 |
|
|
Italo Campilii
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jul 23, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2418
|
|
Review Date: Dec 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
2.8 IS!!! White body, tripod collar, hood looks awesome and does a great job.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood easily scratches..weight, but who cares?
|
|
This is the lens that deserves a 10.1! I had previously owned the 70-200 F4 (non IS) and this is a HUGE step ahead.
The IS on this lens is a MUST. I am simply stunned by how sharp my copy is. At handheld with IS, this lens is extremely FAST!
A must have for wedding photography 
Would buy it over and over again!
|
|
 Dec 23, 2007
|
|
albertino
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 23, 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 23, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $180,000.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Stabilizzazione e luminosità
|
|
Cons:
|
troppo morbido e per nulla meritevole di attenzione alla media e massima focale-troppo pesante ed eccessivamente costoso per quello che offre
|
|
|
Per quello che costa, rispetto al fratello "minore" F4 is e alla versione non is, i suoi risultati sono è decisamente inferiori.
Una grande delusione
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2007
|
|
Beverly Guhl
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 3075
|
|
Review Date: Dec 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great range, IS, quiet, sexy.
|
|
Cons:
|
HEAVY, mine was defective.
|
|
|
I bought this lens new based on all the rave reviews. However, every photo I took with it was SOFT, and the DOF at every f/stop was oddly shallow. I thought maybe I was just expecting too much, but I was horribly disappointed. Finally, I decided to ship it to Canon for evaluation. I got the lens back in less than 2 weeks. Turns out the lens assembly was "deformed and damaged" (from day 1 obviously), so they replaced the lens assembly and made other adjustments, etc. free (since it was under warranty).
NOW... it is everything I thought it should be. Yay!! I'm astounded. It's marvelous!!!!!!!!!!! Ditto on all the raves others have said.
I'm petite and this lens does get really heavy for me quickly, but it's been worth the adjustment and my arm has gotten stronger as a result. A monopod helps but in some situations is too limiting. Even so, after a 1 hour shoot my arm is tired. The IS really helps when the fatigue sets in and ensures sharpness even at 1/30 shutter speeds.
I would recommend this lens, but if YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS about it or ANY Canon lens, send it to Canon immediately.
|
|
|
Dec 6, 2007
|
|
Steven Park
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: May 29, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 485
|
|
Review Date: Dec 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing!!!!
|
|
|
Simply put, a must have!
If you are thinking of buying one, don't think, just get it!
It is worth every dollar you pay.
Images are beautiful...........
|
|
|
Dec 4, 2007
|
|
David Israel
Online
Image Upload: On
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3743
|
|
Review Date: Nov 28, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,669.00
|
|
Pros:
|
This is the sharpest lens that I own. Ultrafast, quiet, accurate AF. Amazing sharpness, color rendition and contrast for a zoom.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price.
|
|
|
Much has already been said about this outstanding lens that I don't need to repeat, so I will just share my personal experience with the lens.
This is my favorite lens. It is so sharp and produces such great pictures, it makes me look better than I really am with the camera. The range of uses for this lens is really broad, making it a very versatile lens to own. This lens replaced my EF85 f1.8 for closeup portraits. It simply does a better job. Candid's is not one of it's strengths as the lens does garner attention, however.
Landscapes, flowers (with or without a 500D), SPORTS!, wildlife, and even school plays (if the lights aren't completely off) are all great uses for this lens. It is also a geat Zoo lens (along with the EF 100-400). The weight is not bad for me and I can hand hold this lens for extended periods of time, though it does help (at the baseball field, etc.) to have a monopod to share the burden.
I only have 4 primes (30mm, 50mm, 85mm and 100mm) and this lens equals or betters them in virtually every respect. The IS is such a valuable feature, especially if you plan to hand hold this lens. The AF is very fast and can track sports and even birds in flight! The AF is also very quiet. Full time manual focus is also a handy feature (more useful when trying to shoot indoor sports such as volleyball, etc, where the lighting isn't so great).
If you are always going to use a tripod with this lens than you may not need the IS and could potentially save some money with the non-IS version. This is my current most expensive lens and it was worth every penny. I rated it 10 for build quality and overall rating, 7 for price.
If you can afford this lens, I don't think you will have any regrets with the purchase once you see what it can do for you.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2007
|
|
David Israel
Online
Image Upload: On
Registered: Nov 6, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3743
|
|
Review Date: Nov 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,669.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
The sharpest lens I own. Ultrafast focus, accurate focus, quiet focus, outstanding ability to isolate your subject from your background, build quality. Awesome contrast and color rendition.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price. +/- for the weight.
|
|
|
Much has already been said about this outstanding lens that I don't need to repeat, so I will just share my personal experience with the lens.
This is my favorite lens. It is so sharp and produces such great pictures, it makes me look better than I really am with the camera. The range of uses for this lens is really broad, making it a very versatile lens to own. This lens replaced my EF85 f1.8 for closeup portraits. It simply does a better job. Candid's is not one of it's strengths as the lens does garner attention, however.
Landscapes, flowers (with or without a 500D), SPORTS!, wildlife, and even school plays (if the lights aren't completely off) are all great uses for this lens. It is also a geat Zoo lens (along with the EF 100-400). The weight is not bad for me and I can hand hold this lens for extended periods of time, though it does help (at the baseball field, etc.) to have a monopod to share the burden.
I only have 4 primes (30mm, 50mm, 85mm and 100mm) and this lens equals or betters them in virtually every respect. The IS is such a valuable feature, especially if you plan to hand hold this lens. The AF is very fast and can track sports and even birds in flight! The AF is also very quiet. Full time manual focus is also a handy feature (more useful when trying to shoot indoor sports such as volleyball, etc, where the lighting isn't so great).
