# 70-200 2.8 advice



## kubamadej (Feb 16, 2014)

Hey guys,

I recently got a 6D that I'm very happy with alongside the 24-105, as well as 50 and 85mm primes (all canon). Now I'm thinking of adding a 70-200mm lens and would love that to be a 2.8. Now as much as everyone raves over the canon 70-200 f2.8 ii IS, it's simply out of my budget. So I was thinking between the Tamron f2.8 macro version (700ish), the tamron f2.8 VS version (1400ish), Sigma f2.8 HSM (750ish), Sigma f2.8 OS (1250ish), or any other lens you can recommend that I haven't mentioned. I could probably afford the less expensive lens now, but would require a while longer saving for the more expensive ones. I also plan on adding a teleconverter on whichever one I choose (probably a 2x) soon after in situations where I want more reach. Any advice you could offer me? Would be much appreciated.

As for the type of photographer I am, I don't get any money out of it but it's a serious hobby for me, that's been growing steadily. I tend to do a bunch of portraits and am shooting a wedding for a friend next year, but love and also do some landscapes, sports, nature, basically a bit of everything. All-around would probably best describe my needs.


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 16, 2014)

Sorry, I don't know anything about the lenses you mentioned as I haven't tried. I had a look at the Sigma before I got my 70-200 MkII, but that was only for budget reasons, then I decided to wait until I could afford it. All I can say is that if you have the patience to save up, then do it. Even if it takes several months before you're there, Cut down on food even, you'll never regret it. I don't necessarily always have to have the best. But this time I went for it. I've had mine for over a year and I couldn't be happier. It will do everything you will ever ask of it. It has super fast AF that never fails, it gives wonderful bokeh on portraits, it deals with inclement weather etc etc. You'll be a happy camper for the next ten years or so. 

I apologize for not answering your question.


----------



## kubamadej (Feb 16, 2014)

No apology needed, you gave great advice. I just can't see myself justifying any extra 1000$ for a lens that may be 10% better (feel free to correct me on this) especially since this isn't my job and I don't earn money for it. If the lens really is night and day then i may consider it, but then i'd rather buy an extra wide angle lens. Is the canon really twice the lens of the sigma/tamron?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 16, 2014)

kubamadej said:


> No apology needed, you gave great advice. I just can't see myself justifying any extra 1000$ for a lens that may be 10% better (feel free to correct me on this) especially since this isn't my job and I don't earn money for it. If the lens really is night and day then i may consider it, but then i'd rather buy an extra wide angle lens. Is the canon really twice the lens of the sigma/tamron?



I would suggest the Tamron (VC)- I have tried it very briefly and it is pretty good. At one point I was split between the Tamron and the Canon- they are much closer than the Sigma IMO. A lens worth $ 1400 that you can keep (you will probably have to, resale value of Tammys suck) is probably better than one worth $ 750 that you have to upgrade from as soon as you can. In fact, if you have to choose a cheaper, temporary option it might be better to go for the Canon f/4 IS which will give you everything except the f/2.8 and will have good resale value.


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 16, 2014)

I have the canon 70-200 2.8 non-is, which I have been very happy with. It's sharp, it's 2.8, it's built like a tank, AF is awesome... and it's a lot cheaper than the canon IS mk2 version. 

That said, for your uses IS sounds like it would be useful... I use it mostly for sports, so I try to keep my shutter speed above 1/500 anyway to stop action. But maybe worth considering?


----------



## brad-man (Feb 16, 2014)

Personally, I wouldn't consider a 70-200 without image stabilization unless the majority of your shooting is fast moving objects. You'll want it for portraits. If you can live with the deeper depth of field, the 70-200 f/4L IS is the 2.8's equal in most other aspects (though much easier to carry) and can be had refurbished from Canon for less than $1100. Otherwise, I would agree with sagittariansrock and vote for the Tamron. I have their 24-70 f/2.8 VC and love it.


