# Owners of 70-200f2.8L IS mk.II & 70-300 L IS



## K-amps (Nov 22, 2011)

Guys:

I have owned and enjoyed the 70-300L these past months. It is light and has great IQ. All along I was on the lookout for a cheap 70-200f2.8 IS mk.II, and while I could goto ebay/CL, I figured if I could get one refurbished from Canon Direct (i.e. like new but serviced by Canon, I would go for it)... I waited for months but none showed up in stock till last Friday, I visited the site again and said to myself... if they have one in stock, I will push the button.

Well one did and it was delivered today!! ;D I was very excited and went home over lunch to open the box up. 

Apart from a tiny paint chip (less than 1mmx1mm) it is MINT. It does not come with the white box, but otherwise with all accessories. I think it is a great deal at $1999 especially when Canon has gone over it (something not all Production units can claim since random lots are inspected on the line):... or so I console myself. :-\

I only had time to fit it on to my 5D and take some test shots and view them on the Camera LCD.

It is too early to say if the images are good or not, but what I did notice is that for the 5-10 minutes that I held it.... my left arm which supports the lens... started to quiver with the weight after this little session. This never happens with the 70-300L. 

Originally; my intention was to sell the 70-300L when I got the 70-200mk.ii +x2.0mk.III, but now... I am wondering if I will enjoy holding this heavy lens for long periods.

Would like to know if you guys have trouble keeping up with this solid lens and did you get used to it.

Thanks,
K


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't mind carrying and using the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for long periods. My bodies are gripped, which of course adds to the total weight, but provides better balance, IMO. 

No, the lens is not light...but it's a lot lighter than my daughters, and I carry them around a lot, which is great for arm strength.


----------



## handsomerob (Nov 22, 2011)

K-amps said:


> It is too early to say if the images are good or not, ...



Oh you'll be amazed 

It's by no means a light lens but I find it perfectly hand holdable. After a whole day of usage I will feel my arms (especially around the wrists) hurting when I'm back home. But once you see the results, all that pain would magically disappear  It's that good!

There are people who use it with a monopod but there are also people who can carry a 400 f/2.8 whole day without complaining so it's normal, YMMV.

I would recommend some weight training. You should get good results in like 2 months if you train regularly. With more muscles you can hold it for longer periods and have less pain at the end of each day. Also, the more you use the lens, you'll get used to it, it will _feel_ lighter than you initially felt (especially on the first day).

Congrats with your purchase and have fun with your new toy


----------



## K-amps (Nov 22, 2011)

Thanks Guys!

Have you compared the IQ of the 70-300L vs the 70-200f2.8mk.II personally? (the light sensitivity apart)


----------



## branden (Nov 22, 2011)

I've rented both the 70-200L Mk2 and the 70-300L, and simply: they're both awesome. 

The reasoning to pick one over the other depends entirely on what you're shooting and how you shoot. For me personally, the 70-300L's smaller size ends up being the winning factor. But maybe you shoot more outdoor portraits, or more events? The 70-200L is a better choice if that's the case.

Basically, if you're like me, no matter how great the lens's image quality, if it's larger than a thermos, it's too big for everyday use. On Vacations, the 70-300L is a clear winner. If I shot more events professionally, that might change my mind. As it stands now, I'm using the 135L instead of either.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 22, 2011)

Thanks...

So 70-200 f2.8 plus 2x MK.III = 140-400 f5.6... would that be better or worse than the 70-300L at 300mm only comparing IQ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2011)

K-amps said:


> Thanks...
> 
> So 70-200 f2.8 plus 2x MK.III = 140-400 f5.6... would that be better or worse than the 70-300L at 300mm only comparing IQ?



Worse (at least, comparing 400mm to 300mm). The 2x III will result in a bigger IQ decrement than the 1.4x III, and even the 1.4x III, stopped down to f/5.6, is worse at 280/300mm.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 22, 2011)

Wow... not only lack of sharpness, but more CA and lesser contrast as well... However at f6.3 the combo does rather well albeit a slight loss of contrast. CA and sharpness are much improved.

Thanks John.

