 |
|
|
mangaaaa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 3, 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 37
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, sharp, sharp, fast, amazing IS
|
|
Cons:
|
not at all
|
|
|
Its an amazing lens. I bought a new 50D and this sensational lens. No cons at all. I don't see the previous mentioned point regarding weight.
|
|
 Nov 29, 2009
|
|
jdouglass
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 30, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,729.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing IS, constant 2.8 aperture, versatility
|
|
Cons:
|
Easily noticed (this could be a pro depending on the situation)
|
|
I needed this lens to enable me to shoot in lower lighting including weddings and indoor sports. I was not sure how this was going to perform compared to the borrowed 2.8 non IS version that I had borrowed previously and left me unsatisfied.
This past weekend I put it through the paces in a wedding and was simply amazed at the difference between the IS version and its non IS cousin.
My findings are as follows:
-Very sharp image quality at 2.8 compared to my 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 (which I never use indoors) I expected softness at %100 zoom, but found a much clearer image than expected!
-bokeh is pleasing and better than expected, though not quite as good as my 50mm 1.4
-Weight was not an issue. It weighs about the same as my 100-400 IS and I would expect as much from a professional series workhorse.
-The only con with is that one really stands out in a crowd with a white lens. I was shooting a VERY camera shy bunch. Every time I would move, the guests would watch where I was pointing the camera. I was amazed how many people got that "deer in a headlights" look. I lost several priceless candids due to people's awareness of my presence. I might consider buying a black sleeve to camouflage it.
I will let the results speak for themselves after putting in this final plug: I now understand why this has earned the reputation as the workhorse it is!
Here is the portfolio for my recent wedding using this lens (with the exception of the ring macro). http://www.shutterfingerphotography.com/Portfolios/Wedding-Portfolio/10057403_mYGvA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2009
|
|
bluefox9er
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 10, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 361
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
all of it is good!
|
|
Cons:
|
cost..but the cost of all lenses is way too high
|
|
|
This is the ultimate zoom lens in canon's line up...and sorry to all those 70-200 f4 IS owners, but it is in fact the 2.8 IS L thats the sharpest zoom money can buy. can an F4 be an f2.8 nope..the prosecution rests, your honour.
people whine on about weight etc, but i never ever use mine on a tripod and if you are man enough to carry this lens be assured you are shooting with one of the very finest lenses money can buy...sharpness, colours,contrast,build quality, mode1&mode2 IS for panning and humongeous wide open f2.8 all the WAY to 200 mm with no image quality compromise on my copy.
I'm amazed folks expect this to weigh a few ounces...get over it..youre getting what you pay for.
sure if you dont shoot indoors or in low light you have very nice alternatives...but buy this one and open up an entirley new level of shooting options and styles...and if you stick this on a 1dmkIII or a 5d series, then yu wil never,ever, ever look back...
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2009
|
|
haringo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,800.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, flexibility
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, image quality, bokeh as compared to primes, price
|
|
I use this lens for pro work.
First the bad: the Canon 135mm 2.0L beats this one in almost all areas except, of course, flexibility. It is slower, has slightly worse details, bokeh, etc…. Autofocus is as good as the 135mm prime. It does have some chromatic aberrations and bokeh fringing as well. It is heavy even compared to the non IS version. I mainly shoot weddings so it is important for me. It is not as sharp as the 135mm prime either. This is not the walk around or travelling lens you dream about. Believe me, you will leave it home after a while and you don’t want the extra weight in your bag. In addition, it is big and white. People immediately notice it and start posing so it is hard to get the natural candid shots...
The good: The IS blows you away. You can handheld it at 200mm at 1/50 without any problem. This is what makes the big difference! I can handheld it in a dark church. I almost exclusively use primes such as the 35 1.4L, 85mm 1.2L… and I can use them without missing anything in their range. On my website, all the nice detailed pictures are taken with the Canon 135mm prime. These are mainly the posing pictures when I had time to run around with the 135. All the rest is taken with this one and you CAN tell the difference:
www.haringphotography.com.
The truth is that in the 70 – 200 range this lens has saved me a few images!!! The ability to focus does matter! At least at weddings…
The point is: forget this lens if you don’t need the focusing flexibility and the IS and buy the Canon primes!!!
