# Recommendation: Tele lens for 60D



## cton0385 (Feb 16, 2012)

I'm using a 60D (with the intent to upgrade to a FF body in the future). I prefer to find a lens that allows me to take handheld shots. I'm looking into investing in a decent tele lens. I've narrowed myself down to the following:

*Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS mark 1* (used)
Did some reading myself on this and came across a post on http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=40358975&changemode=1 which I'm quite concerned about:



> "The mark 1 will disappoint you at f/2.8 on a crop high density sensor like the 60D. (I used to own one - and it is great at f/3.5 but not 100% great at f/2.8 200mm. very nice on a lower density 5D classic). Dont know about the sigma - but would suggest checking out reviews like the digital picture."


Does anyone have such experiences?

*Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS mark 2* (new)
Mark 1 vs mark 2, should I save myself some money and get a used mark 1 or just bite the bullet and get the mark 2?

*Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS* (new)
Costs around the same as a used Canon mark 1 but I get a new lens. Heard the OS on this is better than the IS on mark 1. Not sure about the image and build quality.

Any help would be appreciated!


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 16, 2012)

IS mk II or if you want to save money get the non IS 70-200 apparently the IS mk1 is not as good as either of the other 2


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2012)

Bite the bullet. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II will blow away the others, it's a great lens.


----------



## DianeK (Feb 16, 2012)

Not interested in the 70-300L??
Diane


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 16, 2012)

You have already ruled out the portable lenses, a 70-200mm f/2.8 is portable, sort of, but its size and weight are all out of proportion to a 60D. 

I'd suggest you consider a 70-200mm f/4L if you are going to carry the lens / camera around with you, or at least rent one and try it. It is large!


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 16, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You have already ruled out the portable lenses, a 70-200mm f/2.8 is portable, sort of, but its size and weight are all out of proportion to a 60D.
> 
> I'd suggest you consider a 70-200mm f/4L if you are going to carry the lens / camera around with you, or at least rent one and try it. It is large!



i find the 70-200 f2.8L ISII plenty portable i have the tripod foot removed which makes it feel alot nicer to shoot with just keep the foot stashed in the bag in case i need it. Good thing is the same foot fits this lens and the 300f4L so i just keep the 1 foot in the bag and have both lenses without the foot.


----------



## cton0385 (Feb 16, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback so far.

Yes the 2.8 is definitely heavy, I do have a battery grip on my 60D to even out the proportions a little ;D. I currently have a Tammy 17-50 f/2.8 VS (will replace with a Canon 24-70 when I get a FF body eventually), Canon 50 f/1.4 and a Canon 18-135 (which I will sell once I get a Tele lens).

My thought process behind a f/2.8 is that I can get a x2 extender if I want extra range at the still being able to shoot at 2.8 in low light situation between 70-200.


----------



## cton0385 (Feb 16, 2012)

That's definitely nice to know!



wickidwombat said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > You have already ruled out the portable lenses, a 70-200mm f/2.8 is portable, sort of, but its size and weight are all out of proportion to a 60D.
> ...


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 16, 2012)

70-200mm f/4L IS would be my first choice to be honest. But all of this really comes down to money. The 70-200 2.8 IS II, is obviously the best, it's just a question of do you want to pay for it, and then do you want to carry it. It's big and heavy, but awesome.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 16, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> 70-200mm f/4L IS would be my first choice to be honest. But all of this really comes down to money. The 70-200 2.8 IS II, is obviously the best, it's just a question of do you want to pay for it, and then do you want to carry it. It's big and heavy, but awesome.



the awesomeness makes it feel lighter IMO


----------



## aaronh (Feb 16, 2012)

I was in exactly the same position as you. Had a 60D with the kit 18-135 lens; also had a 55-250. I wanted to upgrade my telephoto for better IQ and lowlight performance so I picked up a used 70-200 f/2.8 IS (mark I). I was generally happy with however I definitely noticed the difference between it and a friend's 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS (the non-IS being a sharper image). I was happy enough with mine and despite the glowing reviews of the IS mark II, I was planning on sticking with what I had (gotta keep my wife happy too...)

Recently I found a really good deal on a used mark II on my local CL and I decided I'd go for it. I was blown away by the difference. I quickly sold off my mark I and haven't looked back. The sharpness is incredible (equivalent to my 35mm f/1.4L), the IS is amazing, and it focusses super quick. 