If you are always going to use a tripod with this lens than you may not need the IS and could potentially save some money with the non-IS version. This is my current most expensive lens and it was worth every penny. I rated it 10 for build quality and overall rating, 7 for price.
If you can afford this lens, I don't think you will have any regrets with the purchase once you see what it can do for you.
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2007
|
|
kevindar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1884
|
|
Review Date: Nov 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,485.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, even wide open, through out the range. constant 2.8, IS, fast and accurate focusing. Optically fantastic. Great portrait range on the 5D
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy after shooting for 2 hours. Price I suppose.
|
|
|
Looking at some reviews, there may be sample variations. I am very happy with the image quality of mine, wide open, for portraits, through out the zoom range. It is slightly softer at 2.8, 200mm, but still plenty sharp for portrait use. Focusing is fast and confident, and built is fantastic. The F2.8 gives a shallower dof, with excellent bokeh, and allows for better focusing in low light compared to f4 variant. I tried both lenses (f4-is, and f2.8-IS) and after all was said and done, felt the 2.8 is worth the weight and extra cost.
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2007
|
|
websurfer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 270
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Update -
Just don´t understand how some people can rate this lens under a 9. It´s an extremly sharp zoom lens even wide open.
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2007
|
|
juberisk2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 380
|
|
Review Date: Nov 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
this is a versatile, quality product, with outstanding overall image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
some copies are soft, as others have mentioned. some copies have occasional focusing issues, as discussed below. most lose noticeable sharpness on the long end, which is fairly common with zooms.
|
|
|
I agree with the overall ratings this lens has received for build quality, pricing, etc. I gave it a "9", which is a bit harsh, but I can't give it a "10." I believe a lens should be rated by how it performs given its respective specifications (aperture/IS/focal length, etc); it should not be rated ON its specs.
Like others have said, this lens produces some great photos, with remarkable sharpness, contrast, and bokeh. It has saved me several times at weddings and other events. Now comes the "however": Every once in a while, maybe 1 shot out of 100, the focusing is just a tad off. Accounting for human error, poor technique, bad lens copy, calibration, etc., the fact remains that this lens inexplicably provides one poor to average image (in terms of sharpness) from out of nowhere. this has been said by other reviewers and (posters in other forums here on FM) who have provided convincing examples of this strange phenomenon. Does it occur enough for me to sell the lens or not recommend it? No. Especially when the other 99% of the shots are spot on fabulous.
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2007
|
|
Mike Stan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 2, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 2, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Looks cool and make you feel important.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not up to the hype everyone says it is.
|
|
|
I rented a perfectly good 70-200 2.8 IS to shoot my kid's championship football game, I also burrowed a tele-extender for the occassion. Body attached to is Canon 10D. I got better results using my $300 70-300 4.5 lens. The speed of the 2.8 was great, but I did not get 1 image out of 500 that did not require sharpening or some type of editing. A few others commented on similar problems like this and I stand behind them as proof, this lens is not worth the money.
|
|
|
Nov 2, 2007
|
|
Peter Kotsa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 1, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 265
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,500.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
IS
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy, soft at 2.8
|
|
|
not happy at all with this lens. The non IS performs and balances so much better...dissapointed.
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2007
|
|
sivrajbm
Online
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2772
|
|
Review Date: Oct 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,474.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Speed, handling, bokem, IQ with good copy, balance on 1-series, focus limiter, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
tripod mount I like the Sigma mount better. It's not black
|
|
|
This lense along with the 24-70 and the 16-35 have not been very good to me. Soft copies abound at every turn. Finally a sharp copy. I wanted the IS for low light wedding and event work, now I have it. I have a very good copy of the Sigma that I can let go of now. The King is dead long live the King...!!!
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2007
|
|
Ray Lipscombe
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Usual 'L' Quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
After 6 months of use I really can't think of any!
|
|
As an enthusiastic amateur, I agonised for ages and trawled the internet for the lens that would offer the greatest flexibility. This was it for me. Not cheap, but I have long stood by the philosophy of ‘Buy Cheap - Buy Twice’. It will be in the bag until I am in the box (some years I hope)!
Although not what many people consider a landscape lens it does provide a different perspective. As a portrait lens I don’t need to be literally ‘in the face’ of the subject and it provides the length to obtain more candid shots.
Depth of field images are easily obtainable and to my relatively untrained eye, seem to have a quality feel.
Slight vignetting wide open on a 5D, but easily rectified and not really too much of an issue.
This lens has really re-ignited my passion for photography after years in the wilderness that is kids and nappies. The bank balance has taken a bit of a hit, but hey....middle age does have its advantages...cheap car insurance and some spare cash for small luxuries like this!
Some samples
http://www.lipscombe.info/canon/
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2007
|
|
Chris Fawkes
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3414
|
|
Review Date: Oct 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
One awesome lens. Weel built, super sharp and it looks great.
Samples can be seen at http://www.chrisfawkes.net/wedding3.html
|
|
|
Oct 3, 2007
|
|
Eike Schroter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
There is something I don't understand about this lens.
I'm sure it's a great lens.
How is it that when I'm shooting at f2.8, 200mm, with the IS on, at 1/6400 of a second, the shots are out of focus?
I'm shooting with one shot auto focus on.
Even with a mono pod, at F4, on the 30D, bright overcast light, at 1/3400 of a second, IS on.
I'm baffled.
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2007
|
|
MSC
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Feb 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11404
|
|
Review Date: Sep 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, build, 2.8, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
Workhorse lens, super sharp, IS is tops for lowlight, tough (can withstand a drop, or wet, or sand), and it is 2.8. 2.8 is critical for sports. I'd buy a 70-200 2.0 if they made one tho.
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
352
|
725620
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