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2009
|
|
TezM
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 12, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 333
|
|
Review Date: Sep 2, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, contrast, focus speed, bokeh, big big zoom ring, focal length, tripod ring, colour reproduction, IS actually works! I can get sharp shots at 1/15 at 200mm handheld- crazy stuff.
|
|
Cons:
|
CAs up to f/5.6, flares very badly, weight, balance issues.
|
|
I got a great deal on this lens. I have a version from 2001 that is cosmetically a little lacklustre but optically flawless.
make no mistake about it, this is HEAVY. On my ungripped 40d it's a fair weight to lug around. What I meant by 'balance issues' in my description is that if you are zooming, you have to take the majority of the weight in your right hand to steady the camera and with a lens of this side this can get tiresome after a 2 hr shoot or so.
Also, I was surprised to see just how bad this lens suffers from lens flare and chromatic aberrations and bokeh fringing. It's a shame because the bokeh on this thing is absolutely awesome, and with it being a zoom lens I'm even more impressed.
Having said all that though- the negatives are things you quickly disregard once you see the pictures properly. once you get home and/or print the pics you won't give a crap that it was a little heavier because the rewards you reap are worth the extra burnt calories to make the pictures happen.
Overall, I really like this lens. It was heavier than I expected but that isn't really a lens fault in itself but more of a preference of mine and with this being heavier than anything else in my camera collection (bar my tripod) it took some getting used to, but like I said, once you've done a shoot with it you won't care if it weighed twice as much 
|
|
|
Sep 2, 2009
|
|
wrwhite76
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 51
|
|
Review Date: Aug 26, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent sharpness, Excellent lens by far!
|
|
Cons:
|
little pricey
|
|
|
Awesome lens, very sharp!
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2009
|
|
LotsToLearn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 12, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 434
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, constant maximum aperture, internal zoom, internal focus
|
|
Cons:
|
too easy to accidentally move one of the switches
|
|
|
I really only have praise for this lens. It is my go-to lens for the vast majority of my shooting events. Everything positive that needs to be said about the lens really already has been said. I love the focus speed, IS, sharpness, large aperture, and even the weight.
I had to think hard for any sort of con and the only thing I can come up with is the relative ease in accidentally flipping one of the switches by mistake when moving the lens in or out of my bag. Even that is not a biggie to me because I had already grown accustomed to checking settings on things like that.
I do think it's a little bit pricey but that's subjective and it doesn't help that I bought mine when the CDN dollar was extremely low. But relatively speaking, I do believe that you do get what you pay for.
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this lens to any potential buyers.
|
|
|
Jul 8, 2009
|
|
spasmoid
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fast, stable, beautiful boquets
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy. Not cheap, but you get what you pay for.
|
|
I really couldn't afford to buy this lens, but I bought it anyway after speaking to some professional photographers about it. I could have got the non-IS, I could have got the F/4 to save money. However, I reckon just get the one you are gonna be eternally happy with - and that is THIS lens. It is a beautiful piece of equipment that endlessly churns out one beautiful image after another.
I shoot everthing from portraits to weddings to landscapes with this thing. I love it. The only other lenses I own are the 16-35L MkII and the 50mm F/1.8.
I honestly can't understand how people can whine and complain about issues such as weight. What is the aim of the game? For me it's about getting the right optics to take beautiful photos. I don't care if I have to go to the gym to work out in order to get the muscles necessary to do the job. If that's what I really had to do, then it would be well worth it.
This lens is essential to anyone who own an EOS camera with more than one lens
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2009
|
|
cscheat
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 15, 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 15, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very Sharp
Fast FOCUS
Quiet
Able to shoot INDOOR !
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy
|
|
|
Hey guys,
Honestly before getting myself the 1st L lense of my life, i am in a dilemma in choosing which one of the 4 units 70-200mm is the best... i keep searching every forums, website reviews and found that people are complaining about being soft when shooting wide open (F2.8).
So i decided to try it out myself and found that this LENSE rocks ! at F2.8 it still shines but after i try to shoot at F4, IT EVEN SHOCKS ME MORE !!! at F4, the sharpness of the IQ is very very significant...
I know the F4 version cost $500 less and ligher in weight, but now im happy !
COST & WEIGHT was the main concern but now after shooting more images i love my lense even more !
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2009
|
|
musclepics
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 5, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 847
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,300.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp! Fast, quiet autofocus, best Image Stabilization in it's class, sexy white!
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
After owning the 135L for 2 years, and then the 70-200/2.8L non-IS for 2 years, I decided it was time to jump to the IS version since the price was right.
Initially, I thought the IS version was much softer than the non-IS version, but it turns out it just needed calibration. This lens, probably more than any other, seems to require calibration to get it perfect. So for people disappointed with theirs, send to Canon while under warranty and get it calibrated for free.
Once calibrated, this lens is fantastic at all apertures. I find it neck and neck with the non-IS lens, and on my 1.3x crop camera, it's sharper than the Nikon 70-200VR, and the IS on the Canon is about 1 stop better than the Nikon VR.
