EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM or IS II USM

Hey guys,

is the Canon Lens EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM really worth the extra 1k ?
I'm not really keen on almost $2700 in the IS II if I don't have to

Yes, IS is nice and I do appreciate it at times on my 100-400 EF f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

I am looking at the 70 - 200 as mainly an indoor/outdoor portraiture lens and as an overlap between the 24-105 and the 100-400 but obviously with the faster optics than either of those other 2 lenses

thanks for your thoughts

cheers
Dave

2700?
If you wait for sales you can get it on the 1900 range like I did. DEFINITELY worth it at that price.

Hi Dustin
thanks for responding

That's AU$2700 ($2674)
Us poor Aussies pay dearly for stuff in this part of the world
Never seen one on special. I could save a bit buying one in from the USA
but its a big risk with no warranty backup

Would you consider the non IS II as still a good value for money lens ?

Dave

I owned the version I and now own version II. For me, it was worth it. I use this lens a lot. Indoors and out. I don't care about the weight because its always on my tripod.

Good Luck!

Thanks for your input

D

Wow that's expensive even for Australians. I got mine for $2499 in Perth.

I say, do it once, do it right !

70-200 II is my most used lens and for me it is worth the money. Honestly, when you enjoy what this lens produces, price is good. It is same price as 24-70II, but for me 70-200 is like 1000 times more important (for me,personally). I think it cost me 2300 USD or so.

Taken 2 weeks ago with 70-200 II:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I definitely wanted the IS as it is likely that with a fast lens like the 70-200 F/2/8 you may shoot more at low light and lower shutter speeds. Canon IS is effective as I experienced with my 24-105 and 100-400 (both IS). And I have checked it out: shooting the same situation/subject with and without IS switched on.

But I just did not have the extra 1K for a Canon 70-200 F/2.8 L IS so I bought the Tamron equivalent instead. That one is about the price of the Canon without IS but has VC (vibration control).
I am happy with the Tamron - only drawback is that I find the focussing a bit slow in action situations. There I prefer the 100-400mm L Other than that the Tamron has great IQ.
May be an alternative.... ?

Well all this should be enough. But I've had the 70-200 f4. The 100-400. The Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS (which is outstanding for the price). But I have zero regrets buying the 70-200 II. One thing to keep in mind though, it's big. And heavy. But AF is fast and accurate. Bokeh is as good as it gets for a 200 2.8. I think at 200 2.8 it rivals the 135L, with more compression. On the 5d3 it's amazing. It's one you won't likely sell. Throw a 2x on it and it's almost as good as the 100-400 if not as good but a little slower AF.

Thanks for everyone's input, much appreciated
.... looks like I will just accumulate that extra grand

cdang ... $2499 I assume that was new ? care to share where in Perth ? and how long ago ?
would be interesting to see if its still listed at that price and how much to ship to Sydney

light_pilgrim .... that's an impressive shallow DOF example from the lens, thanks for posting

Henk, Thanks for your thoughts on the Tamron option, I will at least have a look at it
But I suspect I will end up going the Canon way
Looks like you are also an amateur radio op like myself ... VK2TDN

cheers
Dave

I concur. I have the 70-200 f/4 and the f/2.8IS - even though I don't shoot wide open a lot, I'm often in situations where I need that steadiness and there's no place to put a monopod so the IS saves the day. In spite of the extra cost and weight, I don't regret buying it. The f/2.8 non-IS wasn't even a consideration, given the advantages IS provides me.

Save up for the IS II. Someone mentioned tamron VC. I found that the VC on my 70-300 is better than the IS on the 70-200 f/2.8 II when compared at 200mm on the Canon vs. 300mm (!) On the tamron.

wow that shot is amazing @ pilgrim

70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II.
Worth every dime.

I have the non IS version and would prefer the IS version II. That said, I still love mine and I just accept I won't have as many keepers in lower light shooting. If I was in the market now it would be with IS, no question!!!