ANOTHER 70-200 f2.8 IS post!

I went to a store yesterday to buy a tripod and got sidetracked, looking at the 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens! Wow. Impressive lens.
Couldn't buy it yet because I hadn't done any "research," so I read a bunch of posts last night on this forum. And the "digital-picture" review.
Couple of things I'd like to ask and straighten out....
The lens is quite heavy. Do you get used to that? Is it suitable for travel, hiking, etc. How about hand held portraits? Is a tripod recommended (I'm getting a new one of those, too!)?
Do the extenders work with this lens? I think I read that you lose some auto or IS functions (with the 40d). Is that a big deal? The IQ seems to be fine (from what I saw on some posts) with the 1.4 extender. Agree?
The f4 version is obviously less money and weight. However, I like the idea, generally, of a 2.8 lens for various reasons. But, I also read that the f4 version has better IQ and a better IS system. And it focuses closer. Is that a big deal? Do you ever feel like the 2.8 can't focus close enough?
Seems like the f4 has a lot goin' for it, though I prefer the idea of the one stop wider aperture.
(NOTE: I didn't even look at the f4 version while I was at the store!!)
Anything I'm missing? Once I get this all straight in my mind, I'm prepared to get 2.8 lens...and soon!
As usual, thanks.

I preferred the weight of the f/4 IS version, which is about half the weight, but that's because I travel with a rather large kit, so cutting down the weight helps tremendously over a long day. You will not lose any functions with a 1.4x (on either the f/4 or f/2.8 versions)...and you will not lose any functions on the f/2.8 with a 2x extender. If you buy an f/4 version with a 2x, you will lose autofocus on every body except the 1-series.

Both are exceptional lenses. If you need the f/2.8 aperture for low light action shooting, then it's worth every penny over the f/4. If you don't, then I don't think it is. For me, the IS on the f/4 IS makes up for the stop of shutter speed in most situations, and I have a long f/2.8 prime for those instances where I absolutely need f/2.8 (Sigma 150).

WITH a 1.4 tc +f5.6 it could limit you shooting over a f2.8 with a tc should you be needing a tc that is.
Just a point to consider.
Rob

he lens is quite heavy. Do you get used to that? I travelled for 2 weeks in Nicaragua with this lens attached 70-80% of the time to my gripped camera. I also had 17-40L, 10-22, 50/1.4, 100/2.8 in my backpack. Same kit has travelled with me to Montreal, Whislter, and NYC. I've even snowboarded with my gripped 40D/70-200 combo slung around my shoulders. It is a beast, but it's not as heavy as many make it out to be. I have since downsized to a mainly prime setup, but the 70-200 still reamins in my travel kit. That should say a lot about this lens. AND I still don't think this lens is comparatively heavy. In fact, the weight is very welcome as it's supremely balanced on my camera.

Is it suitable for travel, hiking, etc. How about hand held portraits? Absolutely. One of the best for this job.

Is a tripod recommended (I'm getting a new one of those, too!)?no, but it's nice

Do the extenders work with this lens? 1.4x (either Kenko or Canon) works fantastic, 2x I've seen great results, and am contemplating picking up a 2x.

I think I read that you lose some auto or IS functions (with the 40d). Is that a big deal? you don't lose any function on the 40D with this lens. Works as it should.

The IQ seems to be fine (from what I saw on some posts) with the 1.4 extender. Agree?yes, see above, and the 70-200 tc post here

If you buy the 2.8IS version the only thing you'd probably complain about is the weight. I do find focusing to be an issue when I'm really close to the subject (closer than aprox 4 feet). I'm not really concerned since when I ever use this lens I intend to zoom into a far subject.

At this moment in time I'd want the most versatility I can from a limited amount of lenses. I dont hike so the weight issue is no concern to me. A monopod will be your saviour if you intend to hold the lens for a very long duration. If in due time you yearn for lighter weight you'll easily find a used 70-200 f4 (IS) version since it appears a very high percentage of people change to a 1 stop faster 2.8 (IS) version.

If you want more bokeh the 2.8 version may be a tad more appealing. Some may just say buy a faster prime lens but if you want to max out your gear with little glass selection the 2.8 IS may work for you. Another consideration is buy the f4 version and with the extra money that you'd be spending on a 2.8 IS you can almost buy a 135L or an 85 1.8 with extra money in your pocket.

The 70-200/2.8IS is a staple of wedding, event, PJ, and even portrait photographers for a very good reason. It makes an excellent handheld portrait lens- that's the point of IS and a long focal length with wide aperture. Absolutely you get used to the weight, or at least I did. Keep in mind that when the 70-200 isn't mounted on my 1dm2 the the 24-70 is (usually with a flash), so I may not be the best judge of weight.

I either case, it's a great lens due to its excellent optics and versatility - it essentially replaced several primes in my bag.

The first time or two out you notice the weight. After all..it IS a big lens but after that, for me anyway, the weight became a non-issue. I'm 5'3" and weigh 110# so if I can carry it all day???

Thanks for all the input so far.
Nothing negative to persuade me NOT to get this. That's good!
I figured everyone gets used to the weight. Or...gets a monopod!
Just a little concerned, still, about the close focusing capabilities. It won't matter to me unless it gets to be a problem composing head shot portraits...does it? That is, can you still get a nice close cropped head shot with this lens? That's what I'm counting on.

Thanks for all the responses, tips, and comments so far. This forum is really great!

For the price, you'd think it's magic. Then you use it, and it is! So sharp the 2.8 IS. I use it for sports and indoor concerts and weddings. Everyone with the 24-70 already has no trouble with the weight, those two lenses are extensions of the other. Very nice. I have those in my bag whenever I can only take 2 lenses. You'll love it.

If you come up short on focus distance add a 12mm tube.

The 70-200f/2.8Lis is never off the wife's 40d.

if "research" was your only obstacle, you should have just picked it up.

When I got the 100-400L lens, weight really was a factor. Perhaps it is the combination of the longer focal length (I was using it on a 20D, then a 40D) and the weight that has left it sitting, all prepared in its lens coat, in the case.

When I saw that the weight was the only "con" listed at B&H for the 70-200 2.8 IS, I knew what I was getting into. And while it is heavy, it is my favorite lens. My only question is what kind of strap does one use with the ultra-heavy lenses? I don't use one at all, which requires more attention, but I can't believe that it is good on the camera, the mount, or my neck for that matter to use a conventional strap with all that weight hanging.

OK, it isn't my only question. I love the shallow depth of field but, more often than not with portraits, it is too shallow. (Eyes in focus, nose not... or one person in focus, second a few inches back not...) Anybody got some guidelines for shooting group portraits?

The weekend with my gripped 5D, I shot with the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with Canon 1.4 TC II while standing on the beach for six hours. I did have a good amount of moments where I can cradle the lens, or rest it against my Think Tank ChangeUp that was strapped around my waist. Felt great after the six hour shoot; the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lens weight is a non-issue for me. Though, now my camera with smaller lenses feel weightless, whereas I used to find them heavy as compared with my point and shoot. I am looking to swap my 24-105 with a 24-70, like one forum member has and as posted further above, and carry a 2-zoom combination for event work.

70-200 f/2.8 L IS with Canon 1.4 TC II; Jones Beach Air Show this weekend:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

neumanns wrote in post #5594765
If you come up short on focus distance add a 12mm tube.

Hmm, mine won't focus with the EF12II tube

But I absolutely love the 70-200 2.8L IS!