# EF 70-200 f/2.8L II Horror Stories



## MonteGraham (Sep 29, 2013)

I hear such wonderful post about this lens. Has anyone had a bad experience or dislike of this lens?


----------



## Pi (Sep 29, 2013)

If you really want to know:

http://www.lightingmods.blogspot.pt/2013/08/halo-problems-on-canon-lens-70-200-l-is.html


----------



## lucuias (Oct 1, 2013)

Beside weight and price.This is an amazing lens


----------



## K-amps (Oct 1, 2013)

This lens is the reason I am with canon....


----------



## Max ☢ (Oct 1, 2013)

lucuias said:


> Beside weight and price.This is an amazing lens



Great shot! I really like this close-up, but the subject's skin look kinda "plastic", or unnaturally smooth at best. Did you do some heavy photoshopping on this one? if so, it really shows. Otherwise, the rendering seems to indicate that the protagonists have been dipped in resin just prior to the photo session, which would be fine for a Barbie commercial. (sorry if my comment appears sarcastic, that's not the intention, I think this is a great work apart from the skin rendition)

back to the original post: I went through many user's reviews when I had to pick my next telephoto lens, and so far I haven't read anything negative about the 70-200L/2.8 beside its weight. I ultimately went for the 70-300L because of its lower weight (i.e. portability), longer range and better rendering at the longer end than the 70-200L/2.8 with TC. If you don't mind the weight and shorter range and need a shallower DoF, then the 70-200L/2.8 is definitely the sure thing.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 1, 2013)

I have owned three copies, because I couldn't decide between the 85 L and the 70-200.

I have had one copy that was completely useless, I had it in for repair, they changed TWO AF-moduls and TWO IS-units, they took out the front end, and three glass-elements and re-aligned the glass and when it came back the AF worked perfectly, but the IS was still not starting as quick as the previous copy, and it jumped, and often worked only one direction, and made a very weird, loud noise. It was VERY soft at 200 when I sent it in, and after all the re-alignment of the glass and front end it came back exactly the same. I sold it for cheap and had the buyer try it to see if if he liked it, and he bought, so I got a third copy, which like the two others had the issue of IS not being perfect, sometimes too slow to start, sometimes only one direction stabilized. But the AF and sharpness and overall image quality and build is as good as it gets. Wonderful lens. Just not as good as the 200 L, which is the reason I no longer have it


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 1, 2013)

Viggo said:


> I have owned three copies, because I couldn't decide between the 85 L and the 70-200.
> 
> I have had one copy that was completely useless, I had it in for repair, they changed TWO AF-moduls and TWO IS-units, they took out the front end, and three glass-elements and re-aligned the glass and when it came back the AF worked perfectly, but the IS was still not starting as quick as the previous copy, and it jumped, and often worked only one direction, and made a very weird, loud noise. It was VERY soft at 200 when I sent it in, and after all the re-alignment of the glass and front end it came back exactly the same. I sold it for cheap and had the buyer try it to see if if he liked it, and he bought, so I got a third copy, which like the two others had the issue of IS not being perfect, sometimes too slow to start, sometimes only one direction stabilized. But the AF and sharpness and overall image quality and build is as good as it gets. Wonderful lens. Just not as good as the 200 L, which is the reason I no longer have it



I had a ef 200mm f2.8 II L and it was a stunning optic, slightly sharper than my 135L. When I got my 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, I compared it to my 200L and found that the zoom had better contrast and colours. Sharpness tthere was littel between them, manybe a slight nod to the prime wide open. But with teleconverters, the zoom was a lot better. The Zoom has the latest IS unit, faster and quieter AF and it focusses closer too. The bokeh of the prime and general flare control was better than the zoom. The prime is a lot lighter and less obtrusive.
I felt that for my needs, the zoom was a better optic.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Oct 1, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I have owned three copies, because I couldn't decide between the 85 L and the 70-200.
> ...



I think he means the 200mm f/2.0L IS, not the 200 f/2.8L....


----------



## M.ST (Oct 1, 2013)

The 70-200 2.8 II is one of the Canon workhorse lenses.

I like my lens and get oustanding results with it.

But a few month ago I test for a friend a new 70-200 2.8 II lens and it was totally useless for taking pictures. But that was only a exception.

I can highly recommend the lens. If you don´t have the lens, buy it.


----------



## Viggo (Oct 1, 2013)

hawaiisunsetphoto said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Thanks, you beat me to it, I am talking about the 200 f2.0 yes.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Oct 1, 2013)

Its my most used lens.
Excellent in IQ and the IS is very helpful.
Love it!


