# Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 15, 2013)

Discuss the review of the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II here.


----------



## Atonegro (Jan 15, 2013)

The link is not working.

Or maybe I am too fast ?


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 15, 2013)

Good review Justin. Excellent lens; the only gripe I have with this lens is it is heavy... but life is full of compromises.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 16, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> Discuss the review of the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II here.



Without reading the review, just give me this lens and 24-70 f2.8 II on FF...........I'm done :-X

No need to carry: 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, and 200L


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 16, 2013)

I have the non IS version. I'm looking to upgrade to this beuty!!!


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 16, 2013)

Quote from review: 
"the white-Canon barrel paint is a distinctive “big lens” giveaway, and while the 200mm reach will buy you some space from your subjects, I can’t say that this is an ideal inconspicuous street portrait lens. It’ll also slow you down if you try and run away – but the weight could come in handy as a weapon if you find yourself in a sticky situation."

*Chuckle* this is so true though... the white L's are the result of Canon's branding obsession... they could easily make it a less conspicuous black. A friend and I had a near call in a bad neighborhood recently, but I dont' think using the 70-200 II as a heavy metal pipe would have helped if the thugs had guns...which they probably did...we didn't stop to find out.


----------



## stoneysnapper (Jan 16, 2013)

Excellent review. I've had this lens for nearly 2 years and use it primarily for shooting football (soccer) matches and it is just superb. Matched with the 1Dx I rarely miss a shot and if I do its usually my fault for setting the camera/autofocus wrong. I agree the only real downside is the weight, it really is heavy at circa 1.4kg. The use of a Black Rapid strap has helped big time though. 

If you can afford it this lens is without doubt the medium tele-zoom to buy. That said I've considered re-purchasing the F4 non IS, just for its low weight, it is a great lens too.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 16, 2013)

If they made a 135mm f/1.8 IS, I'd lose complete interest in this lens. Until then, I continue to weight the value of this lens in my work.


----------



## kukhuvud (Jan 16, 2013)

Yup, I've been renting one of these babies when I need it; it'll surely be the next lens I actually buy.

Unless I happen to come into some 200mm f2 money. :


----------



## eli72 (Jan 16, 2013)

I shoot a lot of sports, and if I had to choose only one lens, this would be the one.


----------



## Standard (Jan 16, 2013)

> If they made a 135mm f/1.8 IS, I'd lose complete interest in this lens. Until then, I continue to weight the value of this lens in my work.



The current 135L is every bit as good. I really see no reason to hold your breath.


----------



## skitron (Jan 16, 2013)

I just got a 70-200 IS2 in last week and it is an absolute gem. I liked it so much and it tested out so well that I immediately went to Canon USA website and registered warranty, no way this one is going back.  

The price and size/weight are pretty hefty over my 200L 2.8 but the zoom and IS are worth it for my primary use case. That said, the 200L 2.8 is also so stinking good, plus small, better bokeh and cheap, I may keep it as well for times I don't need zoom and IS and want to be inconspicuous. AF on both is top notch.


----------



## localhost (Jan 16, 2013)

This is my favorite lens - almost 80-90% is on the camera. Even for every day shots with the family.

Here is a sample shot


----------



## Robert Welch (Jan 16, 2013)

I have the first version of this lens and am very happy with it. One knock I've seen commented on about the mkII is the bokeh is a bit more 'nervous' as compared to the first version. Not to say it's bad, but just not as 'creamy' as the original version. Aside from the cost to upgrade, this one quality is of concern to me in contemplating an upgrade. Can anyone comment on this comparison, is it fair to say the mkII isn't quite as nice in this one respect as compared to the original 70-200/2.8 IS?


----------



## ddashti (Jan 16, 2013)

There can never be enough to say about this lens!


----------



## infared (Jan 16, 2013)

Robert Welch said:


> I have the first version of this lens and am very happy with it. One knock I've seen commented on about the mkII is the bokeh is a bit more 'nervous' as compared to the first version. Not to say it's bad, but just not as 'creamy' as the original version. Aside from the cost to upgrade, this one quality is of concern to me in contemplating an upgrade. Can anyone comment on this comparison, is it fair to say the mkII isn't quite as nice in this one respect as compared to the original 70-200/2.8 IS?