----------



## Hannes (Feb 16, 2014)

Why not a used canon v1? I don't know what the used market is like where you live but here at least a used canon non-is and a new sigma os goes for about the same and the v1 canon is a £1-200 more. My experience with a sigma non-os is that it is great in one shot af but it doesn't like servo at all. If the target it moving at the right speed it will work reasonably but if it is too slow it will adjust focus constantly and most of the time it will be off. When the subject moves quickly it simply won't keep up. The newer os version might be better in that regard though. This is the same on a 400D, 40D and 1D III though the 1D does a better job as expected. My canon 24-105 is miles better when it comes to servo focus despite being a stop down in light gathering.


----------



## Policar (Feb 16, 2014)

Just get the 70-200mm L II IS. It's like, what $1800? Not that much more than the others given that it's exactly what you want.

To be perfectly honest it's not that much better than the 70-200mm f2.8 L or 70-200mm f2.8 L IS, but it is also a lens you won't find yourself selling another lens for so you can buy it later. And it is excellent. And it makes you look cooler. And it comes in a big box with a cool case and accessories and looks and feels so nice.

That said I usually just use my 50mm f1.4. 

But it's worth it if it's what you want! Resale is great, too!


----------



## pwp (Feb 16, 2014)

Policar said:


> Just get the 70-200mm L II IS. It's like, what $1800? Not that much more than the others given that it's exactly what you want.


Financial responsibility is an important and valuable life-skill. Nobody questions the awesomeness of the 70-200mm L II IS, but if it's a $$ reach too far, and it's not earning money for you then the alternatives must considered.

The viable alternatives I'd be looking at would be a pre-owned EF 70-200 f/2.8 MkI, with or without IS, and certainly check prices for a pre-owned MkII IS as well. These are tough, long lasting lenses. Most pros give them a solid daily workout and they last for years. The other alternative mentioned by other posters is the EF 70-200 f/4, with or without IS. Read up; this is a lens with a great reputation. 

-pw


----------



## AudioGlenn (Feb 16, 2014)

I agree that financial responsibility is important. That said, since there are no mission critical events (since you do not make a living off of your photography), you can afford to save for longer to get what you actually want (the Canon 2.8 IS II). I personally feel you should get what you want and not try to cut corners. This saves money in the long run. You'll save money NOT having to re-sell gear your used gear. You can wait for a refurbished deal or a great rebate offering.


----------



## sdsr (Feb 16, 2014)

kubamadej said:


> No apology needed, you gave great advice. I just can't see myself justifying any extra 1000$ for a lens that may be 10% better (feel free to correct me on this) especially since this isn't my job and I don't earn money for it. If the lens really is night and day then i may consider it, but then i'd rather buy an extra wide angle lens. Is the canon really twice the lens of the sigma/tamron?



Reviews I've seen of the Tamron VC (you'll find some here) suggest the difference is pretty subtle, though of course whether the difference(s) matter(s) is for you to decide. But unless you really want/need f/2.8, consider a 70-200 f/4 IS or, my own favorite zoom, the 70-300L IS, both of which are optically and mechanically superb and weigh and cost a lot less than the 2.8. And if you do buy a 70-200 2.8 II, check it out carefully - I tried three, all of which were decentered, before giving up and deciding that for my purposes the other two L zooms were quite good enough.


----------



## Badger (Feb 16, 2014)

I actually rented the new Tamron once and was happy with it but haven't tried the Canon yet. I was torn as to which to get, as I have the Canon 70-200 f/4 non IS and I'm not entirely satisfied with it for indoor sports. I too don't have all the money I need to get everything I want so the jury is out. I am leaning towards picking up an 85mm f/1.8 then waiting for the Canon 70-200 f2.8 II IS. I'm sure I could be happy with the Tamron, but I know I will not second guess myself with the Canon. 

Great review on the Tamron from Dustin here.
http://dustinabbott.net/2013/07/tamron-sp-70-200mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/


----------



## gargamel (Feb 16, 2014)

Hi and hello to everyone,

I have been reading CR for quite a while, but today I finally decided to join and participate. 

