I shoot motorcycle racing at Road Atlanta, car drifting at Turner Field in Atlanta, pets, landscapes and travel outdoor images. I do shoot indoors also when traveling in some low light situations.
Not a snob, but rented a Canon 70 - 200 F4 non IS and could immediately tell the improvement in the images.
Here is my question: I think I want the 70 - 200 2.8 VII and can afford it. I don't mind the weight but want to make sure this isn't overkill for my photography.
I don't want to keep changing lenses in a never ending quest to find the best one.
I think that this one will give me all I need for some time.
If you are shooting mostly in good light don't waste your money on the IS II....get yourself a 70-200 2.8 non IS and save yourself over a grand. I have them both and the 2.8 non IS is great for shooting in sports/motorsports in good light - very close to the 2.8 IS II.
artsupreme wrote:
If you are shooting mostly in good light don't waste your money on the IS II....get yourself a 70-200 2.8 non IS and save yourself over a grand. I have them both and the 2.8 non IS is great for shooting in sports/motorsports in good light - very close to the 2.8 IS II.
Don't need the IS for motorsports...just slows down the AF, don't want that to happen with Superbikes coming into turn one at Road Atlanta...the plus side is less weight than the IS version. I've shot WERA at Turn Seven with a 200 f/2.8L (no IS in that glass), on a 30D (320mm)...slow shutter speed, with no problem.
If the IQ, AF speed or anything else about 70-200 2.8 IS mkII disappoints you, you will likely have a long wait for something better to come along.
You said you shoot indoors and if the 70-200 range suits your needs get the 2.8 IS.
The AF is fast enough for the racing, but the IS may not be needed and the f:4 will likely meets your needs (but the 2.8 can be used to increase your SS). The only question might be is where to shoot from. After all, it is only 200mm at the long end so you may need to find the right best location to get the shots you want (e.g. coming around a turn). Using a TC will slow the AF (which is blazingly fast), but I haven’t tried mine with a TC yet to determine how much.
I have also heard very good things about the 70-300 L (I don’t have it), comparing it to the new 70-200. Some have said the IQ and AF speed comes close if not rivals the 70-200. While it provides more reach you may want for racing, it is f:4-5.6 and may not suit your needs for lower light capability. Still, it is a little cheaper than the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII.
Getting the best, even if it offers more than you need, is not wrong. What would be wrong is getting a lens only to find out it comes up short and you purchased the wrong one.
I chose to go for the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII for my situation and needs, but it will be your decision and you will need to live with. Good luck with it.
Get the 70-200 II. Absolutely a workhorse lens. I shoot motorsports, aviation, portraits and use it for all of the above. Was just reading an eagle thread here where the shots at the end were all done with same lens. Road Atlanta. Not one of my best, but one I had handy. The zoom really helps as you never know what corner you may be at and they all vary in ideal focal length.