I owned version I of the lens...when I saw the sharpness of the II version...I gulped at the price...but made the leap, selling my version I to help finance my lens mania, LOL. Every time I shoot with the lens I now get to gulp at the images...the sharpness ALWAYS wows me! Every time. ...but yes as usual in photography...it comes with a trade off..the bokeh is more "nervous"...but for me the sharpness is so astounding thru the zoom range that I accept the trade off.
If I really need to get serious about bokeh I pick up my 85mm f/1.2...and I am considering picking up a 135mm f/2.0 so that I can have fast AF AND creamy backgrounds when needed, as the 85L does not lend itself to fast AF....Seems that you just cannot have it all!!!


----------



## mrmarks (Jan 16, 2013)

How does the IQ of the 70-200L2.8II compare with the non-IS version? Anyone done a comparison with both lenses on a FF body? Thanks


----------



## eLroberto (Jan 16, 2013)

I just upgraded from an 70-200L 2.8 USM to the IS II. Well, I'm afraid that my English isn't good enough for telling you how worth this was. I never shot at f/2.8 with the version I cause the IQ never satisfied me on open aperture. From aperture 3,5 on it was getting better, even quite good. But nothing of this fits to the IS II. From three shots, the first f/11, second f/8 and third with f/2.8, (from a tripod) you can't even see any difference in IQ in the center frame. Its so amazing! And there is nearly non CA on open aperture. The focus fits on my 7D and is minimum as fast as the old one. But I have to check this on the racetrack to be definitely sure . The in the review mentioned vignetting on open aperture is the only negative thing I recognised by now. But all in all I can assure to you that this lens is worth the money. By the way, it is quite easily possible to get sharp images on 200mm with 1/30 or even less on my 1.6x crop body. 

Kind regards, Robert


----------



## Viggo (Jan 16, 2013)

Once again I have decided to sell the 85 L to buy a 70-200, 5th time now I think ;D


----------



## PavelR (Jan 16, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Without reading the review, just give me this lens and 24-70 f2.8 II on FF...........I'm done :-X
> 
> No need to carry: 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, and 200L


Do you care about IQ?
70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2013)

PavelR said:


> Do you care about IQ?
> 70-200 II is not able to replace 85/135/200Ls in many situations...



IQ? The 70-200 II is equal to or better than most of the primes in it's focal range in terms of IQ - basically, the differences are so minor as to be marginal in rigorous testing (charts/Imatest) and practically irrelevant in real-world shots. The reason for the fast primes _used to be_ IQ, shallower DoF, more light, and smaller/lighter (for a single lens, not the set). At this point, for all practical purposes, it's down to shallower DoF, more light (debatable with a newer FF body and the excellent high-ISO performance) and smaller/lighter.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> PavelR said:
> 
> 
> > Do you care about IQ?
> ...



Which is exactly my reasons for getting primes in the first place, but now I see the 24-70 and the 70-200 mk2's and to ME the incredible AF-speed of the zooms along with equal or better IQ, I'm getting rid of some primes. I'm keeping the 35 and 50 as the shallow dof favorites and getting the 24-70 instead of my 24 f1.4.

As always the 85 L is incredible! but what good does that do when the AF just can't cope with tiny rapid movements or my kids walking across the floor, to get sharp images I need to get more dof, stop it down to 2,8 helps, why not then use a 70-200 instead.

The only reason for fast primes for me now is shallow dof. I get MUCH better indoor images at iso 400 and flash to the roof than with 1,4 and iso 6400....


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 16, 2013)

"(technically the front 77mm lens element requires a filter to be fully weather sealed)"

I have always wondered about this. On this lens and others that make this statement, why make it in a way that needs a filter to make it weather tight? It's like they worked really hard to make it weather tight until they got to the front and said, oh who cares, lets require a filter. 

How can I be sure my filter is weather tight? How can Canon?

To be honest, I put my gear away when it starts to rain, an I don't run my gear under he faucet to clean it. I just wonder why they "require a filter".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2013)

TexPhoto said:


> "(technically the front 77mm lens element requires a filter to be fully weather sealed)"
> 
> I have always wondered about this. On this lens and others that make this statement, why make it in a way that needs a filter to make it weather tight? It's like they worked really hard to make it weather tight until they got to the front and said, oh who cares, lets require a filter.
> 
> ...



That statement in the review is not correct. There are only a few 'sealed' lenses that _require_ a front filter to complete the sealing - the 16-35L I/II, 17-40L, and 50L. Those lenses have a front group that retracts into the lens barrel with zooming/focusing, and for those lenses, the requirement for a front filter to complete the sealing is clearly stated in the manual for the lens. 