Regarding the 70-200 options, I have been considering the same question myself for a while, before my camera went bust. So now I need a new body, first, before I can afford to get a new lens. Anyhow, not having used any of the 70-200 so far myself, this is what I would conclude from what I have read.

#1 is the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. It's best in class in every measure: optics, build quality, auto focus. Also, it's weather sealed. But all this comes at a price. For me, I couldn't justify the budget, but each to their own. Retail price a camera shop close to where I live: 2199,00 EUR.

#2 would be the Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD. It's not that far behind the #1, optically, only slighly slower regarding AF, not quite as robust (but good). The major difference to me appears to be that it has no weather-sealing comparable to the Canon. That doesn't mean you cannot use it outdoors, but I guess, if you travel a lot and shoot under more or less extreme conditions, the extra cost for the Canon may be a justified investment. 
Also, the slightly slower AF might annoy you, if you shoot a lot of sports. As one poster said, for AF tracking of fast moving objects the Canon is clearly preferrable. But then, you want to use the lens on a 6D, which is excellent (and my camera of choice, once I have collected the budget...), but cannot track fast moving objects anyhow. Assuming you made a well-informed decision, when you bought it, you will know that, meaning that AF tracking capabilities are not a top priority for you.
From what you describe I'd guess, that the Tamron would be a very suitable candidate for you. BTW, as some others said, it's a lens to keep, as you would lose money selling it. BUT, other than some said, the street prices are so much lower than for the Canon, that this isn't a real issue, IMHO. Retail price at the above mentioned shop: 1179,00 EUR.

#3 A used (or new) Canon (pre-decessor of #1).

So, #1 is not "twice the lens" of the Tamron, but it has some advantages for professional photographers, who need the most durable hardware, need the fastest AF and/or shoot a lot outdoors. From your post, I'd conclude that you don't fall into that category, and that the Tamron would be a viable choice for you.

Again, I cannot talk based on real-life experience, I am just sharing the status of my personal shortlist. When I have a camera again, my budget will take a while to recover. After that, I'll have to decide, if a 70-200 or a super-wide-angle lens will be the next lens to purchase.

gargamel


----------



## magna42 (Feb 17, 2014)

gargamel said:


> Hi and hello to everyone,
> 
> I have been reading CR for quite a while, but today I finally decided to join and participate.
> 
> ...



I was in a similar position, since you're replacing your body that may affect your lens selection.

The newer FF bodies have better high ISO performance that can offset the 1 stop difference between 70-200 F/2.8 and F/4

For my use the 70-200 f/4 coupled perfectly with the 6D


----------



## Policar (Feb 17, 2014)

pwp said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Just get the 70-200mm L II IS. It's like, what $1800? Not that much more than the others given that it's exactly what you want.
> ...



You can resell the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS (I spent $1800 on mine, maybe) for about 90% of its new cost. If you need a bargain wait for a sale as I did or buy from the refurb store when there's a sale at the end of the month. Or buy one used.

You can resell the others for... much less.

The total cost of ownership is lower with the better lens.

Don't overthink it. Buy it.


----------



## silvestography (Feb 17, 2014)

As others have said, your best two options ignoring budget are Canon's v2 lens and Tamron's VC lens. If you buy the canon used or refurbished, the difference in price will be $400-500. A few months ago, I was making the decision between these two lenses, and while I was getting paid work, I wasn't making a whole lot of money. The Tamron seemed to make more sense, but I ended up going for the Canon since I got a pretty good deal. 

You'll be very happy with the Tamron. It's certainly the best value for your money. The Canon, however, will give you the assurance and peace of mind that you have the best there is. Period. My opinion is that if you have the best gear for a given task, you spend a hell of a lot less time thinking about the limitations and more about shooting. That's my experience with the Canon. Oh, and I'm getting much more work now. That's something.

Don't worry about resale value or any of that nonsense. Worry about how you're going to use the lens while you do own it, and whether or not having the best will make a difference in your shooting experience.