----------



## pwp (Oct 1, 2013)

70-200 f/2.8isII horror stories? It's almost a contradiction.

You won't hear much other than high praise for this lens. Like any manufactured goods, regardless of factory quality control standards, the occasional "Friday afternoon" lens may slip through. Any horror stories are most likely to originate from damaged/poorly repaired lenses bought second hand in good faith.

The only horror story for me is the rare occasion that I'm without my 70-200 f/2.8isII. It's far and away my most used lens.

-pw


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 1, 2013)

lucuias said:


> Beside weight and price.



Yes, "beside"  and add "bulk" since it's an internal zoom... all three factors being potential problems according to personal preferences and circumstances.

So for pro use and if you have the $$$ and don't mind carrying/holding this thing, it's great, but for outdoor/travel seeing people carrying a 5d3+70-200/2.8 through nature or foreign places seems a bit awkward... consider the 70-300L in this case and a faster prime like the 135L for portrait. Also the 100L is a single-focus replacement for the 70-200L and also adds macro capability.


----------



## K3nt (Oct 1, 2013)

Simply an awesome bit of kit. Love mine which has been perfect from day one. My friend was a bit unlucky and his copy blew out the AF motor within a month. Warranty fixed it and it has been working like a charm ever since.
Wouldn't (and couldn't) live without it.


----------



## MonteGraham (Oct 1, 2013)

pwp said:


> 70-200 f/2.8isII horror stories? It's almost a contradiction.
> 
> You won't hear much other than high praise for this lens. Like any manufactured goods, regardless of factory quality control standards, the occasional "Friday afternoon" lens may slip through. Any horror stories are most likely to originate from damaged/poorly repaired lenses bought second hand in good faith.
> 
> ...



+2 Im starting to realize that!!


----------



## AlanF (Oct 1, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> lucuias said:
> 
> 
> > Beside weight and price.
> ...



Why do people ignore the 70-200mm f/4 IS? It is stunningly sharp, almost as sharp as the "best" f/2.8s, and a fraction of the weight and price.


----------



## Marsu42 (Oct 1, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Why do people ignore the 70-200mm f/4 IS? It is stunningly sharp, almost as sharp as the "best" f/2.8s, and a fraction of the weight and price.



For me: Because there is no significant iq or speed difference between 70-200/4L & 70-300/4-5.6L, but the 70-200L is bulkier (longer), has less reach and costs nearly as much. The one point for the 70-200/4L is the constant f-stop, but that only matters if you shoot full m a lot or are doing video.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Oct 1, 2013)

MonteGraham said:


> Has anyone had a bad experience or dislike of this lens?



No


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 1, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > lucuias said:
> ...



I found that my f4 LIS (which I wish I hadn't sold) was a tad sharper...but there wasn't much between them. I think my f4 version was slightly better at MFD, where as my f2.8 is slightly better at infinity. Both are great lenses but you are quite right, the f4 LIS is often over looked because it's older (the mkII 2.8 created quite a fuss when it came out) and it's slim features are often over looked by it's less bright f4 aperture. For many, this is all they need. For domestic and travel use, I'd say it's a hard choice between the 70-200 f4 LIS and the 70-300 LIS.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Oct 1, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



For travel I'd definitely take the 70-300L - particularly if you are shooting full frame. I love mine. That being said, with this generation of ISO performance I think that many people who shoot events could use the f/4L IS without a hitch. I often use the 135L with and without the 1.4x tele and it is a great, light combination, but the lack of IS is a factor, and the f/4L IS would probably serve as well in that setting.


----------



## Pi (Oct 1, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people ignore the 70-200mm f/4 IS? It is stunningly sharp, almost as sharp as the "best" f/2.8s, and a fraction of the weight and price.
> ...



For me: the 70-200/4 IS is faster in a significant way for me; it is significantly lighter: 735 g vs. 1,050 g; slimmer (which means that in _my _ bag, it takes as much space as any other lens), more or less uniformly sharp across the range unlike the 70-300; and I do not shoot video. 

The 70-200/2.8 IS is a different story.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 1, 2013)

MonteGraham said:


> Has anyone had a bad experience or dislike of this lens?



Yes, it wiped out $2k+ of my money. It put many of my lenses to shame, making me spend more (24-70 II, Mk III extenders) to keep up with it. And it takes such damned good photos that I have to haul this beast around with me every time I shoot  

Also, I just thought it got a lot of attention until I got my 300mm 2.8. No comparison.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Oct 1, 2013)

There was this one time, my battery ran out and i had forgot my spare, so i couldn't use my 70-200... it was horrible! :


----------



## MonteGraham (Oct 1, 2013)

Pinchers of Peril said:


> MonteGraham said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone had a bad experience or dislike of this lens?
> ...



