 |
|
|
Achechino
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,620.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, really fast and quiet zoom, build construction and overall quality....
|
|
Cons:
|
maybe the price, but you'll get what you pay for.
|
|
|
I've bought this lens in a trip to USA 1 month ago, and since then I'm in love with it.
Love the IS, the 2.8 aperture along the range, the build quality, the colours and the really sharp images I can get with it.
The bokeh is wonderfull.
I'm always waiting for a break to take them out and make some pictures.
|
|
 Aug 16, 2006
|
|
pesto
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 174
|
|
Review Date: Aug 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very solid feeling and optically superb lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
The auto focus "on-off" switch is poorly located, the result for me has been many lost images due to my inadvertantly switching AF off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006
|
|
dvarnav
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 21, 2006
Location: Greece
Posts: 429
|
|
Review Date: Aug 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Accurate for the 96% of my shoots,sharp,IS is working like a charm,Fastest AF I have used so far,increatible construction.
|
|
Cons:
|
none ....
|
|
|
This lens is by far the most usefull piece of technology that anyone could use with his camera. The usefull shots that I got from this lens was about 96% as it has sharp and accurate focused subjects. If I have to use only one lens with my camera this could be the one.
About Image stabilizer generally speaking its a great inovation but especially for the 70-200 2.8 is a must add-on as you can take usefull photos even if at 1/8 without any effort.
I have only one commest to make about the construction of this product is by far the best sealed lens I had ever used and you have nothing to worry about using this Canon product in any situation .
Now about the weight... As I loved to make walks (2-3hours max) taking photos with my SLR or DSLR this habbit didnot stoped me due to the heavy weight of the this lens. The weight is something that you can stand it as the camera is still managable. By using that professionally I admit that using a well constructed strap (maybe by Lowepro) carrying the camera with that lens could be no problem.
|
|
|
Aug 2, 2006
|
|
DigitalBill
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 17, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 308
|
|
Review Date: Jul 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super Sharp, smooth zoom, rapid autofocus, stunning color rendition, versatile indoors and out. IS and 2.8 are an unbeatable combo.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
If I had only one lens to carry, this would be it. It's impossible to list the myriad situations where you'll find this to be the 'perfect' lens. It can produce simply beautiful images. How good is it? I've shot major league baseball using both the 1.4 and 2X Canon extenders with spectacular infield shots. Just look at any national or international high-level news conference, and you'll see more shooters using this lens indoors (without flash) than any other. Regarding the 'heavy' comments -- it's all relative. If you're coming up from a consumer-grade light prime lens, of course it's heavier. This is a professional-quality lens, and feels like one. I believe its solid build and 'feel' are assets that enhance stability. As always, it's a good idea to try it first with your camera body at an authorized dealer to be sure it meets your individual needs. This is also a good idea, as the first copy of this lens that I purchased didn't meet my 'back focus' demands. Fortunately, I was able to exchange that one immediately for the lens I now own. I don't know that any lens can be called 'perfect', but this one comes very close.
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2006
|
|
HoboSyke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 26, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
SHARP SHARP SHARP.. IS. f/2.8. L series.
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
After having the 24-70 F/2.8L for a while, I was expecting similar results with the 70-200 2.8L IS. How wrong could I be, this lens blows th 24-70 away. Tack sharp photos.
The lens is heavy but not in a bad way at all.
Feels very nice in my hands accompanied with my 20D.
Think I might get the battery grip next to help with the overall feel of the this lens and camera combo!.
Get this lens if your considering it, dont considering it for another second, just go and get it.
|
|
|
Jul 29, 2006
|
|
benandbobbi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 18, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jul 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,699.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Clearity, Speed
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I moved from the magic drain pipe (80-200 "L") to this one and have never looked back. If there ever was a true successor to the MD, this is it. Well Done, Canon!
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2006
|
|
rslee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 57
|
|
Review Date: Jul 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,649.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
AF, Sharp, IS, Contrast, Color, and everything else.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing really.
|
|
|
It lives on my 1D2N.
I love everything about it -- even the weight. It is perfect balance when mounted on 1D series or with Body+Grip.
Picture quality rivals good primes.