----------



## Halfrack (Feb 17, 2014)

Save for a used V2 - http://www.lensauthority.com/canon-70-200mm-f-2-8l-is-ii-1/

The Tamaron/Sigma aren't gonna take a teleadapter that well compared to the Canon. But if you're gonna need the reach anyways, grab the 70-300L. Your body will do higher ISO's well, so use what you have. If you do video, do the non-IS Canon since it's parafocal.


----------



## NYCPHOTO (Feb 17, 2014)

I also suggest you look at a used 70-200 2.8 is V1 

Keh has them starting at $1269

I shoot full time and am very happy with my copy

good luck!


----------



## Badger (Feb 17, 2014)

Or buy a refurbished 70-200 f/2.8 IS II from Canon for $1999 and that includes a 1 year warranty.
http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/lenses-flashes/refurbished-lenses/ef-70-200mm-f-28l-is-ii-usm-refurbished


----------



## Danielle (Feb 17, 2014)

I'd recommend going to try out a Tamron VC in a store. I'm very hesitant to suggest paying more for the canon just because it's canon. I've tried one, if I get a 70-200 then I'll buy one myself, I can't pull myself to spend up to $1000 more (in AU particularly),no way. The Tamron's are built well too. I own the Tamron 24-70, it's great, I'm sure the larger brother would prove to be too.


----------



## nc0b (Feb 17, 2014)

I have both the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, the f/4 IS version, plus both the 1.4X III and 2X III TCs. The f/2.8 is an astounding lens you should consider if the weight is acceptable. It is sharper and focuses faster than the f/4. That said, I don't always need that level of performance for everything I do. The 1.4X TC works well on the 70-200mm f/4 if you need the reach and can give up 1 f stop for the TC and stopping down 1 more f stop to improve sharpness. The 6D is so good with higher ISO levels that you can usually make up for the light loss. The 2X TC, on the other hand, is a compromise with the 70-200mm f/2.8 from the aspect of auto focus. If you are shooting relatively stationary or slow moving objects, it is one reasonable way to get to 400mm. If you want to shoot birds in flight, forget it. I finally purchased the 400mm f/5.6 for BIF. If a raptor is perched on something, the zoom and the 2X will work, but once it takes off, you are likely to lose focus in the sky and never reacquire focus. The zoom and the 2X get lost, even with the close focus limit set to 2.5 meters. I don't know anything about the other brands, but I think you may regret it from a resale standpoint. The only non-Canon lens I have is a Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 that is wonderful. If the f/2.8 cannot be justified from a cost standpoint, go with the Canon f/4 IS. If I had to shoot a wedding, however, the f/2.8 would be my hands down choice.


----------



## Heavyweight67 (Feb 17, 2014)

I have both the 70-200 2.8 ii is and the 70-200 f4 is, if weight and money aren't an issue go for the 2.8 ii is, it really is an amazing lens, everytime I put it on my 5Diii it just astounds me how good it is, that being said the f4 version is brilliant as well....most times the F4 is attached to my "walkaround"7D, the reduce weight of the f4 makes it easier to throw it around.

I purchased the f4 version first then saved for the f2.8, Sometimes, when I look at my gear, I think do I really need both of these 70-200, the answer is "yes" because I have two bodies....if it was only the 5Diii I would only have the f2.8..

There are some great third party lenses out there, but the 70-200 2.8 l is ii, really is the best " one lens to rule them all"


----------



## scottkinfw (Feb 17, 2014)

FWIW, I have both for my 5DII &II The 2,8 is very thin dof. The lens is very heavy after a while, it is long and has b big diameter.I find the image as good as my F4L is, lighter, shorter, smaller diameter, and easier to use. May even give some better shots. I yo can afford it I see no reason to get rid of this gem.