+1


----------



## Solar B (Oct 1, 2013)

Roger Cicala at Lensrentals.com posted a nice blog about repair data and failure rates. This is what he had to say about 70-200 2.8 lenses.

"70-200 f/2.8 lenses are likely to fail no matter who makes them. We think of them as ‘built like tanks’ because they have that heavy, all-metal case. That case, though, is as packed with mechanics and electronics as anything you’ve ever seen. There’s a LOT of stuff in there that has to work perfectly. Inevitably, some of that stuff breaks."

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/lensrentals-repair-data-2012-2013


----------



## cayenne (Oct 1, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > lucuias said:
> ...


I find that more and more, I'm shooting things in low light, recently on a bar crawl for charity, or maybe wanting to shoot bands in concert, etc.

I've pretty much made up my mind to not bother buying lenses slower that f/2.8.

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 and love it. Sure, it is a tank, but a couple trips to the gym help that out quickly.

I just rented a canon 50mm L f/1.2, and fell in love with that. I'm now trying to decide what to save up for next..that 50L, or maybe the 100L macro....decisions, decisions...

C


----------



## ashmadux (Oct 1, 2013)

This lens is ridiculously awesome. Ive had for two years now, brings out the best in all my cameras, even the noisy 7d i tossed.

i just shot fashion week with it (street style), and the amazing character & detail of the photos with my trusty t2i (love that sensor!) is always awe inspiring. If i ever setup up to full frame, im gonna have a visual heart attack (the best kind  ).

Other photogs that always have used 35, 50, or 85s, came with 70-200's.


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 1, 2013)

This is a great lens. I have had it from it just released. I mount it on my camera body most of time when I take kids to amusement parks. Thus, the only cons for me are weight and size. However, that's the trade off and worth.


----------



## Jeffrey (Oct 1, 2013)

No horror stories here. The lens is a delight and is my "go-to" lens for most everything in that range. As a previous post stated, my 300 f/2.8 makes the image quality of the 70-200mm lens second in line.


----------



## kennykodak (Oct 1, 2013)

my most used lens by far, standard lens in camera room.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 1, 2013)

Only problem I've had is weight. Sometimes I leave it behind because I have a sore neck. My lens has been 100% reliable, and it's worth the price.


----------



## RunAndGun (Oct 1, 2013)

Great Lens. I bought the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS v1 shortly after I got my first 5DmkII and it was OK. I bought the v2 a few months after it came out(on a screaming deal @ B&H that I believe was $1700-$1800 w/rebate) and it did not disappoint me. It actually surprised me how good it was. It made my v1 look like a dog. The improved IS is damn good. Right out of the box, just testing around the house, I was getting tack sharp images at 200mm/2.8 with shutter speeds of 1/15s and 1/20s with still subjects. I don't think I've ever used the v1 since then. It's also probably the most used lens on my C300, too. And the IS is great when shooting off-the-shoulder with it, as well.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 1, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Why do people ignore the 70-200mm f/4 IS? It is stunningly sharp, almost as sharp as the "best" f/2.8s, and a fraction of the weight and price.


It's not as glamorous, but is a killer lens in its own right - Art Wolfe uses it instead of the f/2.8. I had both for a while but sold my f/4 IS, which had been my favorite lens for many years. Portability isn't as important to me and the size and weight, while considerable are worth the tradeoff for the ability to shoot at f/2.8, better IS, and tougher build quality. 

If you travel a lot, don't need f/2.8, or shoot fast moving subjects, it would definitely be the better lens, especially for the money.


----------



## lucuias (Oct 2, 2013)

Max ☢ said:


> lucuias said:
> 
> 
> > Beside weight and price.This is an amazing lens
> ...



Yes,the skin was heavily smoothen via post(NIK)


----------



## JonB8305 (Oct 2, 2013)

lucuias said:


> Max ☢ said:
> 
> 
> > lucuias said:
> ...



I actually like the look, looks like CGI in a video game. How did you achieve it?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 2, 2013)

I've had three copies of the lens, all were wonderful. I returned the first two because of difficulty holding them. It turned out to be carpal tunnel plus diabetic retinopathy. After surgery on my hands last October, I bought a refurb on one of the 20% off deals, and have kept it.
I'm sure that there are bad copies out there, I'm also sure that there are some who don't know how to use one. Regardless, its a good idea to check out a new high priced purchase right away and return it if it doesn't work out.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Oct 3, 2013)

Here you go:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=2933.0

The IS module is prone to give grinding noise and crap out in 1-2 years.

