Which telephoto?

I don't think the original canon 70-200 2.8 is worth the money or weight. the f4IS is a gem. if you need the 2.8, and can handle the bulk, the II 2.8 IS is the king these days, money no object.

mcluckie wrote in post #10708868
I don't think the original canon 70-200 2.8 is worth the money or weight. the f4IS is a gem. if you need the 2.8, and can handle the bulk, the II 2.8 IS is the king these days, money no object.

ya but 2.8 is good for stopping action, which is important for sports. for a walk around generic lens, the 2.8 is a little big compared to the f4 IS, but the 70-200s arent really walkaround lenses. they are for specified purposes usually.

i don't do sports. I like 2.8 for isolation. I never felt the iq of the original 2.8 was sharp enough to be usable.

jamesb wrote in post #10708391
I agree. I just ordered a 70-200 2.8 Mark II and am offloading my 70-200 f/4 Non IS. I'm excited and nervous. My f/4 is tack sharp...like insane! Look at this and see for yourself.

http://www.jamesbernat​chezphoto.com …125_nWbKb#66272​5896_fSdb2

I pray I get a good copy of the new 2.8 model. I'm posting the f/4 up tonight for sale.

I am lusting for a 100-400L right now, but it isn't in the budget at all yet.

I think a 70-200 will do you well.

i've never heard a bad word spoken of the mark ii

mikejet wrote in post #10709347
i've never heard a bad word spoken of the mark ii

i never even heard of a bad 70-200 2.8 non IS! i have heard and I have had a mediocre 24-70 2.8 L, which i ended up switching and getting a very nice sharp copy though. i also have heard of 100-400 Ls that werent to good. but most of this is because of these users who think that buying big expensive glass will improve their photography, and end up making lots of user errors.

Doesn't it suffer from the same poor IQ wide open and at 200mm infinity focus? Can't say its BAD, just not as good as the f4IS. Once you know how good a lens can be (I think Zeiss and Leica), poor IQ translates to bad.

I had 2 bad ones. Sharpness was OK, just boring rendering. Now I have a converted Zeiss 24-85 and it's MUCH better. If you live with only mediocrity, you think that's true greatness.

I hear the argument about both these issues that "at least I got the shot". Thats a pretty low bar. I do gallery work and that doesn't cut it.

Check out used 100-400's on ebay. Most people selling this type of item have taken very good care of their equipment. My 100-400 is the sole "L" lens I've bought new, and I use it all the time as it has great range.

mcluckie wrote in post #10719780
Doesn't it suffer from the same poor IQ wide open and at 200mm infinity focus? Can't say its BAD, just not as good as the f4IS. Once you know how good a lens can be (I think Zeiss and Leica), poor IQ translates to bad.


I had 2 bad ones. Sharpness was OK, just boring rendering. Now I have a converted Zeiss 24-85 and it's MUCH better. If you live with only mediocrity, you think that's true greatness.

I hear the argument about both these issues that "at least I got the shot". Thats a pretty low bar. I do gallery work and that doesn't cut it.

i never really tried the 70-200 at infinity focus, but I use wide open all the time at 2.8. It gets alot better when stopped to f3.2, but still very good @ 2.8. My 24-70 is for the most part really sharp at 2.8. the only canon lens i hate i the nifty fifty, mine isnt good till about f4!,

What about the tamron 70-200 2.8? Is it worth considering?

I use Canon 70-210 f/4, the one Canon introduced in late 80's. Very special lens, sturdy, so you can still find it on eBay for ~$150. I can hear some sneers already.... ok, just hear this from a professional: http://www.kenrockwell​.com/canon/lenses/70-210mm.htm

theelectrician wrote in post #10721613
What about the tamron 70-200 2.8? Is it worth considering?

the tamron, is much slower at focusing then either the canon/sigma. though it has very good optics, but for sports or fast action its not very good.

I will rule that one out then

theelectrician wrote in post #10722592
I will rule that one out then

i suggest that u try the sigma and the canon, if the sigma is enough to your liking then go for it. its is very good lens, wish i had the opportunity to use it outdoors, but it gave me very good results indoors too.

I think that is what I will do. Borrowlenses.com has a pickup location not too far from me so I think I will rent the sigma from them for when I go to Formula D next month