Heavyweight67 said:


> I have both the 70-200 2.8 ii is and the 70-200 f4 is, if weight and money aren't an issue go for the 2.8 ii is, it really is an amazing lens, everytime I put it on my 5Diii it just astounds me how good it is, that being said the f4 version is brilliant as well....most times the F4 is attached to my "walkaround"7D, the reduce weight of the f4 makes it easier to throw it around.
> 
> I purchased the f4 version first then saved for the f2.8, Sometimes, when I look at my gear, I think do I really need both of these 70-200, the answer is "yes" because I have two bodies....if it was only the 5Diii I would only have the f2.8..
> 
> There are some great third party lenses out there, but the 70-200 2.8 l is ii, really is the best " one lens to rule them all"


----------



## Arctic Photo (Feb 17, 2014)

pwp said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Just get the 70-200mm L II IS. It's like, what $1800? Not that much more than the others given that it's exactly what you want.
> ...


As much as I promoted the MkII, I agree with pw. Don't stretch financially unless you can. Before I got my MkII I bprrowed a friend's MkI and I must say that was quite something special also.

Good luck!


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 17, 2014)

get the v2.

Like others has stated, its just a beautiful piece of kit. i have yet to use it on FF, but on my t2i this thing just makes magic. 

The 24-105 is my second favorite lens, but its look is nothing like the 70-200


----------



## mycanonphotos (Feb 17, 2014)

Try to grab a nice used 70-200 f2.8 IS I (one) the first 2.8 IS from canon. I bought one and save a bunch, wish I never would have bought the Sigma 70-200 2.8 os hsm...it was good for about two years then started having IS issues and ring issues...anyway..luck of the draw I guess...I'd rather send a Canon in for repair then a Sigma. Plus the Canon always has a higher resale value, just take care of it


----------



## greger (Feb 17, 2014)

I recommend the 70-200 2.8 IS USM lens. Financial Responsibility may be for some. But this is for our pleasure as well as for show. I get great joy out of sharing pics with my friend. Sometimes his are better and sometimes mine are better. I have the 70-200 f4 IS USM lens which I purchased with the 1.4 Extender. I used this combo until I needed more reach. Adding the 2X Extender didn't work as well as I hoped. I then bought the 100-400 f4.5-5.6. The 2.8 IS wasn't out when I bought my 70-200 f4 IS which is newer than the original 70-200 2.8 which has been a workhorse lens for some people.
If you haven't purchased the 2.8 IS USM by the time you shoot your friends wedding, rent it. If you don't buy the lens you desire, you will always wish that you had.


----------



## pulseimages (Feb 17, 2014)

I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L IS I isn't as sharp as the IS II or non-IS versions. True?


----------



## Northstar (Feb 17, 2014)

I've had a dozen different lenses over the years and the 70-200 2.8ii is my favorite. It is a phenomenal lens. It is an asset, not an expense. 

If you don't get the canon 70-200 2.8ii, the thought of owning it will always be lurking in the back of your mind, and if you continue to grow as a photographer you usually tend to eventually want more from your gear or better gear.

That said, if you truly can't afford the lens, then look at the canon 70-200 f4 IS version over the Tammy and sig.


----------



## Northstar (Feb 17, 2014)

pulseimages said:


> I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L IS I isn't as sharp as the IS II or non-IS versions. True?



True!


----------



## tomscott (Feb 17, 2014)

I have the 70-200mm L F2.8, its sharper than the IS version I and you can pick them up for good prices. 

Love it and works great with 1.4x tele converter and at a push a 2x


----------



## ashmadux (Feb 17, 2014)

pulseimages said:


> I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L IS I isn't as sharp as the IS II or non-IS versions. True?



Yep. Pretty huge difference.


----------



## kubamadej (Feb 17, 2014)

Wow, this got a lot more interest and replies than I thought. Thanks for everyone who took the time to answer, a lot of great advice was offered.

I saw a bunch of recommendations to invest in the canon f2.8 ii IS. While I have no doubts it's a fantastic lens, I can't help but make the comparrision to when I was buying my camera body a few months back. I was looking at a 6D vs. a 5Dm3 and also got a lot of ''get the 5D, it's the best'' (excluding the 1DX) and many people saying I'll regret the AF system in the 6D. But I got the 6D (for 1400$ new), and I'm thrilled with it. It takes stunning pictures, the AF has 99% been flawless and the few times it hasn't, I've made adjustments and got on with it. I borrowed a friends 5D for a day and while it's a better camera, I can't help but feel I got 90% of the camera for half the price.