PS: I once tested a 70-200f4IS vs the f2.8 mk.II, the F4 looked sharper. Both were stopped down to their minima... I did not test the macdaddy at f4 though...


----------



## handsomerob (Nov 22, 2011)

K-amps said:


> Wow... not only lack of sharpness, but more CA and lesser contrast as well...



Don't forget the impact on AF speed as well, it would be quite significant


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 22, 2011)

One word: monopod


----------



## dougkerr (Nov 22, 2011)

Hi, K,



K-amps said:


> Would like to know if you guys have trouble keeping up with this solid lens and did you get used to it.



I had the EX 70-200 mm f/2.8L IS USM (not the "II"). It was too big and heavy for me. I sold it and bought the f/4. It is lovely.

I also have the Extender EF 1.4x (not the "II"). The combination performs excellently.

The AF performance is much better than on the f/2.8 (not II), although I would expect even more improvement on the f/2.8 II.

Best regards,

Doug


----------



## bvukich (Nov 22, 2011)

K-amps said:


> It is too early to say if the images are good or not, but what I did notice is that for the 5-10 minutes that I held it.... my left arm which supports the lens... started to quiver with the weight after this little session. This never happens with the 70-300L.
> 
> Originally; my intention was to sell the 70-300L when I got the 70-200mk.ii +x2.0mk.III, but now... I am wondering if I will enjoy holding this heavy lens for long periods.
> 
> ...



You're going to hate it. You should sell it to me immediately at a substantial loss ;D


----------



## EYEONE (Nov 22, 2011)

The weight doesn't really bother me. I honestly don't notice it and I'm not a super strong dude. I leave it on my 7D all the time.

It's worth it for the AF speed alone, it's near instantaneous. It will blow you away. Though I'm sure the 70-300 is fast too.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

K-amps said:


> Thanks Guys!
> 
> Have you compared the IQ of the 70-300L vs the 70-200f2.8mk.II personally? (the light sensitivity apart)



I use both. The 70-300 is the default when I am going walking in the countryside. Less weight to carry. The 70-200 is the default for low light or portraits.

I hang the camera with lens from a Black Rapid strap so the weight is not on the arms or hands in between shots (and you cant drop it).

Both are very fast AF - nothing really between them

Very little in IQ difference between them up to 200mm

Minimum focus distance is the same for both - except the 70-300L has the bigger image, works nicely for close ups.

Both lens have their strong points - the winner is the one that ticks the most boxes for you. I am keeping both.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 22, 2011)

i sent quite a while shooting mainly with a 1D3 and a 28-300 so changing to a 5D2 with a 70-200 f2.8 felt like massive relief as far as weight goes


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> i sent quite a while shooting mainly with a 1D3 and a 28-300 so changing to a 5D2 with a 70-200 f2.8 felt like massive relief as far as weight goes



I know how you feel - I switch when out between a 1D4 + 400 f/2.8 and a 7D + 70-200L f/2.8 II. 

Then I go for a walk with a 7D with the 70-300L and it is like a P&S it feels that light


----------



## wopbv4 (Nov 22, 2011)

Indeed the 70-200 is heavy, especially if used with a 2X extender. WIth the 2X extender the centre of gravity shift even more forward, so it feels a lot more heavy. Of course the extender adds weight as well.
However, as the images are EXCELLENT, I am still happy to carry the extra weight


----------



## Flake (Nov 22, 2011)

LOL I don;t have any problems with this lens & I'm a girl! Perhaps you should try the 28 - 300mm IS L or worse the Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8. I never carry these lenses around my neck, normally use a monopod to shoot with. The Sigma has a nice tripod mount with built in finger grips, and the Canons are easy enough to carry with the mount trapped between the fingers, even with the monopod attached.

If you want a zoom with a bit of reach then consider the Sigma it's very good.


----------



## lol (Nov 22, 2011)

While I haven't used the 70-200 II I do have the 100-400L which is near enough the same weight. When I first got that, the weight did get to me, but I guess my arm muscles built up quickly from just using it and I hardly notice it now.

If you really want to make the lens feel insignificant, get a 300/2.8 or similar to lug around for a while...

