# Which 70-200 should I buy - or should I wait?



## boogaloo (Nov 12, 2016)

Hi folks

Looking for the benefit of your wisdom. I'm fairly sure I read a while ago that Sigma were planning to update their current 70-200 f2.8 lens, and I believe Canon are also working one a new one. I do a fair bit of sports photography (very amateurish) and currently use either my 130mm portrait lens or my 70-300L when doing action shots.

I'd absolutely love the 70-200L IS f2.8 canon but it's an enormous amount of money for me to spend. I also think I read somewhere that this lens is due to be updated fairly soon and would be gutted if I dropped the cash then it was refreshed.

I hear decent things about the Sigma 70-200 EX DG OS USM but again I am fairly sure I read that they're releasing a new version of this.

I know Tamron also do a similar lens but know less about that.

Bad time to buy a 70-200mm if I can wait 6 months? What would you do I my position? All views very welcome.

Boog


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 12, 2016)

Now is a great time to buy a Canon 70-200, either f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS II. Don't bother with the others. You could be waiting for years for a update, and they still might not beat those two Canon lenses.

I have not heard of Canon working on a new version, the f/2.8 is still a new model as lenses go, and the f/4 IS is also superb.


----------



## IglooEater (Nov 12, 2016)

I have the Canon and of course it is excellent. One of my brothers has the Tamron and loves it. The only big drawback of the Tamron is teleconverter performance imo.


----------



## e_honda (Nov 13, 2016)

boogaloo said:


> I'd absolutely love the 70-200L IS f2.8 canon but it's an enormous amount of money for me to spend. I also think I read somewhere that this lens is due to be updated fairly soon and would be gutted if I dropped the cash then it was refreshed.


 
I don't think the 70-200 II is going to be updated anytime soon. It was introduced in 2010. I don't see it being refreshed until 2020 at the earliest. The 70-200 II is pretty much hailed as being a more or less flawless product with very little to complain about. It's just the size/weight and price that can be a turn off to some people.

Highly praised products like 100-400 are slow to get updated. Took 16 years for a new 100-400 to be introduced. The 135 L is 20 years old and still hasn't been refreshed. The 400 L F5.6 was introduced in 1993 or something and is still going.

Something like the 16-35 II (introduced in 2007) was refreshed "relatively" quickly because it was considered flawed and needed improvement. That same level of urgency in improvement doesn't apply to the 70-200 II.

And if it is refreshed, I'm guessing the image quality will only be marginally better. What they'll likely do is make the lens lighter and more easy to handle.


----------



## retroreflection (Nov 13, 2016)

Spend the six months looking for a good deal on a used Canon 2.8.
You can't have mine.


----------



## sanj (Nov 13, 2016)

Friend.
You describe yourself as an 'amateur'. So the current lens is just great! You do not need to wait for the newer lens. What difference? Any 'professional' can shoot without the newer version for years and years and create powerful photos. 
You concerned about the price, then the newer lens will be more expensive anyways. 
If you do not need the f2.8 then the f4 lens is perfect. Cheaper and lighter. You can run around and position yourself better for the cycling shots.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Nov 13, 2016)

As others have said the Canon is too new to be refreshed for at least several years. A couple years ago I bought the original (non IS) Canon 70-200 f2.8 which at the time was still being produced alongside the IS version 2. The reason is it was a thousand dollars less and I could not afford the IS version 2 (which by all accounts is stellar and the way to go if you can afford it). I just checked Adorama and it looks like my non IS is no longer in production but I LOVE it and if you can find a used one in good condition that might be a way to go. Works well with 1.4x extender as well (though autofocus may slow a bit making it unfeasible for fast action sports).


----------



## pwp (Nov 13, 2016)

If you can get the $$ together, the EF 70-200 f/2.8isII is a staggering number of photographers favourite and most used lens. A MkIII is probably years away. Like Mt Spokane suggested, stick exclusively with either of the Canon 70-200 lenses. Forget the rest. 