Point of that was to say I don't feel I need the best of the best, I'm more looking for excellent quality without resorting to robbing a bank. Therefore I feel I just can't justify the extra money the canon will cost me. If I'm going down the used or refurbished (something I did for my other lens and I'll gladly do again), the tamron offers me savings of at least 600$.

As for the other options mentioned, the canon f4 IS looks fantastic, my only concern is that if i decide to attach a 2X converter, I'd loose autofocus. The converter would be a last option, but it would be nice to have that reach if I so decide. I'm also concerned about people posting that the m1 version of the 2.8 IS has much worse IQ. Can Tamron and Sigma really not make a lens in the same ballpark as canon? Both the sigma and tamron are newish lens as well.

Again, thanks for all the great replies, keep them coming.


----------



## magna42 (Feb 17, 2014)

kubamadej said:


> Wow, this got a lot more interest and replies than I thought. Thanks for everyone who took the time to answer, a lot of great advice was offered.
> 
> I saw a bunch of recommendations to invest in the canon f2.8 ii IS. While I have no doubts it's a fantastic lens, I can't help but make the comparrision to when I was buying my camera body a few months back. I was looking at a 6D vs. a 5Dm3 and also got a lot of ''get the 5D, it's the best'' (excluding the 1DX) and many people saying I'll regret the AF system in the 6D. But I got the 6D (for 1400$ new), and I'm thrilled with it. It takes stunning pictures, the AF has 99% been flawless and the few times it hasn't, I've made adjustments and got on with it. I borrowed a friends 5D for a day and while it's a better camera, I can't help but feel I got 90% of the camera for half the price.
> 
> ...



I think you made a well thought out choice with the 6D. Throwing this into the mix, it sounds like 400mm may be in your future. Get the 70-200 F4 and keep your eye on prices and reviews for the Tamron 150-600. When you're ready for the longer lens you may find that you'll have a few more affordable options other that using a converter


----------



## BoneDoc (Feb 17, 2014)

Like yourself, I would consider myself an entrance amateur. I decided to stick with the Tamron after having both the time on and the Canon Mark II with me for at least one week and shoot side-by-side. Again, the Canon is a little bit better, but it is not $500 better. What swayed me toward getting the Tamron also is because when I travel around Europe, I would like to have a black lens and not a white lens that would attract even more potential fees.

I just shot a wedding of almost 700 people in attendance this past weekend. I could not be any happier with my Tamron. It performed flawlessly. I was up at iso 2000 through 25,600 most of the time due to the low light condition. If you do any lowlight events like these, you definitely need 2.8.

One thing I noticed though, is that this lens is big. So, in retrospect, I don't think it makes a difference whether this is a white lengths or a black lens, because it's just a honkin big lens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 17, 2014)

kubamadej said:


> Wow, this got a lot more interest and replies than I thought. Thanks for everyone who took the time to answer, a lot of great advice was offered.
> 
> I saw a bunch of recommendations to invest in the canon f2.8 ii IS. While I have no doubts it's a fantastic lens, I can't help but make the comparrision to when I was buying my camera body a few months back. I was looking at a 6D vs. a 5Dm3 and also got a lot of ''get the 5D, it's the best'' (excluding the 1DX) and many people saying I'll regret the AF system in the 6D. But I got the 6D (for 1400$ new), and I'm thrilled with it. It takes stunning pictures, the AF has 99% been flawless and the few times it hasn't, I've made adjustments and got on with it. I borrowed a friends 5D for a day and while it's a better camera, I can't help but feel I got 90% of the camera for half the price.
> 
> ...



I'd say the Tamron is definitely in the ballpark.
However, try all the lenses before you buy.
All theoretical discussions are pointless if you don't like what you are going to use.
I tried the 70-200 II long back, when it first came out, in a store and I wasn't even looking to buy a lens that day. But as soon as I tried it, I knew I want it some day. 3 years and half a dozen upgrades later, I have it.
So give all these lenses a whirl- I am sure that is a better way to find the right lens for you than asking a forum.