Chuck Westfall has _recommended_ the use of a front filter with all sealed lenses that take one, but he didn't state that it was required. Basically, a little extra insurance.


----------



## etg9 (Jan 16, 2013)

I just got one for myself for the holidays and what a great present it is. I've been very happy with the look and feel of everything so far. This and the 16-35 never leave my bag.


----------



## infared (Jan 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> PavelR said:
> 
> 
> > Do you care about IQ?
> ...



+100...these new zooms are amazingingly sharp with great contrast!!!


----------



## crasher8 (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm pretty torn between this and the new Tamron 60-200 with VC. True, not bi directional and 4 stop VC but it is black AND 700 dollars less. Haven't found too many articles and comments persuading me to go with Canon. Maybe the TC compatibility issues and it being on a 5D3 (Kenko problems) might make me go for the Canon. Hmmmmm


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> I'm pretty torn between this and the new Tamron 60-200 with VC. True, not bi directional and 4 stop VC but it is black AND 700 dollars less. Haven't found too many articles and comments persuading me to go with Canon...



How about the difference in sharpness at 200mm? They're similar at the short end, but the Tamron 70-200 VC appears significantly worse at the long end.


----------



## Standard (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: Review - *



> Without reading the review, just give me this lens and 24-70 f2.8 II on FF...........I'm done
> 
> No need to carry: 24L, 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, and 200L





> IQ? The 70-200 II is equal to or better than most of the primes in it's focal range in terms of IQ - basically, the differences are so minor as to be marginal in rigorous testing (charts/Imatest) and practically irrelevant in real-world shots. The reason for the fast primes used to be IQ, shallower DoF, more light, and smaller/lighter (for a single lens, not the set). At this point, for all practical purposes, it's down to shallower DoF, more light (debatable with a newer FF body and the excellent high-ISO performance) and smaller/lighter.



No doubt the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is a superb piece of glass, if not the best of the Canon zooms. However, I'd rather carry any, or several, of these primes over it. The primes are lighter, much easier to carry and conceal; more discreet to shoot with therefore will yield more quality and candid shoots. Try carrying a big, heavy white lens around for half the night in any major city and I think you'd wish you had a prime. As for image quality, I am sure it's good and won't argue about that but I think its image quality is comparable to that of primes but not better.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 16, 2013)

Viggo said:


> The only reason for fast primes for me now is shallow dof.


... and smaller and lighter is still a reason too (for me).


----------



## RVB (Jan 16, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason for fast primes for me now is shallow dof.
> ...



Low weight of primes is a big plus,if you don't carry it then you don't shoot it...


----------



## skitron (Jan 16, 2013)

RVB said:


> Low weight of primes is a big plus



Maybe not so much with the 200L f/2.0  though I'd love to have one of those too.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 16, 2013)

*Re: Review - *



Standard said:


> No doubt the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is a superb piece of glass, if not the best of the Canon zooms. However, I'd rather carry any, or several, of these primes over it. The primes are lighter, much easier to carry and conceal; more discreet to shoot with therefore will yield more quality and candid shoots. Try carrying a big, heavy white lens around for half the night in any major city and I think you'd wish you had a prime. As for image quality, I am sure it's good and won't argue about that but I think its image quality is comparable to that of primes but not better.



+1... I cannot agree more. 

On the one hand this has emerged as that "must have lens" based on reputation and those who think this gives them street "cred" as having "arrived" (you know who you are...don’t deny it! ..) ...and yes The overall IQ is superb...no arguments from me.

But I have always had issues with the bulk, weight, and obviousness of this lens...these are not small issues. 

So let me think this aloud...I guess it comes down to what one uses it for so read the rest as a personal musing...not a broadswipe at this excellent performer.

For tele "reach" this is an intermediary zoom at 200mm...doesn't get you close enough to the birds or the players as a 400mm would without extenders the use of which does knock a few pegs off IQ. This lens probably does best in "near" sports venues... soccer parents, basketball games, and nearer wild-life shots like squirrel and blue jay on your backyard rail or that swan in the park pond. While I have dabbled in this very occasionally, this is not my forte...and whipping out a foot-and-a-half long rather thick lens with hood among decent people is just head-turning. 

Yet, it weighs a ton and if you have it around on the bleachers it weighs down on you, gawkers are starring, and when you walk in the dark alley, good luck. 

