 2x TC on my 5D and still I eye the 600 f/4! See below for an example.

With both of these endeavors, cropping can be your friend, but still -- there comes a point where you want more reach, so I would pack a TC, whichever one works for you.

One thing that has scared me is the reviews the f/2.8 has gotten concerning sharpness. I have read horror stories about spending $1500 and just not being able to justify the cost. With the f/4 I haven't read a single bad review. I guess the main question is how well the f/4 covers lower light venues in comparison to the f/2.8 such as basketball, volleyball, night football, and rock shows/theater.

I got it just for the flexibility. I don't do a lot of low-light stuff but with this lens as well as with my primes I want the speed when it could make the difference, and the 7-200 f/2.8 makes an excellent f/4!

One other observation I have done is compare how many different people use one to the other in a small sample. While browsing threads last night I simply recorded what I saw in people’s sigs. I thought it was interesting that out of 20 randomly selected members, ¾ used the f2.8

I think people buy the best they can afford, with an underlying assumption/faith that a fast L lens will do a great job.

This pic is taken with a 4mp super-zoom camera that gave it a field of view pretty much the same as a 300mm lens on my 30D body. Because of the low resolution, cropping it makes for a cool pic that lacks detail, especially the face:

IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/79248120.jpg

One of many "wish I had the 600mm f/4" moments, this is a heavily cropped shot taken with my 5D and a 300mm w/2x TC. Even at 600mm I had to crop a bunch!
IMAGE: http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/88612758.jpg
Have fun!

Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Longwatcher
obsolete as of this post
Avatar
3,908 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2002
Location: Newport News, VA, USA
     
Nov 09, 2007 15:57 as a reply to  @ StinkyGoalieGuy's post |  #57

A couple of notes from reading:

1. Figure on a rough order of magnitude that any minor lens repair will be about 25% of the cost of the lens new. Major repairs may indicate it is cheaper to replace then repair. The biggest catch is Canon will fix all problems the item has (including a cracked plate, which has no effect on anything other then asthetics ) and so it may cost a bit more then just the one problem that caused you to send it in. I have experienced the "pleasure" of having sent in 3 of my lenses (two of them twice ) for a total of 5 experiences (one of which was covered by warranty of the previous repair - someone left a screw in the wrong position apparently). So far to date the 70-200/f2.8L IS has not been one of them, although I did have to tighten the screws on the mounting plate.

2. The IS system used in the 70-200/2.8L IS happens to also be used for several other lenses (at least the majority of the parts ) so those parts should be available for quite some time.


"Save the model, Save the camera, The Photographer can be repaired"
www.longwatcher.com (external link)
1DsMkIII as primary camera with f2.8L zooms and the 85L
http://www.longwatcher​.com/photoequipment.ht​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TitusvilleSurfer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
784 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Titusville, FL
     
Nov 09, 2007 22:30 |  #58

Wow they fix everything wrong and ring up your bill regardless of whether you want them to or not? With such an expensive lens I can't imagine sending it in and not wanting a full job, but still. I have been thinking of getting the 100-400L instead of the 70-200. I can only afford one, so I have to make it count. I still think I'm set on the 2.8 possibly with a 1.4 TC though which would make it a 450 without sacrificing too much IQ.


50D | G11 | 50mm f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8 IS | 580exII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blackshadow
Mr T. from the A team
Avatar
5,732 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Melbourne, VIC Australia
     
Nov 09, 2007 22:40 |  #59

I have a 70-200 f2.8L and love it but it's the wrong lens for surfing or for low light concert photography.

For concert photography unless you are shooting big stadium/arena shows you need a much shorter lens. For low light I'd suggest either the Sigma 30mm f1.4 or the Canon 50mm f1.4. The 70-200 really shines for the big rock shows though - in hindsight though I would have bought the IS version.

For surfing 200mm is way too short. I'm not sure what the best solution for a surfing lens would be but if you can't afford one of the Canon L series super teles I suggest you have a look at some of the Sigma lenses.

The 70-200 is an awesome lens but if you want great results for surfing/low light concerts I suggest you look at other options.


Black Shadow Photography (external link)
Facebook (external link) Flickr (external link) Twitter (external link)
Gear List Myspace (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TitusvilleSurfer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
784 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Titusville, FL
     
Nov 09, 2007 23:20 |  #60

Good point, I think I want to keep it Canon though. I need to decide between the 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM now and a 24-70 f/2.8 USM down the road, or a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 now and a 24-105mm f/4 IS USM some day. Is 2.8 even enough for indoor sports? Should I look more at a 1.4?


50D | G11 | 50mm f/1.4 | 70-200 f/2.8 IS | 580exII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,007 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200mm f/2.8L Shelf Life
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is vini81
664 guests, 254 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.