----------



## Policar (Feb 17, 2014)

kubamadej said:


> Wow, this got a lot more interest and replies than I thought. Thanks for everyone who took the time to answer, a lot of great advice was offered.
> 
> I saw a bunch of recommendations to invest in the canon f2.8 ii IS. While I have no doubts it's a fantastic lens, I can't help but make the comparrision to when I was buying my camera body a few months back. I was looking at a 6D vs. a 5Dm3 and also got a lot of ''get the 5D, it's the best'' (excluding the 1DX) and many people saying I'll regret the AF system in the 6D. But I got the 6D (for 1400$ new), and I'm thrilled with it. It takes stunning pictures, the AF has 99% been flawless and the few times it hasn't, I've made adjustments and got on with it. I borrowed a friends 5D for a day and while it's a better camera, I can't help but feel I got 90% of the camera for half the price.
> 
> ...



Lenses are assets; bodies are liabilities. Look at how each depreciates in value.

I had a 70-200mm f2.8 and it was great. Tried my friend's 70-200mm f2.8 IS and it was similar, but with IS. Both are very good and you would be happy with them I think. You would also still wish you had the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS.

We both ended up selling those lenses. They weren't exactly what we wanted. The 70-200mm f2.8 II IS is.

It's not the sharpest lens I've used (the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 wins there), but it is a joy to use. You can look at test charts and user reviews all day and you'll see that the cheaper options are not that bad. However, the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS is Canon's flagship and everything about it is just made to be great. The packaging, the build quality, the look, the autofocus, the performance, etc. It's a totally no-compromise lens. The best in class.

Why go for second best, when best isn't that much more expensive (and the total cost of ownership, taking depreciation into account, is less)? Why do you have to justify it to yourself? 

If it's a business expense get the cheapest you can get (or what will offer the most return on investment), if it's a toy get the best you can afford. Either way I think it's an easy choice. Wait for a refurb or for a sale. Mine was $1820 new or something. Worth every cent and more.


----------



## kubamadej (Feb 17, 2014)

I'd love to give all these a try, sadly (or rather amazingly) I currently live on a small island on the tip of sicily (favignana), so renting is impossible. Any lens I buy, I get it to coincide (or have the lens wait for me) with my biannual visits to my parents who live in New York. So therefore kind strangers of the internet, you are my best bet. So for my next visit, i'd love to have one of those awaiting me.

And some people are making great arguments for the f2.8 ii IS, I'm just struggling to wrap my mind around that price tag. I kinda would want mine to be made from gold at that price...

And an ongoing thanks to those who took the time to share opinions and give advice, it's much appreciated.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Feb 17, 2014)

Northstar said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L IS I isn't as sharp as the IS II or non-IS versions. True?
> ...



Yes, It's not as sharp BUT its still pretty dang sharp.


----------



## gargamel (Feb 17, 2014)

Not wanting to confuse you, and also not to extend the scope of discussion arbitrarily, but if f/2.8 is not a must, you might find this interesting, too:

Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VS Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 VC - AMAZING RESULTS!!

It can be had really cheap and seems to be surprisingly good. This is not to say that it's up to any of the 70-200s, but amazingly close, it seems. (Well, yeah, this is a Canon forum, and the video is from "that Nikon guy"...)

gargamel


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 17, 2014)

kubamadej said:


> I'd love to give all these a try, sadly (or rather amazingly) I currently live on a small island on the tip of sicily (favignana), so renting is impossible.



Amazingly is more appropriate. I'd prefer great subject to great equipment any day 
In your case, I'd suggest sticking to Canon. As I said, more reliable (although many on this forum will not agree).


----------



## pwp (Feb 18, 2014)

ashmadux said:


> pulseimages said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard the 70-200 2.8 L IS I isn't as sharp as the IS II or non-IS versions. True?
> ...


Really? Do you have realistic evidence for this? Based on one example? 