If money isn't a major issue, keep both lenses and use them as appropriate to the task at hand.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 22, 2011)

Flake said:


> LOL I don;t have any problems with this lens & I'm a girl! Perhaps you should try the 28 - 300mm IS L or worse the Sigma 120 - 300mm f/2.8. I never carry these lenses around my neck, normally use a monopod to shoot with. The Sigma has a nice tripod mount with built in finger grips, and the Canons are easy enough to carry with the mount trapped between the fingers, even with the monopod attached.
> 
> If you want a zoom with a bit of reach then consider the Sigma it's very good.



I agree with you Flake - and I am a feeble old pensioner


----------



## daveheinzel (Nov 23, 2011)

I use the 70-200 2.8L IS II on a 7D with a battery grip. I carry that and a 60D with a wide angle & flash on many assignments. The weight would bother me if the images weren't as good as they are, but the truth is that I am so happy with the images coming off of the 70-200 that I have no ill feelings towards it at all. It's just a matter of physics that if you want that focal range with that f-stop and image stabilization, you are going to pay in more ways than one. But at the end of the day, it's the one lens I know I can count on every single time.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 23, 2011)

Got home and took some test shot indoors.... WOW! It is almost like cheating at exams... it's that much better than other lenses i have used so far in terms of lighting up the portrait under incandescent lighting. Success rate much better indoors. The 180mm prime I loved so much for portraits seems so old school now...  If it wasn't a macro I'd be selling it ... lets see how much noise the wifey makes... maybe I keep both? ;D


----------



## bvukich (Nov 23, 2011)

If you can't lug it around for at least 3-4 hours, and still have a smile on your face, then you're weaker than my 10 year old.


----------



## pj1974 (Nov 23, 2011)

I've got the 70-300mm L, and have used a number of lenses around the same weight / size as the 70-200mm L f2.8 II (but I've not actually used that lens).

While I can carry a lens like the 70-200mm f2.8 attached to my DLSR all day, it does get uncomfortable for me after some time. I'm a reasonably fit & healthy middle aged guy - though I'm not hugely muscular (ie not like my twin brother who does weights, etc).

Definitely when I go for outings (eg day walks or longer), I comfortably take my 70-300mm L in my Lowepro shoulder bag, and have the Canon 15-85mm mounted to my 7D. If there is a lot of wildlife around, I will use my 70-300mm L happily for hours. I'm particularly glad the 70-300mm L has a centre of gravity close to the camera body / lens mount (makes it more hand-holdable).

When I've used heavier lenses, I find that I don't hold my camera up as much, and yes - my wrists do tire (also might have to do with the fact that I have office RSI - repetitive strain injury, I have use my computer & mouse a lot for work for over 20 years). I'm grateful that I advised a slightly built female friend not to purchase the Canon 28-300mm L for her Canon 550D (I explained about the weight- saying it would feel like a bazooka).

If you need to shoot sports or events, the 70-200mm L f2.8 is certainly desireable (or necessarily). However if you don't (like me) - or rather need a lens for wildlife... then the 70-300mm L is probably the one to get. My 70-300mm L is super sharp & contrasty, corner to corner, any focal length, even wide open. I know the 70-200mm L f2.8 II has similarly great optical quality and build quality. 

Some good discussion here in the threads here.... K_Amps, I hope you'll have a good outcome.

Paul


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Nov 23, 2011)

The 70-200mm 2.8 IS II is HEAVY as! Obviously not as heavy as those primes, but it's pretty damn heavy!! Going to tell you my experience (might be a very lengthy post but it explains my experience with the weight of the lens). 

I bought my 7D as a kit lens from the motherland of canon and nikon; Japan, (so my kit lens was a 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 IS). This was my first SLR camera and I thought the lens and the camera all up was heavy! Probably weighed about 3kg or something, give or take. Anyway I go to a major sporting event every year (tennis) and I almost go the entire 14 days of the event. Now I go there on average 8hrs a day. Since this particular tennis event is the weakest outta the other major ones available (i.e. one arena and lot pf practice courts is on one side of the venue and the other lot of practice courts and other arena on the other side, about 4.5km-5km away from each other. I would always have my camera hanging on my neck and if I was in one of the showcourts trying to get a player's autograph (i.e me standing on a platform looking *down* at them and leaning over the barrier, camera + lens dangling and swinging everywhere. It KILLED my neck. *But not as much as the 70-200 lens did, it absolutely KILLED my neck 100x fold.*

