Canon 70-200 thoughts

Im sure this is a dead horse because most if not all love any version from the f4 to the 2.8 to the newer 2.8 IS II.Ive even beaten myself up over the same latest version of the Sigma 70-200.Im not a pro making money but im at that point where your foot is almost falling off the mountain hoping you grap the right tree on the way down.

Keeping the latest Sigma 70-200 inmind,Between the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS and the 2.8 IS II for my Rebel XSI ,Is there that much difference in IQ?Ive read the II is faster in focusing which is all good.But not sold on the extra $900 or so for version II.

Any responses from both users/renters of either please chime in.Once again i shoot alittle of everything but nothing for money.Wildlife -sports inside-n-out-boyscout stuff ect.Im sold on the lense but the money as per usual is some of the main version decision.

Thanks-Happy Shooting

no personal experience.. sorry.. but thought id just say you are not alone...
im in the same boat.. im torn between buying a 7d body (mainly for 8fps) or the 70-200 2.8 ii... but taking pics of my kid in soccer.. i actually find my 55-250 to be pretty good (mainly in focal length) but the 55mm end gets a bit short... so going to a 70 will hurt me more than anything.... but i use the 250mm side a bit too... so i consider a 70-200 a downgrade (for me that is....) so i dont know if it is worth the 2.8 vs the 4.... in 2.8 @ 200mm wont the focus point be smaller? so maybe f4 IS will do better?

I've had 3 of the 70-200 2.8's here (non-IS, IS V1 and IS VII). My testing results are the IS VII is the sharpest, followed by the non-IS and then the IS V1. I found the IQ differences noticeable at f2.8 and becoming much harder to see (if they exist at all) as they are stopped down. The VII of the 70-200 2.8 is an excellent lens, Canon did a great job on it. The copy I got is exceptional.

I've shot all 3 and would rate them MkII, Sig, Mk1 (very close on the last two). There is no comparison for the Mk II.

I still debate whether it is worth the extra $900 over the Sigma, but since it's the one I have, yes, it's worth it.

I have the mk II, and have had the Sigma OS, the Sigma HSM II, the f4L IS. I also have owned 2 Tamron 70-200s. The mk II is the sharpest of them all at 2.8, but all were sharp at f4.

If forced, I'd rate them in IQ in this order: Mk II, Tamron, Sigma OS, Sigma HSM. The f4L IS is probably right after the mk II but the top three are all excellent at f4. The mk II's advantage is really only at 2.8 and all of the top three are very useable there.The MK II is darn sharp, but for me it wasn't worth the extra grand.

For AF speed and accuracy, it's again the MK II, then the Sigma OS, Sigma HSM II, and trailing last because of its lack of HSM motor, the Tamron. The f4 seems as fast or faster than any of the 2.8s - at least in good light.

Build quality - Canon, Sigma, Tamron

TeleFragger wrote in post #13509525
no personal experience.. sorry.. but thought id just say you are not alone...
im in the same boat.. im torn between buying a 7d body (mainly for 8fps) or the 70-200 2.8 ii... but taking pics of my kid in soccer.. i actually find my 55-250 to be pretty good (mainly in focal length) but the 55mm end gets a bit short... so going to a 70 will hurt me more than anything.... but i use the 250mm side a bit too... so i consider a 70-200 a downgrade (for me that is....) so i dont know if it is worth the 2.8 vs the 4.... in 2.8 @ 200mm wont the focus point be smaller? so maybe f4 IS will do better?

Hmm, unless I am missing something, I think you may be mistaken with the focus point being smaller.

@OP: I am interested in this thread too, as I am seriously considering upgrading my 70-200 f/4 IS to a 2.8 model because I find the f/4 somewhat lacking indoors.

I used the 2.8mk1 for a week( friends) and I now own the 2.8mkii...image quality is significantly better at 2.8, and noticeably better at f4. Many people say "well I probably won't use 2.8 all that much anyways". And if that is the case, then why bother looking at these 2 lenses.


To answer your question, yes I believe that the price difference is worth it...especially when the mkii was on sale for $1960 when I purchased.

I've used the IS Mk I and the sigma HSM II, I found those to be about equal in terms of IQ, so my guess is the OS is going to be sharper than the IS Mk I.

IMHO wildlife with 70-200 too short unless you are close. Love F/4 both IS and non-IS and love 2.8 MKII. Never tried 2.8 v1. Is it worth $2200? Well..that depends on how large your bank account is

I had an f/4 non IS a couple years ago and sold, it to fund a 1D mkII. I just bought an f/2.8 IS mkII last week and it is simply amazing. I don't really have a direct comparison because I was using an XSi and the f/4L back then and a 5D mk2 and the f/2.8 IS II now, but the lens itself (while MUCH heavier) focuses faster and focuses closer over the mk1. B&H has the lens for $300 off right now making the choice even tougher.

Sample pictures I have seen between the mk1 and mk2 at f/2.8 are much sharper and have almost no CA. Even when stopped down the mk2 appears sharper/clearer (from the sample pics I saw)

bigland wrote in post #13509677
Hmm, unless I am missing something, I think you may be mistaken with the focus point being smaller.

@OP: I am interested in this thread too, as I am seriously considering upgrading my 70-200 f/4 IS to a 2.8 model because I find the f/4 somewhat lacking indoors.

Focus point will be the same. Depth of field will be smaller with the 2.8.

There is no question that the mk II is the best lens. It is the best built, the sharpest, and the fastest focusing. It is also the heaviest and most expensive. Those factors ultimately made the decision for me after I had a chance to try it out myself. All of these lenses are pretty darn good. Fwiw, my 70-200 odyssey started with the Sigma HSM II, then the Tamron 70-200, then f4LIS, Sigma OS, back down to the Tamron, then up to the mk II and then today downgraded back to the f4L IS. Yes, I am having trouble making up my mind. The good news is that this hasn't cost me much money and has given me a reasonably decent non-scientific basis to compare some of the 70-200 options.

I have both right now. I posted this in another thread, but in the very short time Ive owned the Canon, I think the low light focusing is better on the sigma. A few times Ive had the VII travel past the focus plane and then stop and come back to it. Ive never ever had the Sigma do that. While the Canons motor is faster, it doesnt matter if it has to travel further. That said, the Canon is sharper at 2.8.

Shane, I'll check mine out tonight to see how it performs in that department. (I haven't returned it yet)

An f/2.8 lens is much better than an f/4.0 lens if using an extender. I probably use f/2.8 to blur the background more than in poor light conditions. Something faster than f/2.8 is usually needed when light is too dim to use f/4.0 for action shots.

A 70-200mm lens is okay for something like infield shots of softball and baseball, that's about 100 feet. It is short for wildlife unless you can get really close.

Get what you can afford. Most of us can't tell the difference in IQ anyway.

All the 70-200 are sharp at f4. If you can spare the $ get 2.8 is ii, if not the sigma 2.8 OS. It's a close second at f2.8 with the mk1.