As portraits go, it does a sharp job, but at f/2.8 it is not a full substitute for a much lighter, real portrait primes at f/1.4 or f/2 even. For portraiture I have several much faster primes (85L II, 135L, and 35L for wides) in the range not to mention their size, weight, and portability!!. And if you tripod the zoom for indoor portraits or anywhere, then the IS becomes a nonissue...in fact you have to turn it off! 

May be, above all, I am conscious about the zoom's weight and size and certainly unable to carry it for long on the 1 series or the 5 series bodies, and on my little toy crop it is an unbalanced monster of a lens...and I have always been concerned about the "obviousness".

If you don't use it much, which unfortunately I don't, I guess the high IQ really doesn't matter. I think the house cat plays with it more when I unpack camera bags. 

Oh dear, I may have suddenly arrived at a Cathartic moment here...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 16, 2013)

PavelR said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Without reading the review, just give me this lens and 24-70 f2.8 II on FF...........I'm done :-X
> ...



I wouldn't spend my money on 24-70 f2.8 II & 70-200 f2.8 IS II, if IQ is not important in photography.


----------



## shinjuku-thief (Jan 17, 2013)

stoneysnapper said:


> Excellent review. I've had this lens for nearly 2 years and use it primarily for shooting football (soccer) matches and it is just superb. Matched with the 1Dx I rarely miss a shot and if I do its usually my fault for setting the camera/autofocus wrong. I agree the only real downside is the weight, it really is heavy at circa 1.4kg. The use of a Black Rapid strap has helped big time though.
> 
> If you can afford it this lens is without doubt the medium tele-zoom to buy. That said I've considered re-purchasing the F4 non IS, just for its low weight, it is a great lens too.



Quick question, you're using it with a 1.4x or 2x? The one time I used it, I found shooting football (soccer) that the long end on a crop is good to just over the half way line. Would you agree?


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 17, 2013)

shinjuku-thief said:


> stoneysnapper said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent review. I've had this lens for nearly 2 years and use it primarily for shooting football (soccer) matches and it is just superb. Matched with the 1Dx I rarely miss a shot and if I do its usually my fault for setting the camera/autofocus wrong. I agree the only real downside is the weight, it really is heavy at circa 1.4kg. The use of a Black Rapid strap has helped big time though.
> ...



70-200s are mid-range teles which do best in smaller venues...when used for large football fields by usually eager parents it happens in less formal play, school, or local teams and they can get closer to the action by foot by crossing the green or moving to the perimeter of the field where action is closest.... In big ticket professional games, 200mm will not get you close to even the mid field action from the bleachers...let alone far field...you can always crop. Extenders are possible for the price of a few IQ points but ... even they will fall short for really far field scrums. 400mm is a fair bet and 600mm is a sure thing...whichever way you can achieve those...via native zooms, primes, or extender combos... Mind you, a lot of great sports shots have been taken with 70-200 ...however, you gotta be in the right place, is all.


----------



## birtembuk (Jan 17, 2013)

*Re: Review - *

(((lost the quote thing )) 
No doubt the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is a superb piece of glass, if not the best of the Canon zooms. However, I'd rather carry any, or several, of these primes over it. The primes are lighter, much easier to carry and conceal; more discreet to shoot with therefore will yield more quality and candid shoots. Try carrying a big, heavy white lens around for half the night in any major city and I think you'd wish you had a prime. As for image quality, I am sure it's good and won't argue about that but I think its image quality is comparable to that of primes but not better.
(((quote)))

Agree with that. Have both 70-200/II and 85L but I use them in different type of situation. I don't bother to try shooting moving targets with 85L and won't go night street-photo with 70-200.


----------



## shinjuku-thief (Jan 17, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> 70-200s are mid-range teles which do best in smaller venues...when used for large football fields by usually eager parents it happens in less formal play, school, or local teams and they can get closer to the action by foot by crossing the green or moving to the perimeter of the field where action is closest.... In big ticket professional games, 200mm will not get you close to even the mid field action from the bleachers...let alone far field...you can always crop. Extenders are possible for the price of a few IQ points but ... even they will fall short for really far field scrums. 400mm is a fair bet and 600mm is a sure thing...whichever way you can achieve those...via native zooms, primes, or extender combos... Mind you, a lot of great sports shots have been taken with 70-200 ...however, you gotta be in the right place, is all.