-pw


----------



## cellomaster27 (Nov 13, 2016)

Get a 70-200mm now. I have a F4 IS and I love it! I played with a friend's 2.8 IS II version... it's awesome but its pretty heavy and much more $$. I think you'll be happy with either lens. Get the F4 IS if you're looking to carry the lens around alot. Both are superb. I've tried the tamron and sigma. Don't think about the sigma (currently version) and the tamron. I was just never impressed. 

Early congrats to whenever you get yourself one!


----------



## boogaloo (Nov 13, 2016)

Thanks so much for all the replies folks! I genuinely thought that the 70-200L was going to be relaunched soon. Wonder where I heard that from.

I must say, I LOVE the SIGMA ART lenses I have at the moment and I can't help wondering what a revised sigma would be like. Though, of course, they haven't gone for weather sealing.

Thanks for the advice. Will start looking out for bargains!


----------



## Ozarker (Nov 13, 2016)

Of course your budget will be a big factor.

This is a very personal choice.

One thing I would not worry about is a refresh by Canon on the f/2.8 IS II. 

I wouldn't allow myself to get caught up in the trap of always second guessing a purchase based on rumors about refreshes or upgrades. What is awesome today will still be awesome 5 or 10 years from now.

Get whatever you think you want and don't look back. Otherwise, you will never be satisfied.

I happen to enjoy heavy lenses. Makes me feel like I got my money's worth.

Good luck to you!  Hope you are happy with whatever you get. Whether or not you are happy with your choice is all that matters.


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 13, 2016)

Quite a few pros use the 70-200 f2.8 professionally but have the f4 version for personal use because of the size of the f2.8. So I guess it also depends on why you are wanting the f2.8. 
The 70-300L is a very good lens in itself so you may not get a massive difference in sharpness but the shallow DOF at f2.8 will be very noticable.


----------



## greger (Nov 13, 2016)

Buy the 70-200 f2.8 ll lens. I don't think it will be updated anytime soon as the current version is as sharp as the f4 IS USM version which is sharper than the original 2.8. Now the 2.8 ll and f4 IS USM are equally sharp according to information that I found online. It might go on sale on Black Friday. I bought the 100-400 vs l lens for longer reach. The vs ll looks and is better but I am happy! As far as weight. I hold onto the tripod mount with my lens cloth and find the weight ok.


----------



## Buck (Nov 14, 2016)

Take a look at a 70-200ii in the Canon refurbished store, from time to time the will discount it a few hundred off the usual used price. You get a warranty as well as having at completely checked out. It did this this past spring as an upgrade from the first version.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 14, 2016)

boogaloo said:


> Thanks so much for all the replies folks! I genuinely thought that the 70-200L was going to be relaunched soon. Wonder where I heard that from.
> 
> I must say, I LOVE the SIGMA ART lenses I have at the moment and I can't help wondering what a revised sigma would be like. Though, of course, they haven't gone for weather sealing.
> 
> Thanks for the advice. Will start looking out for bargains!



Nice plug for Sigma. Anybody who has ever used a Canon 70-200mm can only chuckle.

The f/4 IS works great for street and travel photography because it's light, and for head shots because the IQ is wonderful. If you need the extra stop of aperture, the f/2.8 IS has amazing IQ and IS and bokeh, baby, bokeh.


----------



## papa-razzi (Nov 14, 2016)

I have done quite a bit of sports photography, and the right lens really depends upon the sport, and the level of access you have to the action.

In general, things that matter - ability to set a high shutter speed, and the AF system of the camera.
In general, IS is a waste of money. You will be pushing your shutter speed up way past the point where IS is going to help you.

If you are doing inside sports (basketball, volleyball, etc.) - usually in poorly lighted gyms - then you need the fastest lenses you can, and you will need to push high ISO. If you can get close to the action, then the longer telephoto lenses aren't important. I found non-L fast primes are a very affordable solution.