The lens is well balanced on a 1 Series camera, and when using proper technique (ie, left hand UNDER the lens), it's not heavy to use at all. I removed the tripod collar since I never use a tripod and it only adds extra weight.
AF is QUIET and FAST!
Great lens!
|
|
|
May 30, 2009
|
|
znapper
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 22, 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 19, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,200.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast aperture, superb AF, excellent IS, nice bokeh, no vignetting wide open, extremely useful range. Built like a tank, detachable tripod ring/foot complementary and useful lens-pouch.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very expensive!
Not sharp enough for such an expensive lens. I never use it at f2.8, unless I have no other choice.
|
|
|
Ok, in general, this lens is unique, but since they charge you an arm and a leg, it should be SHARP at 200mm and f2.8 and mine isn't.
The price for this lens in my country is double that of the F4 without IS. I am convinced that Canon has a higher earning on this one for sure, production wise.
I saw a lot of problems with mine when I upgraded from a 20D to a 1ds mk II, the lens hadn't seen much use while I owned a 1.6 crop camera, due to its then very narrow fov.
After I bought my 1ds mk II, the range the lens really came into its own and it quickly saw a lot of use in portraiture, large animals, landscape, weddings and events. Though, I also quickly found that the lens didn't focus well and also lacked sharpness wide open on subjects beyond 30 ft.
After a calibration at Canon, the lens now focus properly at infinity, but the sharpness is still not what I would consider excellent (its within "canon specs" though).
Therefore I usually use it at f3.2-f3.5 to gain some sharpness (then it's ok and I can use it with confidence).
About weight:
I don't get why people whine about it's weight, it's a 70-200 f2.8 zoom in a _metal barrel_ -with IS and a tripod foot. Stop whining or buy the F4. I have used it extensively on trips with my 1ds mk II and I simply accept that this combo has a certain physical weight and get on with it, I have no problem walking a whole day with it and I am no muscle man.
I pull 2 points from the overall rating due to it's rather soft performance wide open and the fact that canon set the price point so high. If I could choose again, I would consider the f2.8 non IS if I could get hold of one, it's sharper.
|
|
|
May 19, 2009
|
|
RichM-NH
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 25, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: May 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,699.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality, build quality, fast focus
|
|
Cons:
|
weight
|
|
|
I spent almost a year trying to decide between this lens and the f4 IS, and finally decided to pull the trigger on the f2.8 IS. I had rented and borrowed both lenses, and remained torn. In the end, I felt that the fact that the f2.8 can shoot at f4, but an f4 cannot shot at f2.8, was reason enough to go for the f2.8. If I tire of the weight, I can always sell and have plenty left for the f4.
I have had the lens for about a month now and can say that I'm not at all disappointed. So far I have had the opportunity to shoot indoor and outdoor sports, an awards ceremony in an auditorium, and some random landscapes. The keeper rate exceeds my expectations, and the only shots I have not been happy with were a result of what was behind the camera, not what was in front! As with any new lens, it does take some getting used to. This is a fast, accurate lens which exposes mistakes all too clearly.
The only negative, which has been discussed many times, is that this is a heavy lens which does not lend itself to walking around. I certainly see a monopod in my future. I don't consider the price a negative as I believe you get what you pay for with this lens.
|
|
|
May 13, 2009
|
|
Chris Marshall
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 126
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, sharpness, IS, fast and quiet (I mean QUIET) focus. A true performer!
|
|
Cons:
|
After having this lens for 6 years now there is nothing bad to say about this lens.
|
|
|
This lens is a must have for all photographers that are in need of an all-around lens. I have had this lens for 6 years now and it has never failed me since new. The only issue I have had with this lens is the front barrel became loose after taking a nasty fall on skis during a freelance job and Canon not only fixed the lens for free (3 years out of warranty) but they replaced the IS unit and replaced the mounting ring (also fixed for free). Top quality lens and with a Canon 1.4 converter mounted to it, the images are razor sharp. You will not regret getting this lens! It is on my main camera body 90% of the time for jobs. If you do not have one do yourself a favor... just get it.
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2009
|
|
kingoftheapes
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 70
|
|
Review Date: Mar 24, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast and silent autofocus. IS works. F2.8.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft images. Heavy. Expensive.
|
|
|
I have to say that I am disapointed with the soft images I get from this lens on my 5D Mark II.
Compared to my 85 1.8, 50 1.8, and 24-105, this has the softest images by far at all apertures.
Maybe I got a bad copy, but for $1600 it should be great right out of the box.