I got some shots that I was very happy with, so I know it can do the job, provided I'm in the right place of course. As a somewhat aspirational amateur, limited on most occasions by stadium rules, the longest lens I can carry in is 200mm. Next time I hire one I might try it with an extender, just to see the difference. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 17, 2013)

Robert Welch said:


> I have the first version of this lens and am very happy with it. One knock I've seen commented on about the mkII is the bokeh is a bit more 'nervous' as compared to the first version. Not to say it's bad, but just not as 'creamy' as the original version. Aside from the cost to upgrade, this one quality is of concern to me in contemplating an upgrade. Can anyone comment on this comparison, is it fair to say the mkII isn't quite as nice in this one respect as compared to the original 70-200/2.8 IS?


I've shot all 3 of Canon's EF 70-200 2.8 L's
You *can not beat this latest v2 for sharpness*, it's fantastic! So is the IS, very capable.
A bit of CA in FF corners but that's minor.

But yes, it's *bokeh, at least in some situations, can be hideous and distracting*, especially, in my findings, at wider apertures if there were fine structures just out of the focus plane (tree branches for example). Unfortunately I ran into too many other compositions where the background blur quality was really poor, even when separated from the in-focus subject by a large distance.

I think this is one of those unfortunate compromises when an incredibly sharp zoom is built that has a lot of corrections to fix everything that's IN focus, the stuff that's OUT of focus can sometimes suffer.
I can also create an attractive bokeh, but I've preferred the look of the original non-IS lens for that at times. The v1 IS was so not-sharp at the long end I got rid of it quickly.

Go play with one in the store. You can see some of this effect even in a viewfinder as you adjust focus and zoom. Can be really apparent if you can point out a window at some trees or shrubs where there's some fine structural elements and you'll see the kind of distortion caused as you the controls or even pan the scene. I posted a sample in the lens gallery here.

My new Nikon 70-200/4 VR also does the same thing to a slightly lesser extent which some have referred to as "radial bokeh." I need to do more testing before I determine which lems is more agreeable to me now that the 6D is a camera I also find capable of agreeable image quality to match.

If bokeh quality is as important to you as extreme sharpness then you have a tough decision to make.
I'm also waiting to see how the new stabilized Tamron 70-200/2.8 performs. I've had good results from the earlier version.
I haven't played with any of Canon's f/4 Ls in this range.


----------



## RVB (Jan 17, 2013)

skitron said:


> RVB said:
> 
> 
> > Low weight of primes is a big plus
> ...



I have the 200f2 also,it's a monster, I mostly use it in a indoors ,the DOF is razor thin when shot at f2 and the bokeh is beautiful.. its an exceptional lens but not one you could carry around for very long unless your built like a tank (just like the lens is ).. lol


----------



## fotografiasi (Jan 17, 2013)

I use this lens on a 5d3 and on a 50D, usually for weddings. I need it in bigger churches to catch family expression. At the reception (then I am also a bit more tired) I put it on a monopod. I am really happy with it to for dancing (if I am far enough people do not observe me and they feel much more free and act funny). For the rest of the time, at home or at weddings, I use the canon 85 1.8, when I want to be more inconspicuous. I use those two lenses in conjunction with canon 28 1.8 and canon 17-55 2.8 is


----------



## qianp2k (Jan 17, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Discuss the review of the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II here.
> ...


That's what I did to get two Canon F2.8 II zoom and 17 TS-E in the holiday season with Amazon 10% off sweet deals on top of Canon best instant rebate. Yes I'm done with 5DIII  I don't need those L primes but may get Sigma 35/1.4 or 85/1.4 (hope Sigma updates it) later as they are very good but 1/2 price of Canon counterpart.


----------



## I Simonius (Jan 18, 2013)

I entirely concur with the review. 

I have previously owned the F4 (with and without IS) and the 2.8 versions of this zoom and can say unequivocally that this lens is noticeably better in every regard, image-quality-wise, to those other zooms. Its one major drawback is the weight. You will notice it if carrying for any length of time.

Image-wise, it is IMO *significantly* better then *any* other lens in the same focal range with the possible exception of the 200 f2. So yes , it is better than the 135 that I had, except of course it is no where near as inconspicuous as the 135. The only portrait lens I have had that had a 'better' image quality was the 85 f1.2, where the bokeh is truly creamy and beautiful, but that lens only outdoes this one when _fully open_ and is only useful for _static subjects_ as the 1.2 lens' focussing is horribly slow, whereas the 2.8 zoom is fast and crisp, and has better IQ when stopped down than the 1.2 (which while contrasty doesn't have the same resolving power)

The *IS *on this lens is phenomenal, I have perfectly sharp test images hand held at 1/4 second.