There are always going to be minor variations from copy to copy in any manufactured goods, even with high levels of factory quality control. If there was a "huge" difference, professionals and astute enthusiasts across the planet would be avoiding the usually stellar IS version of this legendary workhorse in their 1000's. I don't see this happening.

Personal and anecdotal experience right here at CR would suggest that most copies of both lenses are exceptionally sharp.

-pw


----------



## Policar (Feb 18, 2014)

gargamel said:


> Not wanting to confuse you, and also not to extend the scope of discussion arbitrarily, but if f/2.8 is not a must, you might find this interesting, too:
> 
> Tamron 70-200 f2.8 VS Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 VC - AMAZING RESULTS!!
> 
> ...



The Tamron is GREAT but very soft at 300mm f5.6 relative even to 200mm f2.8 on the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS. That said, if you stop down even half a stop it's good.

And the lens overall is fantastic, small, and light. I HIGHLY recommend this lens if you plan to shoot mostly outside and don't need the lightning fast AF of the 70-200mm f2.8 II IS.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 18, 2014)

kubamadej said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I recently got a 6D that I'm very happy with alongside the 24-105, as well as 50 and 85mm primes (all canon). Now I'm thinking of adding a 70-200mm lens and would love that to be a 2.8. Now as much as everyone raves over the canon 70-200 f2.8 ii IS, it's simply out of my budget. So I was thinking between the Tamron f2.8 macro version (700ish), the tamron f2.8 VS version (1400ish), Sigma f2.8 HSM (750ish), Sigma f2.8 OS (1250ish), or any other lens you can recommend that I haven't mentioned. I could probably afford the less expensive lens now, but would require a while longer saving for the more expensive ones. I also plan on adding a teleconverter on whichever one I choose (probably a 2x) soon after in situations where I want more reach. Any advice you could offer me? Would be much appreciated.
> 
> As for the type of photographer I am, I don't get any money out of it but it's a serious hobby for me, that's been growing steadily. I tend to do a bunch of portraits and am shooting a wedding for a friend next year, but love and also do some landscapes, sports, nature, basically a bit of everything. All-around would probably best describe my needs.



Try to work a deal if you can.
I ended up getting my 70-200 f/2.8 II, for about $1600.

I bought my 5D3 and a 85mm f/1.8 lens from Crutchfield. I signed up at that time for the rewards points and found a code to get double points for new person.

So, I got a ton of points on that purchase, I waited till Canon had a sale/rebate on lenses.

So, when this happened, I used those points, plus auto rebate..and I used Crutchfields 12mo interest free financing....

I got the lens delivered, tax free for about $1600...

So, there are ways to get deals, you just have to plot, plan and be patient.

HTH,

cayenne


----------



## Grumbaki (Feb 19, 2014)

if your math is just ratio price/quality then just go for the Tamron as many said.

if you factor in the resale value and the emergency (do you really need it for the period of time necessary to save up 400$?) then the Canon might be a non brainer.

I chose the second option and don't regret it.


----------



## cayenne (Feb 19, 2014)

kubamadej said:


> Wow, this got a lot more interest and replies than I thought. Thanks for everyone who took the time to answer, a lot of great advice was offered.
> 
> I saw a bunch of recommendations to invest in the canon f2.8 ii IS. While I have no doubts it's a fantastic lens, I can't help but make the comparrision to when I was buying my camera body a few months back. I was looking at a 6D vs. a 5Dm3 and also got a lot of ''get the 5D, it's the best'' (excluding the 1DX) and many people saying I'll regret the AF system in the 6D. But I got the 6D (for 1400$ new), and I'm thrilled with it. It takes stunning pictures, the AF has 99% been flawless and the few times it hasn't, I've made adjustments and got on with it. I borrowed a friends 5D for a day and while it's a better camera, I can't help but feel I got 90% of the camera for half the price.
> 
> ...


When it comes to thinking between lenses and bodies....err on the side of spending more on lenses.

You can't go wrong investing your dollars on good glass. You can do with a lessor body, but you will do well to save those extra dollars, wait a bit longer...and splurge on the good glass.


----------