All in all, I would say, if you can afford the mark II (or be in the right place at the right time like I was  ) go for it whole-heartedly!!!


----------



## cton0385 (Feb 16, 2012)

I agree with the awesomeness of the 2.8. I see your point there with the f/4 Tex. In the *rare* occasion where I need to shoot at 400mm I'd either get a 2x extender or a 400mm zoom/prime f/5.6 which offsets the additional cost jump from a f/4 to f/2.8. I don't mind the cost too much as they both kinda equal out, since I'd be more likely to shoot at 70-200 as opposed to say 400, wouldn't it make more sense to invest in the 2.8? I could be wrong though! Would a 2x extender on the f/4 be bad idea?



TexPhoto said:


> 70-200mm f/4L IS would be my first choice to be honest. But all of this really comes down to money. The 70-200 2.8 IS II, is obviously the best, it's just a question of do you want to pay for it, and then do you want to carry it. It's big and heavy, but awesome.


----------



## cton0385 (Feb 16, 2012)

Thanks for the input! I was hoping to find someone who had been in the same position I am 

Been trying to find reviews comparing the mark 1 and 2, but the info is quite limited.

The last thing I want is to get the mark 1 and regret for not getting the mark 2. As for the prices, I can get a used mark 1 here for around $1300-1400 or get a grey import mark 2 for $1950 (AUD). I'd like to stick with IS lenses as I would like to take handheld shots in dim environments too.

Leaning more towards the mark 2 now, but might also consider f/4 for portability reasons (guess I should rent them out for a day on separately occasions to get a feel of it for myself)



aaronh said:


> I was in exactly the same position as you. Had a 60D with the kit 18-135 lens; also had a 55-250. I wanted to upgrade my telephoto for better IQ and lowlight performance so I picked up a used 70-200 f/2.8 IS (mark I). I was generally happy with however I definitely noticed the difference between it and a friend's 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS (the non-IS being a sharper image). I was happy enough with mine and despite the glowing reviews of the IS mark II, I was planning on sticking with what I had (gotta keep my wife happy too...)
> 
> Recently I found a really good deal on a used mark II on my local CL and I decided I'd go for it. I was blown away by the difference. I quickly sold off my mark I and haven't looked back. The sharpness is incredible (equivalent to my 35mm f/1.4L), the IS is amazing, and it focusses super quick.
> 
> All in all, I would say, if you can afford the mark II (or be in the right place at the right time like I was  ) go for it whole-heartedly!!!


----------



## stephan (Feb 16, 2012)

Get the 2.8 II! It's an awesome lens, and will probably serve you longer than the older version. 

I only have the Mark I (the Mark II is out of my price range), but it is still a very nice lens. I make very frequent use of the 2.8, and have also noticed the 60D outperform the lens in terms of resolution. I have used the new Version, and it really shines. 

About portability: I find it quite portable, so I take it with me almost all of the time.


----------



## PCM-Madison (Feb 16, 2012)

I have used both the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS v1 and the Canon 70-200mm F4L IS on my 60D. These are both great lenses. They are sharp from center to corners on my 60D, and they both have color and contrast that I find very satisfying. I have not used the 70-200mm F2.8 IS v2, but I am sure that it is a great lens and likely better in terms of sharpness than the older lenses based on the reviews I've read. The questions are, what do plan to use the lens for, and how big to you plan to print your photos? The older lenses are plenty sharp for prints up to A3 (~12 X 17 inches, largest I've done). The F2.8 lenses will be better for sports and portraits, but the F4 lens is much smaller and lighter so it has a big advantage for travel, hiking, etc. Good luck.


----------



## vuilang (Feb 16, 2012)

I suggest get the 70-200ISII.. Otherwise you'll keep thinking about that lens... and eventually, you will upgrade it later.. which will cost time, thinking energy, selling&buying... AND MISSING the shot you could have been taken with the best lens available (but that's just me)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 16, 2012)

PCM-Madison said:


> I have used both the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS v1 and the Canon 70-200mm F4L IS on my 60D. These are both great lenses. They are sharp from center to corners on my 60D, and they both have color and contrast that I find very satisfying. I have not used the 70-200mm F2.8 IS v2, but I am sure that it is a great lens and likely better in terms of sharpness than the older lenses based on the reviews I've read. The questions are, what do plan to use the lens for, and how big to you plan to print your photos? The older lenses are plenty sharp for prints up to A3 (~12 X 17 inches, largest I've done). The F2.8 lenses will be better for sports and portraits, but the F4 lens is much smaller and lighter so it has a big advantage for travel, hiking, etc. Good luck.