EVen though I bought a diffent strap which got a lot of reviews saying that it takes the weight (IMO it takes *some* of the weight) off your neck making it easier to carry. If I was not a tennis nut and devoted fan and keen amatuer photographer I definitely wouldn't recommend carrying the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II lens on your neck and using it to take take photos for more than 2 hrs, 3hrs at the most! I'm dumb lol, but hey, I really like photography _and _ tennis. I suggest getting a tripod (I'm in the process of getting one) and a few people said, before I bought my lens, was to go to the gym lol. It makes sense, but you definitely _need_ a backpack to carry the 70-200 mounted to your camera. Just using a tripod to carry it would be tiresom. Seriously try carrying a 10kg backpack with a 3litre hydration pack + food + jumper + wallet + some other things + books + pens&markers AND have 5kg (give/take a bit) of camera gear hanging/swinging/bumping/dangling down your neck for 18+ hours, walking god only knows just how many kms I walked on average a day during the event (at least 14km, the very least I reckon on average). Average 60,000 people/spectators are there at the event constantly bumping into you. 

_Be prepared whenever you use your 70-200 lens, it's damn well heavy ESPECIALLY if you're silly enough like me lugging it around your neck for 15hrs a day._ BTW congrats on purchasing the lens, though I'm curious to why the original owner sold the lens ???


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 23, 2011)

I carry 2 cameras around all day hanging from this :http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-black-rapid-rs-dr-1-double-strap/p1520233

Weight on the shoulder, cameras at the side.

I am a pensioner, and not that fit - but it is no problem.

Question: Why would you want a tripod for tennis? Or are you mounting it on a gimbal? Not sure how a body + 70-200 gets to 6kg, -> 2-1/2kg tops


----------



## ghosh9691 (Nov 23, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> _Be prepared whenever you use your 70-200 lens, it's damn well heavy ESPECIALLY if you're silly enough like me lugging it around your neck for 15hrs a day._ BTW congrats on purchasing the lens, though I'm curious to why the original owner sold the lens ???



The 70-200 f2.8L IS II is definitely heavy, but if you use the tripod ring and attach it to something like a BlackRapid strap, then carrying it all day long is not a problem. This lens is not meant to be slung around the neck - its too large for that!


----------



## K-amps (Nov 23, 2011)

Thank you all for your inputs!

The 70-300L seems sharper than my 70-200mk.ii, but then I have been shooting f2.8... I don't mind the softness for portraits, but do you guys feel the same?


----------



## motorhead (Nov 23, 2011)

My mkII version is considerably sharper than the original mk1 version. I've never tested the 70-300 so cannot compare.


----------



## DavidM (Nov 23, 2011)

the 70/200mm f/2.8 is very heavy, not easy to carry around such a heavy lens


----------



## handsomerob (Nov 23, 2011)

K-amps said:


> The 70-300L seems sharper than my 70-200mk.ii, but then I have been shooting f2.8... I don't mind the softness for portraits, but do you guys feel the same?



Hmm, 70-200 f/2.8 II is supposed to be tack sharp wide open (mine is) so maybe yours requires some AF micro adjustment?


----------



## branden (Nov 23, 2011)

Both the 70-300L and the 70-200Lii are very sharp ... so I think nobody's going to be able to answer your question without examples posted?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2011)

handsomerob said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-300L seems sharper than my 70-200mk.ii, but then I have been shooting f2.8... I don't mind the softness for portraits, but do you guys feel the same?
> ...



+1. My 70-200 II is tack-sharp, but I did AFMA.


----------



## Crapking (Nov 23, 2011)

My experiences shooting volleyball with a 7D, single rapid strap and a monopod/light duty grip ball head have been pleasant enough. With frequent down time between matches, moving around with the sling strap/folded monopod combo and quick release grip certainly minimizes the "feel" of the 70-200, and composing/zooming with handle reversed to the left and right hand on the controls feels sturdy.


----------

