Is the 70-200 2.8 Is that bad of a lens?

I have been using a 70-200f4 for sports.Wanted a 2.8 for low light. Found a decent deal on a 70-200 2.8 IS. I read it wasn't sharp at 2.8. Did i waste my money?

The mk1 2.8 IS was a little.soft wide open. Whether you can live with that is really a matter of you looking at your own images and deciding for yourself if the results are acceptable

It certainly won't be as sharp as the 70-200f4 IS as it was a newer lens design.

Atrawick wrote in post #19087738
I have been using a 70-200f4 for sports.Wanted a 2.8 for low light. Found a decent deal on a 70-200 2.8 IS. I read it wasn't sharp at 2.8. Did i waste my money?

You've got a trade-off: sharpness vs digital noise. What do you want?

I have the 70-200 f/4 IS and used it for sports. Issue was I couldn't get the reach I needed for girls varsity soccer. While I've considered the f/2.8 IS, I've not been able to justify the 2x cost or the 2x weight. No matter, it's in my queue to purchase.

I eventually got a used 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS, the MkI. Yes, on the weight side it's a beast in comparison with the 70-200. I use a monopod with a ball head. I bought the MkI after the MkII was released. The reviews on the MkI were decidedly bad when compared with the MkII. I obviously purchased a piece of junk. That piece of junk remains an L lens that has very decent reviews prior to the release of the MkII. When I look at the photos I'VE taken with it, I've yet to have an iota of regret for getting this "lesser" lens.

(Btw, it's a push-pull zoom. For sports, it's fantastic. Many people hate push-pull; when you're on the edge of the field and the action is moving soccer fast, if you can't zoom instantaneously, you'll miss photos of the current action.)

I've seen good reviews of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I'd love to have one! I'd say, enjoy it! Your ability with it is going to be dependent on how you shoot with it. If you have the camera do everything for you (full auto, for instance), good luck; the perfect lens in the world won't help you here. If you make your choices, such as shooting manual and choosing your exposure settings, you have the chance of doing well. At the end of the 2019 season (2020 was non-existent), I was shooting M, 1/1000s, f/5.6, and ISO 32000 during night games with a Canon 5D MkIV.

You've got the lens. Now go shoot with it. Screw what the reviewers say. If you can get the photos you want, the reviews don't matter. Now go have some fun with your new lens!

Short answer: No. you definitely did not waste your money. For many, including myself, this is the go-to, all-around best lens.

I think it’s exceptional. Relax, learn and enjoy your lens !

IMAGE LINK: https://mikester.smugm​ug.com …n-VI/n-RtVqs4/i-VmtJddx/A

IMAGE LINK: https://mikester.smugm​ug.com …and-Prix-2018/i-xCzX5Fr/A

IMAGE LINK: https://mikester.smugm​ug.com …and-Prix-2018/i-cNJTL65/A

My f4 is non IS.

if you stop it down to f4 it'll be sharp

TustinMike wrote in post #19087775
Short answer: No. you definitely did not waste your money. For many, including myself, this is the go-to, all-around best lens.

I think it’s exceptional. Relax, learn and enjoy your lens !

IMAGE LINK: https://mikester.smugm​ug.com …n-VI/n-RtVqs4/i-VmtJddx/A

IMAGE LINK: https://mikester.smugm​ug.com …and-Prix-2018/i-xCzX5Fr/A

IMAGE LINK: https://mikester.smugm​ug.com …and-Prix-2018/i-cNJTL65/A

he's talking about the predecessor to your lens

If there's any doubt check out the lens sample thread...

ed rader wrote in post #19088011
he's talking about the predecessor to your lens

Exactly. The mkII is amazing wide open.

True; but this more that the MkII is that *good* and not so much that the MkI is bad.

The original one was widely regarded for its time and isn’t a ‘waste’. Compared to your f/4 non-IS, it may be a little softer when you’re pixel peeping and looking for a problem. But, if you just go use it and judge it on its own merits, I’m sure you’ll be happy.