Yes, IS is worth the extra money IMO.
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006
|
|
kuere
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 18, 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp,colors, fast AF, helpful IS
|
|
Cons:
|
a little heavy, white, expensive
|
|
|
As everybody also mentioned this lens is incredible responsive and sharp. At my EOS 5D together with Tamron 28-75 an ideal kit. May be my 135/2.0 L is a little better and lighter, but IS make the zoom more versatile. I like this lens and can recommend it.
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006
|
|
Glassbottle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Location: South Africa
Posts: 567
|
|
Review Date: Jul 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, sharp, very effective IS, weather sealed, beautifully made
|
|
Cons:
|
Ever so slightly softer than my f/4 version at f/4; heavy (but read on)
|
|
|
So I picked up one of these second-hand at a really good price. I wasn't really in the market but it came up (friend of a friend), and you know how it is.
I was fearful, having read the complaints of softness and arm-numbing weight, and so I made dozens of tests in two sessions before I shelled out the money.
Yes, by the most rigorous standards the lens is somewhat soft at f/2.8, but it's perfectly usable. At f/4 and smaller it's pretty much on par with my excellent 70-200mm f/4 lens, although it does seem to be more susceptible to flare.
The bokeh of the two lenses is similar at identical apertures, with the f/2.8 lens having the edge for creaminess and, of course, the ability to open up to f/2.8.
So, as far as I'm concerned, the f/2.8 lens turns in a performance just as good as the f/4 version, and you gain a stop, plus the magical IS.
And the IS is very good indeed. I spent several hours today shooting a kiddies' birthday party for a family with too much money. I used the 70-200/2.8 for a lot of it. The indoor venue had big windows but I still needed to go below 1/30s quite often, even at ISO 800. The IS worked amazingly well, especially in panning mode. I could follow running kids with the lens and get images that were pretty damn sharp, apart from great motion blur in the background and the limbs. I'm still marvelling at them.
Also, I took close-up audience pictures during a clown show, with the lens mostly at the long end, at speeds of 1/15s to 1/60s -- and the only blur in the vast majority of them was caused by subject movement. Mind-boggling.
Focus, by the way, is absolutely spot-on.
And what about the weight? Well, I can only suppose that the photographers who complain about it must be really weedy. I'm a 5'11" male but I'm nobody's arm-wrestling champion. I've had no trouble holding the lens, a 5D and a 580EX to my eye for long periods. Sure, the lens is heavier than some, but it's far from being unmanageable.
All in all, I think this is a pretty fab piece of kit. There's no way I'd buy it at the dizzying retail price, but second-hand it's been a damn nice windfall that will make a lot of my photography easier and better.
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2006
|
|
Chiefdog72
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Oct 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 204
|
|
Review Date: Jul 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,699.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing IS, Weather seal, Overall quality and feel.
|
|
Cons:
|
Canon QC
|
|
|
After reading the reviews here I was very confused. Some reviewers said this lens is next to perfect, others said it was soft. So I decided to find out for myself. I own a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS, date code UTxxxx . (I love this lens.) I purchased a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, date code UUxxxx. Both lenses were purchased new from B&H with USA warranty.
When the IS version arrived I stuck it on the camera and took some pics. My initial impression was that I was going to love the IS. It didn’t take any pixel peaking to see the images from the IS version were far inferior to the non IS version. I was very disappointed. There was so much difference that I thought something had gone wrong with my camera. I switched lenses and shot a few with the non-IS and much to my relief the pics came out sharp and beautiful as always.
I started to send the lens back to B&H and that would be that……But, I just couldn’t understand why some experienced photogs in this forum would give this lens such high marks in their reviews. So, I took a chance and sent the lens to Canon……I’ve sent several lenses to Canon and I have been happy with their service and quality of work. I just didn’t think Canon could improve this lens enough to match the non IS version.
I’m very pleased to say that I couldn’t of been more wrong. The lens I got back couldn’t be the same lens I sent in. (I actually checked the serial number to make sure.) The initial pics were beautiful.