However, because of it's weight I never take it when landscape shooting (which is exclusively what I do nowadays) and because of its size and colour it's no good if you're trying to be inconspicuous. 

For Indoor sports (like martial arts) and portraits and wedding type events is it far and away the best zoom lens there is for the ultimate IQ . 

I bought mine purely for my daughter's wedding but due to it's weight haven't used it since, so if, like me, you no longer shoot weddings, portrait etc and have a bad back, I'd think twice about getting it. I'll be reluctantly selling mine just because if the weight, but I find it hard to let go of, as I've never had a zoom as sharp.

For landscapes, if you want this sort of resolving power, be prepared to cary some weight for the day. (although longer FL lenses are heavier still )

So, for portraits, especially weddings, and sports this zoom cannot be matched.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 18, 2013)

The 70-200II is not better than the 135L for IQ at any aperture. 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## syder (Jan 18, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Measurement Photozone



Lets be honest... If you have a problem with sharpness with either the 135L or the 70-200 2.8 ii the problem isn't the glass 

For video IS is pretty much mandatory for any tele lens that isn't going to be on a tripod 100% of the time, as your shutter speed is largely fixed at 1/50th (if you want natural looking motion blur). 135 is a nice length because it's the traditional length for close ups, but the extra flexibility in terms of both zoom range and stabilisation that comes with the 70-200 makes it a more attractive option for moving images. The weight also tends to be far less of an issue when mounted on a rig (a 5dm3 + rig + 70-200 ii is still lighter than most of the ENG cameras I've used - but having things balanced on your shoulder means that weight isn't the same issue as if its your arms taking the strain).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 18, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The 70-200II is not better than the 135L for IQ at any aperture.



True...but nor is it worse (Klaus at PZ gives slightly higher numbers to the 70-200 II across the frame at most apertures, although probably not real-world relevant). That being the case, from an optical standpoint the only benefit to the prime is that it's one stop faster. That can be very important in some situations, but the zoom certainly wins on versatility with no sacrifice of IQ.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-200II is not better than the 135L for IQ at any aperture.
> ...



It has slightly less vignette @ 2.8 but that's about it. Neither are terrible lenses but to claim either is vastly superior in IQ is nonsense.

The prime certainly wins on speed, weight, bulk, price, and stealth. If only it was a bit faster and had IS.


----------



## PavelR (Jan 18, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> PavelR said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


Thus you are lucky man not seeing the difference of 85,135,200 vs 70-200 - all @ 2.8 and your bag can be pretty light.
But I can clearly see that zoom @ F3.5-4+ can match (contrast + sharpness) the prime @ F2.8, but @ F3.5-4 there is less subject/background separation, thus If I want best IQ, I take only 24-70 II + longer primes.
(BTW: 24-70 II is nothing special till F3.5-4 too.)


----------



## crasher8 (Jan 18, 2013)

I'm sold. I hated the 24-70 for being a brick but I think I'll forgive this tank.


----------



## Aglet (Jan 19, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> It has slightly less vignette @ 2.8 but that's about it. Neither are terrible lenses but to claim either is vastly superior in IQ is nonsense.
> 
> The prime certainly wins on speed, weight, bulk, price, and stealth. If only it was a bit faster and had IS.



I suspect this prime is likely to have more consistently smoother bokeh and less CA than the battleship zoom. For that alone it's worth at least half the cost of the zoom.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 19, 2013)

The big problem with the 135L is that it doesn't focus as quickly for indoor sports than the 70-200L. The keeper rate is much lower vs. the zoom. However, sometimes you need the extra stop of light, which I have needed at times. But certainly not my #1 indoor sports lens. I use the zoom for that.


----------



## I Simonius (Jan 20, 2013)

Good reply and links - however as we all know the IQ of different copies varies and in real world tests I most definitely found the with the 70-200 I have and the 135 I had the zoom definitely outperformed the 135. No question. In fact the 135 wide open was downright dissappointing (for the 135)


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2013)

I got my 70-200 (bought used) the other day, and I'm really dissapointed. I have had this lens before and it was epic from start to finish, but this copy is nothing that compares to sharp. It is Reikan Focal adjusted to -8 at 200mm and -1 at 70mm, but even with LV it isn't sharp at 200mm. Does anyone else see or have seen this? Is it just my first copy that was insanely sharp or is this a dud? The first one I had I couldn't say it was less sharp than my 300mm f2.8 L IS (mk1) but this is worse than my 70-200 non-IS.