If you are outside (football, track, soccer) then your 70-300L is a great lens. If you are shooting under the lights at night, then it gets more challenging and you need to spend big dollars because you need a fast, long telephoto.


----------



## photojoern.de (Nov 14, 2016)

> Now is a great time to buy a Canon 70-200, either f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS II. Don't bother with the others. You could be waiting for years for a update, and they still might not beat those two Canon lenses.
> 
> I have not heard of Canon working on a new version, the f/2.8 is still a new model as lenses go, and the f/4 IS is also superb.


I can only confirm this. Although I must admit that I did not have either the Sigma or the Tamron on my camera. If you read review in the web, Canon 70-200 always beats them.

If you don´t really need the f2.8 aperture, then the f4 70-200 II IS is awesome. Super crisp sharp, significantly lighter than the f2.8 models and only around 60% of the price of the Canon f2.8 70-200 L II.

If I was Canon, I would not really work on these two lenses. They can hardly go better.


----------



## sanj (Nov 14, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> boogaloo said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks so much for all the replies folks! I genuinely thought that the 70-200L was going to be relaunched soon. Wonder where I heard that from.
> ...



Not for me. The Bokeh on this lens is not great.


----------



## sanj (Nov 14, 2016)

papa-razzi said:


> I have done quite a bit of sports photography, and the right lens really depends upon the sport, and the level of access you have to the action.
> 
> In general, things that matter - ability to set a high shutter speed, and the AF system of the camera.
> In general, IS is a waste of money. You will be pushing your shutter speed up way past the point where IS is going to help you.
> ...




Noooooo. IS makes any lens versatile. No no no.


----------



## knkedlaya (Nov 14, 2016)

I use flash bouncing off ceiling or wall. I found ambient light inside the house of little use at 2.8 to keep focus sharp. My 7D not so good at higher ISO, with flash I get good results.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 14, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Now is a great time to buy a Canon 70-200, either f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS II. Don't bother with the others. You could be waiting for years for a update, and they still might not beat those two Canon lenses.
> 
> I have not heard of Canon working on a new version, the f/2.8 is still a new model as lenses go, and the f/4 IS is also superb.


+1000 to all this.

I have heard absolutely NOTHING about Canon to update any of its 70-200 soon. 
The recent IS lenses are best choice and it's up to you to decide whether to save money by choosing third party with all the pros and cons of third party products.


----------



## Handrews (Nov 14, 2016)

70-200 F4 IS was my first L lens, and I was blown away by IQ: rich colors, microcontrast and excellent sharpness. The IS sound is louder than with other lenses - it's normal for this lens, but you'll hear it on video.
For me, it's a lens I'd buy again.


----------



## meywd (Nov 14, 2016)

Although i sold mine recently, cash flow issue, it was my best lens and my most used, I used it with the 2X II Extender and it was amazingly sharp even with it, so yeah I recommend getting it and not waiting for the upgrade while there isn't one confirmed.


----------



## andrei1989 (Nov 14, 2016)

as you said you are an amateur, i would suggest to seriously consider the tamron and the sigma, if budget is also a factor. weight is similar throughout the 3 brands. the tamron and sigma will give 90-95% of the image quality of the canon. price is half! second hand you could get the 2.8 sigma/tamron for the price of a f4 canon.

i believe these 2 are the most likely to be updated soon to the new design rules of both companies


----------



## Alex_M (Nov 14, 2016)

Boog,

Just wanted to chime in and perhaps share my experience with some of the 70-200 lenses available on the market at this very moment:

1. If money is not an issue and budget is accomodative, I would suggest to look long and hard at Canon 70-200 F2.8 II L lens as it is no doubt the best 70-200 EF mount L quality lens money can by at the moment.
2. for folks on limited budget or not using the lens enough to justify the option #1, or not needing F4 aperture ever (say, studio shooters - Tony Corbell) - Canon 70-200 F4 L might be the right lens. ( Personally, I do not like the bokeh of the lens but that is just me).
3. For folks that would like to have _ALL_ the functionality of the Canon 70-200 F2.8 II L lens but cannot afford or justify paying premium dollars for it, I would recommend to see if the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC USD fits their requirements.
I am personaly in the category #3 ( I cannot afford the best of the best so have to be smart about spending my money  ). I used the Tamron lens extensively over last 1.5 years and so far very happy with IQ, AF quality, bokeh characteristics of the lens. The lens never let me down in low light conditions, locked swiftly (almost as fast as the Canon competitors) on fast moving subject and in difficult conditions ( say, focusing through the wire mesh on the fast moving subject about 20 meters away behind the mesh). I bought the lens brand new ( open box deal) from an Authorised Tamron reseller in Melbourne with full 24 month warranty included for A$950.00 - that's approx. US$750.00 . Speaking from my experience with the lens: The lens is sharp, very sharp up to 160mm FL and then just sharp there after  at 200mm not as sharp as Canon F2.8 but difference is really minor. I would hazard the statement that at @135mm Tamron is even better than Canon F2.8 at the same focal length. and did I mentioned reliable AF performance?  Happy to share some of the photos I have taken with the Tamron lens. Send me a message if interested.
Dustin Abbot owns the Tamron lens and used it professionally. I am sure he will be happy to address your query regarding the qualities of the lens.

And finally, few words about the Sigma 70-200 EX DG OS USM:

well, the lens is not up to speed with the other 3 options... across the board.. That said Lindsay Adler previously used the lens extensively and produced stunning award winning images with the lens. I would personally avoid purchasing the Sigma 70-200 EX DG OS USM lens as I had _major_ AF and reliability issue with my copy. I had to return ther lens in 2 weeks time as my experience with it was unbearable. It did not cut the mustard for me. at all..



boogaloo said:


> Hi folks
> 
> Looking for the benefit of your wisdom. I'm fairly sure I read a while ago that Sigma were planning to update their current 70-200 f2.8 lens, and I believe Canon are also working one a new one. I do a fair bit of sports photography (very amateurish) and currently use either my 130mm portrait lens or my 70-300L when doing action shots.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mikehit (Nov 14, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Dustin Abbot owns the Tamron lens and use it professionally. Send him a message. I am sure he will be happy to address your query regarding the qualities of the lens.



His website has a review of the lens, up to Dustin's usual high standards:

https://dustinabbott.net/2013/07/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/


----------



## boogaloo (Nov 16, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Now is a great time to buy a Canon 70-200, either f/4 IS or f/2.8 IS II. Don't bother with the others. You could be waiting for years for a update, and they still might not beat those two Canon lenses.
> ...



Interestingly the top article on this site at the moment is "Another Mention of a New EF 70-200mm Lens". I was sure I had seen a number of rumours on this subject. 

http://www.canonrumors.com/another-mention-of-a-new-ef-70-200mm-lens-cr2/

I'd like to say a MASSIVE thank you to everyone who has posted and given their advice. So much to read, re-read and think about. Much appreciated.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 17, 2016)

boogaloo said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


Yeah! Sometimes the news are faster than you'd think, can read and write. 
As a regular reader I was a little bit surprised of the "_Another_" because I couldn't recall any mention before. 
But I suppose this could also have to do with my by stress limited short-term memory :-[

So I would modify my advice now to a:
Now that we have a rumor of a new lens in the pipe but no scheduled release date or even if it is f/2.8 or f/4.0, you must ask yourself how long you are willing to wait for your 70-200 lens and if you are not willing to pay the premium price for first adopters for this 70-200 IS III (expect > 2.500, maybe even 3.000) you'll have to wait even longer for the first good discounts.
So with a minimum of 12 to 24 months waiting I'd be looking at the choices available NOW. 
And if you are planning to "upgrade" later keep in mind that the resale value of a L lens might be higher than of a Tamron.
If money is an important aspect, think of the Tamron, but keep in mind that also there is a mention of a G2 from Dustin Abbott within whatever time:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=31307.msg635979#msg635979