I'm going to return this to Amazon and ask for a different copy.
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2009
|
|
Badmono
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 10, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Easy to sell on ebay after your discover how bad it really is:-(
There's plenty for sale on ebay so other's obviously think the same as me!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
White - Huge - Softfocus images - expensive - I can't think of one good thing to say about it.
A disgrace to Canons 'L' series lenses.
|
|
|
A real real real disappointment, all my mates really rated this lens, and I always envied them when I didn't own one myself. However when I eventually bought one I was shocked at the poor IQ, and serious lack of sharpness & crisp images, even when stopped down to F8, IMO it was unusable. My mates said I had to get used to the lens - well after a month or so of wasted effort, I gave up. I never took one sharp shot with this lens over this month of wasted effort, on either a FF or 1.6x crop body
My second worst Canon lens EVER. the worst?? read 100-400 'L' - AIRPUMP' zoom review, if I can ever be bothered to write it.
>
After perusing the various Canon websites I took the plunge and bought a 135mm F2 'L' prime - WOWOWOWOW - a Wow at last, a real lens, producing awesome sharp images straight out of the box. Now it's my mates who are envious:-))
>
So it wasn't my technique after all it was just the awful Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS 'hell' zoom. Possibly I had a bad 'un but for the price I paid the thing was a disgrace to Canon's 'L' lens series.
>
The 70-200 hellzoom was immediately sold on ebay for a goodish price - I only lost 200UK pounds on the thing - A sharp sharp result at the end!!!
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009
|
|
MTBtrials
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 4, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1372
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,749.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Image Quality, Bokeh, Sharpness, IS, Build Quality, functionality of the IS, great book (manual), comes with Tripod collar, hood, bag... I happen to like the white barrel, weather sealing is a nice touch...
|
|
Cons:
|
I don't like the feel of the hood when I go to mount it, perhaps that will go away with use.
|
|
|
Well, paying retail for this L lens it is still worth every penny. I am using it to shoot weddings and it will pay for it's self shortly.
Some people complain about the lens being white, but I feel like it is important to have your client know that you have purchased the best out there for the job. Perhaps if I were out in public more trying to get candids it would be important to me to have a subtle lens, but that isn't why I picked this gem up.
The weight is nicely balanced with my 40D, and I am sure that it would be even better with a little more bulk on the cameras end.
I never understood what people were saying about a lens responding well to post sharpening, or that it has great colour, but once I downloaded my images (RAW) to my PC and began to edit them in post I realised how much they come alive. The images are extrodinarily vibrant and sharp to begin with, and in post they come alive even more.
I don't know if the bokeh from this lens comes more from the sum of the elements, the 8 blade apeture, it's shape or what, but prior to owning this lens I thought that once you have blurred the background that you're good... not quite the case, sure my 50mm f/1.8 makes the background go away, but the 70-200 IS makes the background turn into art.
Prior to purchasing the 70-200 2.8 IS I considered the 2.8 L (non IS), two copies of the sigma 70-200 2.8 and the tamron 2.8.
I was impressed with the 2.8 L non IS, but felt that the sigma or Tamron could probably do as great of a job for less money, and I would end up getting the IS version later on down the road, so I had sort of ruled out the 70-200 2.8 L on those merits, and decided to test the 3rd party offerings...
The tamron got ruled out immediatley because I didn't like the push/pull to go from manual to autofocus,it was noisey, and I didn't like the feel of the lens (but the price was great).
The first sigma I tested front-focused, and I felt like the contrast was rather flat.... sort of like the look of snow a week after the last snowstorm when all the soot and exhaust dust has settled on it and there is this vague sense of yuck, but it's still pretty..... the second one wouldn't even lock focus (and we tested it in the store on my 40D, a 50D and a xsi).
After the second sigma I tested I decided to finally pick up the 70-200 2.8 IS, and as soon as I heard the subtle *ching* of the IS kicking in, and saw that at 200mm focal length 1/30 shutter speed is possible handheld (versus struggling for 1/120 without the IS) I was sold. I broke out the plastic and purchased the lens which I knew I would end up with after all (just a lot earlier than I expected)
This is my first "L" Lens and I am impressed with everything on it. The only thing I can really complain about is that the hood mounting and removal doesn't seem to come as naturally as it should, I feel like I try and drive the hood over a burr unless it is seated perfectly in the slot.
Also, the USM is silky smooth and quiet, and I have yet to accidentally bump any of the IS or focus switches on the side of the lens. The first thing I did when I picked this lens up was to mount a 77mm UV filter to protect my investment.
Happy shooting!
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
352
|
725584
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