Top image is at 200mm lower is at 135mm. Please forgive the underexposure and noise, I was pi$$ed off and just shot a very repeatable and comparable shot. No NR, small amount of sharpening, same on both.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 20, 2013)

@ Viggo - Unfortunately, it seems you may have gotten a dud. You say you bought this copy used, I wonder if the seller fully disclosed the motive behind sale?


----------



## Viggo (Jan 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ Viggo - Unfortunately, it seems you may have gotten a dud. You say you bought this copy used, I wonder if the seller fully disclosed the motive behind sale?



Thanks! That is really what I wanted to hear also. I remember this lens as an absolute killer, but both CA and contrast and sharpness is only good at 70mm and useless at 200mm, so I rather it be a dud than me remeber too great things about it. 

I've asked him if he would take it back, awaiting reply. But yeah, even though it looked as new, it must be a reason he sold it... I´ve never gotten a bad copy, at least not to this extent before, bummer...


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 21, 2013)

Viggo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @ Viggo - Unfortunately, it seems you may have gotten a dud. You say you bought this copy used, I wonder if the seller fully disclosed the motive behind sale?
> ...



Often, if a lens is dropped or damaged, image quality issues will be most obvious at the focal length extremes. I badly dropped my 17-40 once - and while it's not known as a sharp lens - 40mm was nearly unusable until I sent it back to Canon for a fix-up... which, if you can't get the seller to take it back, may be your only other alternative.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 21, 2013)

how is the lens if you turn off the AFMA and just see how it is on 0?
any strange noises when focusing? 
tried it with IS off too, if it has had a drop the IS could be a problem too


----------



## Viggo (Jan 21, 2013)

Yeah, tried it first at 0 and it's sometimes a tiny high pitched squeak from the AF. Like it needs lube. IS on or off does not affect this. There's absolutely no sign of it being dropped, but that doesn't rule it out. 

Thanks for the replies! Not quite sure what to so at this point, the seller wouldn't return it as he had already spent the money on a prostitute or some [email protected]


----------



## wayno (Jan 21, 2013)

This exact thing happened to a colleague. 70-200 F4 IS over Fleabay.
$500 later at a lens repair place it's good as gold. Overall he ended up about $50 better off than retail. Silence, shrugs from the seller.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 22, 2013)

Viggo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > @ Viggo - Unfortunately, it seems you may have gotten a dud. You say you bought this copy used, I wonder if the seller fully disclosed the motive behind sale?
> ...



@ Viggo - this is #1 reason I stop buying used lens on CL. SORRY to hear that...I doubt he would take it back.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 24, 2013)

A small update so far.

No, the seller wouldn't take it back. I have his adress, phone number , name of parents etc so I have a few more cards to play if it doesn't work out : No, I will not accept a $2000 paperweight.

The lens is still under warranty so I have shipped it to Canon, arrived there today, so within the end of next week I will probably know what the damage is. The seller said he would split the bill if the fix isn't covered by the warranty after all, I however thinks he will pay the whole bill.

I went to my local shop and tried two other copies of the lens and they were both SERIOUSLY nice and VERY equal, so when it works I think I'm going to use it a lot. 

On a side note I shipped away my 85 L today for the third time in 6 years. I miss it already... :


----------



## MojoDK (Feb 22, 2013)

I'm going to order this lense (70-200) ... show I wait? I see it's almost 2 years old - is Cannon to release a new version?

Thanks!
Mojo


----------



## Viggo (Feb 22, 2013)

MojoDK said:


> I'm going to order this lense (70-200) ... show I wait? I see it's almost 2 years old - is Cannon to release a new version?
> 
> Thanks!
> Mojo



You'll have to wait at least 12-15 years...


----------



## JVLphoto (Mar 9, 2013)

MojoDK said:


> I'm going to order this lense (70-200) ... show I wait? I see it's almost 2 years old - is Cannon to release a new version?
> 
> Thanks!
> Mojo



Yah, this *is* the update. Nothing to replace it any time soon.