And call me extremely unlucky, my copy brought from overseas exhibits uneven sharpness/CA across the frame. The right hand side of the frame was blurrier and had more literal CA than the left hand side. The boken is also asymmetrical to the right side. So in essence it is de-centered from factory. Putting it on 1.4x extender gives VERY bad results.

In the end I took apart the lens myself and re-aligned the movable elements. It is in top conditional now and I am happy about it all around.

The rear group is critical to the sharpness of this lens and it is fixed by 3 screws with big screw hole for aligment and a dab of black glue. Not a very robust way to fix a critical group. All the rest of 3 adjustable groups have eccentric screws and can be adjusted precisely.

It took me almost 5 days to position the rear group in a good alignment and once that is done, micro-adjust the other groups and got very sharp image across the frame. Also with 1.4x is it very sharp.

So yes, I have went through horror with this lens but in the end I still like it :-* :'(


----------



## BozillaNZ (Oct 3, 2013)

Pics to show that I am not crazy and I know what I am talking about:


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Oct 3, 2013)

I love mine to death, but it did give me a scare after about two months of use. I had my IS on during a shoot, dipped my camera down, and then heard a terrible grinding noise. Literally scared the crap out of me. I've had it for almost 8 months and it's still working fine, but if I happen to move the lens up or down while the IS is on, it sounds like metal on metal for a second or two. I would have sent it off to Canon to get it checked out, but I've heard too many horror stories about lenses being sent to Canon and never working the same way after a repair. The sharpness and contrast is unreal, and I'd rather deal with a little grinding and having the IS crap out on me after 2 years as BozillaNZ said than take a chance of affecting the quality it's currently putting out.


----------



## Rawb (Oct 3, 2013)

I have nothing bad to say about this lens. It's amazing. But for a horror story(Human error) very shortly after I bought my lens I placed it in my camera bag quickly and the lens cap pushed against the edge too hard and popped off and tapped the lens element. Luckily it didn't scratch the element but the coating has a small pen size dot on it. Doesn't show up in pictures at all so most of my worry is gone. But man my heart dropped thinking "If I scratched this... :-\   "


----------



## BozillaNZ (Oct 3, 2013)

Rawb said:


> I have nothing bad to say about this lens. It's amazing. But for a horror story(Human error) very shortly after I bought my lens I placed it in my camera bag quickly and the lens cap pushed against the edge too hard and popped off and tapped the lens element. Luckily it didn't scratch the element but the coating has a small pen size dot on it. Doesn't show up in pictures at all so most of my worry is gone. But man my heart dropped thinking "If I scratched this... :-\   "



Go get yourself a B+W Nano UV, this lens deserves it.


----------



## lucuias (Oct 3, 2013)

JonB8305 said:


> lucuias said:
> 
> 
> > Max ☢ said:
> ...



I light it with 60x60cm softbox and smoothen the skin using Nik colour effect pro.

Here are the metadata:-
Camera: Canon
Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark III
ISO: 200
Exposure: 1/200 sec
Aperture: 5.0
Focal Length: 150mm


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 3, 2013)

Rawb said:


> I have nothing bad to say about this lens. It's amazing. But for a horror story(Human error) very shortly after I bought my lens I placed it in my camera bag quickly and the lens cap pushed against the edge too hard and popped off and tapped the lens element. Luckily it didn't scratch the element but the coating has a small pen size dot on it. Doesn't show up in pictures at all so most of my worry is gone. But man my heart dropped thinking "If I scratched this... :-\   "



Canon objective lenses (the front element) are a lot tougher than people give them credit for. Generally they are tougher than any filter placed in front of them. I generally prefer a hood than a filter for protection, filters degrade quality, cause unwanted ghosts and reflections and increase flare. The best protection IMHO is to use a great big plastic wrap around it...ie the supplied hood. It's a pity the current mkII just missed out on the new flourine coatings!


----------



## nicku (Oct 3, 2013)

Nice pics lucuias....


----------



## insanitybeard (Oct 3, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Why do people ignore the 70-200mm f/4 IS? It is stunningly sharp, almost as sharp as the "best" f/2.8s, and a fraction of the weight and price.



Indeed, and those are the reasons why I own the f4 IS- less bulky and heavy than the 2.8, so good for travel, almost as good or as good optically and a lot less money! I couldn't justify the expense of the 2.8 but the f4 gives me most of the 2.8's performance with the exception of the max. aperture. Having said that, sometimes it would be nice to have the extra reach of the 70-300L in a single lens.


----------



## brett b (Oct 4, 2013)

I'm sorry for those that have had problems with this lens. It has been a go to lens for me.


----------