I agree. I've owned the 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS, 4 of the 20-200mm f/2.8 IS, and two of the 70-200 f/2.8 MK II, as well as the 70-200mm f/4 IS. I've carried them on my 40D, 7D, 5D MK II, and 5D MK III.

I finally decided that the f/4 IS is the one to keep. The f/2.8 was not fast enough for my low light theatre shooting, and packing all that weight around for outdoor shooting was not necessary.

For low light, I've been using and expanding my collection of prime lenses, I can take shots that my f/2.8 zooms could not touch.

So it comes down, as usual to you! It does not matter what I like or someone else likes, since we all made a choice based on what we do. If you can, rent for a week and see what you think. You also have a 30 day return period to Adorama, and return shipping is less than rental cost in the event you do not like it. 

The MK II is a wonderful lens, just not for everybody.


----------



## 00Q (Feb 16, 2012)

I have the sigma version with OS. Its a good lens. Sharp and fast and the OS works great.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Feb 16, 2012)

Sigma is supposedly coming out with the stabilized version of the 50-150 f/2.8 zoom. I rented the mkii version of the unstabilized 50-150 f/2.8. Very nice lens, very good build quality. This lens is crop sensor only, but in exchange for that concession, you get a small package compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for full frame. The lens I rented was very nice and well constructed. I am not a pixel peeper or test chart shooter, but from what I could tell it had very good image quality. That lens is no longer available, but Sigma is releasing the long awaited update with image stabilization. If it has good image quality, I am definitely jumping all over it, as i shoot crop.


----------



## cton0385 (Feb 16, 2012)

Thanks for your insightful input. There's definitely advantages with the f/4 over the f/2.8. I travel quite a bit and wouldn't mind doing a bit of hiking too. Wouldn't be economical if I get both (would like to!), if I were to choose 1 right now I'm leaning towards Mk.2 as the price difference isn't too substantial and that there won't be anything better at that range to tempt me ;D.



PCM-Madison said:


> I have used both the Canon 70-200mm F2.8L IS v1 and the Canon 70-200mm F4L IS on my 60D. These are both great lenses. They are sharp from center to corners on my 60D, and they both have color and contrast that I find very satisfying. I have not used the 70-200mm F2.8 IS v2, but I am sure that it is a great lens and likely better in terms of sharpness than the older lenses based on the reviews I've read. The questions are, what do plan to use the lens for, and how big to you plan to print your photos? The older lenses are plenty sharp for prints up to A3 (~12 X 17 inches, largest I've done). The F2.8 lenses will be better for sports and portraits, but the F4 lens is much smaller and lighter so it has a big advantage for travel, hiking, etc. Good luck.


----------



## cton0385 (Feb 16, 2012)

I totally agree 8)



vuilang said:


> I suggest get the 70-200ISII.. Otherwise you'll keep thinking about that lens... and eventually, you will upgrade it later.. which will cost time, thinking energy, selling&buying... AND MISSING the shot you could have been taken with the best lens available (but that's just me)


----------



## cton0385 (Feb 16, 2012)

Yes, I very much agree with you. Will give it a long think



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> So it comes down, as usual to you! It does not matter what I like or someone else likes, since we all made a choice based on what we do. If you can, rent for a week and see what you think. You also have a 30 day return period to Adorama, and return shipping is less than rental cost in the event you do not like it.