----------



## fotonunta (Jul 7, 2014)

Prior to purchasing the mark II 70-200mm canon lens, I own and have experience with the canon 200mm 2.0L, 300mm 2.8L and the Mark I version of the 70-200mm canon lens and yes - they are amazing. After reading the rave reviews on this new lens, I was sold on upgrading my Mark I lens with this new version. Unfortunately I am not as pleased as some of the other reviewers. It's a nice lens and has benefits, but it is not the ultimate lens as some reviews suggest.
_______________________________
Foto Nunta Brasov | Fotograf Nunta | Foto video nunta


----------



## Khalai (Jul 7, 2014)

fotonunta said:


> Prior to purchasing the mark II 70-200mm canon lens, I own and have experience with the canon 200mm 2.0L, 300mm 2.8L and the Mark I version of the 70-200mm canon lens and yes - they are amazing. After reading the rave reviews on this new lens, I was sold on upgrading my Mark I lens with this new version. Unfortunately I am not as pleased as some of the other reviewers. It's a nice lens and has benefits, but it is not the ultimate lens as some reviews suggest.
> _______________________________
> Foto Nunta Brasov | Fotograf Nunta | Foto video nunta



Bad copy/bad body-lens combo perhaps? Mine is as sharp as 100L macro (and that is one sharp lens), never complained about sharpness with this white marvel...


----------



## Viggo (Jul 20, 2014)

Khalai said:


> fotonunta said:
> 
> 
> > Prior to purchasing the mark II 70-200mm canon lens, I own and have experience with the canon 200mm 2.0L, 300mm 2.8L and the Mark I version of the 70-200mm canon lens and yes - they are amazing. After reading the rave reviews on this new lens, I was sold on upgrading my Mark I lens with this new version. Unfortunately I am not as pleased as some of the other reviewers. It's a nice lens and has benefits, but it is not the ultimate lens as some reviews suggest.
> ...



There is quite the epic difference between the 100 L and 200 f2 and the other super tele.

I think you're disappointed because you are comparing the 70-200 to a lens that costs 2.5x the money and that the 70-200, at least of the 4 copies I have had, was weakest at 200mm where the 200 f2 is by far the worlds best.

I had the 70-200 and the 200 f2 at the same time, and while it's a fantastic zoom lens, it got sold because of the 200mm. And I have always said , buy the focal you need not the IQ you want, but for me I can live with running a bit more back and forth with the 200 than buy yet another 70-200. 

I just have to add I was never disappointed with the 70-200, the IQ and the AF and small size and weight was REALLY good. But it's just not in the same league as the 200 f2. It lacks that wide open magic. People keep telling me you can get the 135 f2, the 200 f2.8 or a 70-200 for a fraction. As often as I can I lend them my 200 for 5 shots, they always say the same, mind blown, I get it now, you've made the right choice.


----------



## canonrumorsbug (Jul 20, 2014)

I love this lens. Canon 70-200 IS II. I am an experienced photographer and since I have had this lens my photos have become awesome
And my speciality is photographing fidgety kids

1) Almost all of my photos are sharp. I think the IS on this lens is too good
2) I love the bokeh on this lense. 160 to 200 is where 99% of my shots are. 
3) You get low light photos that you could never get before

When I look in the computer I just say Wow each time. No other lens has made me say that. I liked 85mm but I think the IS is where it amazes you. Every strand of hair is sharp. No wonder Canon saw this and is charging a lot for it. Got it on sale for 1717. 

I don't notice the weight any more. 

Never used the 135 though I have seen really good images from it but it has no IS.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jul 20, 2014)

I own and love this lens since January 2011. Double the price of the non-IS, but sharper and the incredible image stabilizer was and still is priceless in many situations!


----------



## mcfoto (Dec 1, 2017)

After reading the rave reviews on this new lens, I was sold on upgrading my Mark I lens with this new version.


----------



## mariuspavel (Jan 27, 2018)

Best all round portrait lens from Canon, no doubt.


----------



## Talys (Jan 27, 2018)

It's one of my favorite lenses, and the price is pretty good now, with lots of used stock floating around, too. It is much nicer than the Mark 1.

Congratulations! You'll love it, I'm sure.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Jan 29, 2018)

One of the must have lens!

:


----------



## martti (Feb 5, 2018)

I just bought one second hand for 1300 euros, a well used item with immac focus, no scratches or mold.
I liked the third shot I took (which is over-everythinged for viewing on Facebook and Instagram):


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 5, 2018)

I intend to sell my copy. My Sigma 180 2.8 is noticeably sharper and is what I go to when I need a tele.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 8, 2018)

My copy is very, very good and very sharp. It will be interesting to see what the new III version will offer up.


----------

