EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM – I don't know if I like it.

Hey guys! So I bought a 70-200 from a user on here, and well, to be honest, I'm not sure if I really like it. While it allows me to use focal lengths I may not normally be able to use, the images just don't shine that much for me. It's obviously very heavy, very bulky, and although it has image stabilization, many of my images are still blurry – likely poor technique on my part. That said, I've only had the lens for one day, so I can't really say much. But that's my initial impression so far. I haven't had a chance to use it on an actual shoot yet, so I'll save that aspect of my impressions of it until then.

Am I alone in my thoughts?

I've been debating grabbing a 50mm f/1.2L.

It's a great lens, top notch optics.

Just big and not totally inspiring. The 85 and 135 tend to look better because you behave differently shooting a prime. The 70-200 is a non nonsense get the job done type of lens for events or sports. It's a jack of all trades, master of none.

Sounds like your technique is suffering, as you concluded, from not being accustomed to larger lenses. Shows up more on your hi res body

Give it time and adjust. A small shift in hand position can improve handling substantially.

70-200 is the bread and butter of many peoples collections.

I personally never blame gear =). Gear is only as good as how you use it.

Heya,

It's a superb lens, no question.

On a high resolution body, it will behave differently and require different usage than on a lower resolution full frame body.

Big heavy lenses require different physical requirements.

Even awesome lenses are not always ideal for everyone's preferences.

I used to use a 70-200 but really just didn't care for it. I basically either used it at 70mm or 200mm, and I ended up rather prefering an 85mm prime and a 200mm prime, so I use those instead of a zoom. I much prefer using my 200 F2.8L prime over a 70-200. It's small, light, yet still long, fast and sharp.

It's all about preferences.

You'll figure yours out. Doesn't matter if everyone else loves the MKII.

Very best,

Either a defective lens copy or a defective user.

This is one of the best zooms on the market.
If shooting with IS on, be sure to wait about half a second between half-press and shutter release.

The 50/1.2 is even worse for people who lack proper technique.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18161673
Either a defective lens copy or a defective user.

This is one of the best zooms on the market.

Agreed. I've owned a 70-200 f/4 IS for a few years and recently added the f/2.8 II. Initially I thought I'd only use the f/2.8 II when I needed the extra stop and keep the much lighter f/4 IS for other tasks when the light is better.

Unlike the thread starter, I'm already familiar with that focal length, weight, and and size of lens (I also own a 100-400 but its a v1 push/pull), but there was still a bit of technique adjustment required for the f/2.8 lens.

After spending some time with it, I'm surprised how much I really like the f/2.8 IS. So much so that I'm actually considering selling my much-loved f/4 IS. I really didn't that coming but the f/2.8 IS II is a great lens.

I'm on my third copy of this lens as the first two had problems.
My current copy is very good in all situations.

Do I like it? No, not really. It serves a purpose and nothing more.
I only have one lens I like, that being a v2 85L.


Depending on what you predominantly shoot, a 50L may be a good option.

As I say, depends what you shoot.

Had the 70-200 mkII since it first came out. Good bouquet but have not used it much - I really must re-visit it. I like the DOF at f2.8.
I was thinking of trading it in toward a 5DS R body and new 24-105 mkII. The 24-105L and the new excellent 100-400L mkII see me over most of my general shooting needs but I do like the f2.8 aperture sometimes. So I will be hanging on to it.
I think, in general, I'm not as impressed by the 70-200L 2.8 as I thought I would be.

I've never noticed that Canon lenses have a smell.

If weight is an issue but you need f2.8, try the non IS version.

bildeb0rg wrote in post #18161798
If weight is an issue but you need f2.8, try the non IS version.

Interesting that you picked an example shot where the 70-200/4 IS for the same money would have done better: its below 1/200" where most people would start seeing an advantage from IS and its stopped down to f4.

To the OP, you might want to check if the AF needs adjustment or complete recalibration. Shoot a static subject on a tripod in both through the view finder AF and live view. If the live view image is sharper, you want to micro adjust and go from there.

mike_d wrote in post #18161708
Agreed. I've owned a 70-200 f/4 IS for a few years and recently added the f/2.8 II. Initially I thought I'd only use the f/2.8 II when I needed the extra stop and keep the much lighter f/4 IS for other tasks when the light is better.

After spending some time with it, I'm surprised how much I really like the f/2.8 IS. So much so that I'm actually considering selling my much-loved f/4 IS. I really didn't that coming but the f/2.8 IS II is a great lens.

Interesting because I have the 70-200/4 IS now and also the 135L. I have been thinking about upgrading the f4 to the new 2.8 II but I know I am going to buy a FF after the new 6d2 comes out: if not that then either the 5d3 or 5d4. Thing is I would get more than a one stop advantage going FF from crop in ISO from my 7D than I would get going from f4 to f2.8. Plus I would get to keep the lighter f4 on the camera that way. But I still want the 2.8.

My first 70-200 was the Sigma f/2.8 OS. Nice lens. To big for general use. On the the EF f/4L IS. Much more manageable lens, and it gets used more often. If I need more than f/4, I have an 85 1.8, 135L and 200 2.8II. Throw in a 1.4X II TC, and a 100-400, and I don't see much need for a 70-200 2.8L of any flavor.

If your images are consistently blurry, I must ask, what shutter speed are you using?