So think about what you'd prefer:
Spend your time waiting for the last 5% gear performance or 
spend your time shooting with 95% gear performance, surpassing your technique by sure - at least mine


----------



## SteveM (Nov 17, 2016)

Why is it you feel you need another lens for sport? The obvious assumption is the aperture. To match the reach of the 70-300 you would then need a 1.4 extender.......A further £360. So for the princely sum of £2360 you get a similar reach and a 1 stop faster lens.
I would suggest that to invest in the 70-200 f2.8 mkll the faster aperture/ reduced depth of field must be seriously important to you first.
I have both the 70-200 f4 and f2.8 mkll, I bought the f2.8 mkll because I needed a faster lens due to the poor light I often work in....difference between shooting at 6400 ISO and 3200 ISO is big.
A camera lens is a tool you choose for a particular situation.


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 17, 2016)

I tend to agree with others, if money is no object the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the lens to get. I also agree that the Tamron is a good 9/10 of a lens for a lot less then 9/10 of the price. Another option I'll throw out there, is if you want the fast f/2.8 but want to save some money, the Canon f/2.8 non-IS is a good option to consider. Can be had used in "very good" condition for $900 from Amazon right now.


----------



## Andries (Nov 21, 2016)

boogaloo said:


> I must say, I LOVE the SIGMA ART lenses I have at the moment and I can't help wondering what a revised sigma would be like. Though, of course, they haven't gone for weather sealing.



A few months back I bought myself a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VR right before I went on a 3-day trip to Denmark. On camera results looked satisfying, but every now and then the AF acted strange. It was tracking moving objects (airplanes) and suddenly went to the minimum focusing distance and stayed there until I released the shutter button and pressed it again to refocus. This did not happen just once, but over 10 times each of those days. 

Once home I checked the images on the computer and found that the left side of my images was sharp and the right side was blurry when shot around 200mm. When images were shot around 70mm, it was the other way around (left blurry and right sharp). After some testing it became clear the lens had a decentered lens element.

At that point I lost my faith in Tamron. You would expect a €1.450 lens to to get some quality testing done after assembly, but this clearly wasn't the case with my lens. I returned it to the store and (with an additional payment) traded it for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II USM. As an enthusiast it was hard for me to convince myself into spending €2.200 on that lens, but only a day after shooting with it I was convinced I made the right choice ! Now, a good 5 months later, I am still conviced I made the right choice. The lens is one of the sharpest zoom lenses I've ever seen. I did spend €800 more than planned, but that is quickly forgotten (and justified) once you see the results. Even though a new Sigma lens might be a good alternative, if the lens is going to be your primary lens (say using it over 50% of the time), it might be better to invest some more and get the Canon.

I must say I do agree with you that the new Sigma lenses have really stepped up their game. Depending on the lens they are very close their Canon counterpart. In some cases they even match or surpass it. Given the fact they are less expensive than the L-series I can see a lot of enthusiasts buying more and more lenses of Sigma's Global Vision line. I sure did so. My primary lens is Canon's 70-200, but my two secondary lenses are the Sigma 24-105 Art and the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. Had I bought similar lenses from Canon, I would have spent an additional €1.400.

the only worrying points I have are durability (hope they last at least 10 years) and resale value (because L-lenses tend to keep their value very long, don't know about the new Sigmas)


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 22, 2016)

If the OP buys a really good S/H copy, then when the mkIII comes out, he can sell it to fund the new one and not loose much money. Canon 70-200 LIS II lenses hold their value very well and don't depreciate much over a few years, even when a new model is released.


----------