----------



## cton0385 (Feb 16, 2012)

The Simga 50-150mm f/2.8 came into my mind when I bought my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VS (awesome for its price). I was close to getting it, till I found out it's for crop sensor bodies only. I guess getting the 70-200's will save me time in the long run.



stabmasterasron said:


> Sigma is supposedly coming out with the stabilized version of the 50-150 f/2.8 zoom. I rented the mkii version of the unstabilized 50-150 f/2.8. Very nice lens, very good build quality. This lens is crop sensor only, but in exchange for that concession, you get a small package compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for full frame. The lens I rented was very nice and well constructed. I am not a pixel peeper or test chart shooter, but from what I could tell it had very good image quality. That lens is no longer available, but Sigma is releasing the long awaited update with image stabilization. If it has good image quality, I am definitely jumping all over it, as i shoot crop.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 16, 2012)

The 2.8L IS II definitely... if you wanted a cheaper option, I'd go for a f/4 IS over the other two choices. Not a fan of the Sigma, and the MkI, while still good and fast, just doesnt compare to its newer brother.

I had the option of getting the Mk I second hand, much like you, but went for the f/4 instead. Will be upgrading to the 2.8 though, like its been said... you'll always be thinking of it. 

Personally, if I had to choose...

2.8 L IS II > 4 L IS > 2.8 L IS > Sigma


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> The 2.8L IS II definitely...



I know the op only wrote about 70-200 lenses - but I just decided that even on a crop body, 200mm doesn't qualify as a tele lens for me. If anyone is interested in the competition up to 400mm - see the good thread in: rumors -> lenses -> Recommendation 70-200/2.8+2x vs 100-400 f/4-5.6L


----------



## Tijn (Feb 16, 2012)

- Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is the best choice if you have a big budget, and if you need the f/2.8 aperture. Sharpest of the lot (though the two lenses I mention below here are almost just as sharp - differences are _minor_), heaviest of the lot, most expensive of the lot. It's so sharp that you can use a 1.4x teleconverter with it without too much of an IQ penalty.

- Canon 70-200 f/4L IS is the best choice if your budget is a bit smaller, if you don't need f/2.8 too desperately (for low light shooting or extra high background blur portraits), or if the weight from the f/2.8 is an obstruction (1.3kg vs 760g for the f/4L IS version). For me personally for example, my budget wasn't quite high enough for the f/2.8L IS II; f/4 was plenty for me (as I usually shoot outside in daylight) and I wanted to be able to take it hiking. So I got this one.

- Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS is the best choice if you want the most versatile lens that is pretty much just as sharp as the above two (which is _really_ sharp), for a good price. Bigger range, only slightly smaller aperture than the 70-200 f/4. (Not internal zooming though.) Weight is somewhere in the middle, at 1.05kg.


----------



## stabmasterasron (Feb 16, 2012)

> Sigma is supposedly coming out with the stabilized version of the 50-150 f/2.8 zoom. I rented the mkii version of the unstabilized 50-150 f/2.8. Very nice lens, very good build quality. This lens is crop sensor only, but in exchange for that concession, you get a small package compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for full frame. The lens I rented was very nice and well constructed. I am not a pixel peeper or test chart shooter, but from what I could tell it had very good image quality. That lens is no longer available, but Sigma is releasing the long awaited update with image stabilization. If it has good image quality, I am definitely jumping all over it, as i shoot crop



By the way, I have also rented the 70-200 f/4 L IS. This is an awesome piece of equipment. It isn't much bigger than the sigma I mentioned above and is probably bette constructed. It is only f/4, but has awesome IS. If you are shooting in good light I definately recomend this lens. It is truely impressive. And it also has coverage for full frame, if you want to go that way.


----------



## EOBeav (Feb 16, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'd suggest you consider a 70-200mm f/4L if you are going to carry the lens / camera around with you, or at least rent one and try it. It is large!



I have that one, and in many situations you have to shoot at a high ISO in order to handhold. It's a great lens, and an excellent value, but it's not fast.


----------



## Dylan777 (Feb 16, 2012)

*just bite the bullet and get the mark II *   

I had mrk I before, but I sold it right after testing the mrk II. 

*What I like about mrk II:*
1. Tack-Sharp even @ f2.8
2. Speed
3. Very quiet


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2012)

Tijn said:


> - Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS is the best choice if you want the most versatile lens that is pretty much just as sharp as the above two (which is _really_ sharp), for a good price. Bigger range, only slightly smaller aperture than the 70-200 f/4. (Not internal zooming though.) Weight is somewhere in the middle, at 1.05kg.



At least with this lens, its hard to judge sharpness by one sample because of procduction variance: See here for the differences between two 70-300L samples: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=738&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=738&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------