I also have a 135 f/2 L, a 200 f/2.8 L II, and an 85 f/1.8 to test against. After extensive testing IMHO, this lens can hold its own against the best. It is ever so slightly softer than the primes and non-IS version. The IS on this lens is amazing…..For me it’s a keeper. I sold my beloved non-IS version. The only way to beat this lens is with a prime and tri-pod.
I have answered my question and hopefully helped you with your decision…..What it boils down to is the IS worth $600.00 to you.
It is a shame that Canon’s QC department can’t seem to get their act together. A lens in this price range should be perfect out of the box. So if you have noticeably soft pics with this lens, send it in you won’t be sorry.
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2006
|
|
Emile Gregoire
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 9, 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2397
|
|
Review Date: Jul 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,800.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
exceptionally sharp, great contrast and color, well build
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
By far the best lens I've ever handled. Extremely sharp, at both ends, wide open. Well built. Easy to handle. No complaints whatsoever. Provides a lot of keepers.
Shooting for 15 consecutive minutes is a heavy strain on the muscles, but it is worth it so I will not complain about weight.
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2006
|
|
paul.kzk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 16, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 249
|
|
Review Date: Jul 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focus, solid built, sharp images, nice lens hood...
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy
|
|
|
Very nice lens. its my first "L" and im happy it is... fast focussing, sharp images, perfect for any photographer... This is a lens i'll carry if i got to only pick one!
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2006
|
|
swormley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 4, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,699.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Really Outstanding Zoom Lens
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
The EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS (on the EOS 5D) gives me very sharp
detailed imagery at full aperture. However, when using the image
stabilization (IS), it is easy to make the mistake of not waiting
for the gyros to stabilize (about one second) resulting in some
"artistic blurs". As with any lens, one needs to learn what it
can and can't do. The IS allows me to work in many lower light
circumstances making this a really outstanding lens.
|
|
|
Jul 4, 2006
|
|
aero145
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 1, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 333
|
|
Review Date: Jul 1, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
L glass, white, popular, pretty sharp images.
|
|
Cons:
|
Images not as good as the should be, heavy lens, tripod collar just a bad thing to have on when not using tripods/monopods.
|
|
|
I've tried two examples of this lens. One example on a Canon 20D, and another on a Canon 5D. The shots I took were suprisingly bad! They were not sharper than out of my Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS lens!
The lens is heavy, and the tripod collar is just in the way when zooming. The lens hood is big, and would be nice white lit.
Overall, the f/2.8 is a good feature, but the photos are not sharp then.
|
|
|
Jul 1, 2006
|
|
ReLe
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 3, 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 64
|
|
Review Date: Jun 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatility, AF speed, IS, lowlight capabilities, works sometimes as press pass.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, image quality wide open.
|
|
|
When I traded my Minolta gear to Canon I was a little disappointed of this lense wide open. My minolta 80-200mm 2.8 G was far more superior in terms of sharpness and contrast wide open. I've read in reviews that non IS is sharper, but you can not beat the IS and all aroud versatility this lens gives. As other reviewers said, sometimes is just essential to get the shot even if it's not prime quality in terms of sharpness. Weight is no suprise if you are familiar with laws of physics. You just can't make light lense with a lot of good glass. Just get a good camera strap with paddings and weight seems to go away...
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2006
|
|
BlueJaya
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 15, 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 113
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, Image Stabilisation, build quality, weight balance camera/lens
|
|
Cons:
|
None found to date...
|
|
I recently switched from years of using Nikon equipment (including their fabulous 80-200 ED zoom that I owned and used for close to 20 years), to a full Canon kit (all bought the same day with my bank manager screaming in the background...).
All of the lenses I own are splendid quality but definitely this is the one I enjoy using the most (I will post some shots on www.pbase.com/BlueJaya as soon as they are postprocessed).
As most of the reviewers have indicated before, this lens is well built, easy to handle (a little heavy but it balances well with the camera), sharp to the point of being almost over the top and the IS takes care of those low light situations where you still want to take the shot handheld but the light is not enough for the classic 1/focal length rule.
All in all a splendid piece of kit that I do not expect to upgrade in my lifetime, my kids may do but that's their choice :-)
Very highly recommended.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
352
|
725613
|
Feb 6, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
91% of reviewers
|
$3,248.85
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.82
|
8.18
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
