 |
|
|
Peter Kotsa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 1, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 265
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp sharp ...didi I say sharp?
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
best zoom lens I have ever had. Sharp from 2.8 up. takes converters very well, even the 2x. I have had 3 copies of this lens over the past 8 years..all have been spot on.
|
|
 Nov 1, 2007
|
|
suzy l
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Oct 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp as a tack
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
have used it so much it is like an extension of my body ever body should own this wonderful item
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2007
|
|
bergie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Pro build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
None really, but it is expensive and should still come with IS anyway IMO.
|
|
|
When looking for a sports lens for my son's football games, it was a toss up between this lens and the f/4 IS since they after all, are about the same price.
I decided on this one since I reasoned that I planned to use the 1.4 extender anyway, and losing a stop would make it a f/5.6 which made me nervous.
Well, after a couple of games, I realized I needed to use a higher ISO anyway for proper stopping of action (duh), so although I was able to hand hold all of my shots at f/4 (with 1.4 extender attached), I probably would have been fine with the f/4 IS as well.
I don't regret buying this lens by any means. It is tack sharp as others have attested to. But IS would be nice to have and I don't want to spend another $600 for it, so I may end up getting the f/4 instead.
Here are some recent shots:http://bergquist.smugmug.com/gallery/3722672/1/213599728
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2007
|
|
Michael van Ba
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 14, 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
So sharp, very nice colors, fast, white
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, white, pricedifference for one stop is huge (4.0 to 2.8 for €600)
|
|
|
Bought this lens to replace my 70-200 4 L a year ago, after a long period of being doubtful, to win one stop. And I almost (never) regret it. Only when going on holiday I sometimes struggle with the size and weight and the white color. But when coming back home and viewing the images you´ll forget those ´minor´ things easily. The images are perfect.
A sigma 17-55 2.8 was my standard lens on my 20D but I must admit that the 70-200 2.8 L almost never comes off. It is so much faster, sharper and produces better colors.
Together with the 1.4x converter it suites most of my needs. For some special occasions (Formule 1) I borough a 300 2.8L.
I will never sell this one that's for sure!
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2007
|
|
tanglefoot47
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14736
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $960.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, well built, great colors and IQ is so great I can't believe it
|
|
Cons:
|
NONE
|
|
|
I just bought this used recently and of all the 70-200's I have owned this is the best. I have owned both IS models which are very nice but this lens I am the most happy with
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2007
|
|
Steve Krupa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 16, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 39
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Crisp! Clear! Fast! Awesome pictures! Great construction
|
|
Cons:
|
None / Zero!
|
|
|
I have this and I love it!!!! The crispness and clairity this lens produces is just fantastic! Sure it's expensive, but worth every penny! Out of all the lenses that I've reviewed myself, this one has the highest recommendation!
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2007
|
|
livin4lax09
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 922
|
|
Review Date: Jul 26, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp Wide Open, Great Contrast, Smooth Zooming, Fast Aperture, works well with 1.4x TC.
|
|
Cons:
|
200mm is a bit short to shoot field sports, not a strong combo with 2x, heavy to handhold for long periods of time
|
|
|
I got this lens about a year back and have been very satisfied with the results that I have gotten. I primarily use it for field sports or indoor sports, though f/2.8 is still a bit slow to shoot with ambient in the latter case. The images that come from the lens are sharp, and have great contrast. A lot of the time I shoot with a 1.4x teleconverter on it to give me a bit of extra reach for field sports, but the downside is losing that extra bit of light. The teleconverter makes images a little softer, and decreases the color quality, but for the most part is a good addition. The 2x is a whole different story though, as I found the lens hunting for focus too much when paired with this TC. Best leave the 2x for primes. A downside to using this lens with a 1.4x a lot of the time is that when the sun goes down and you need that extra f stop, you lose a lot of range, and 200mm is not enough to shoot field sports. I shoot a lot of lacrosse under the lights, and the 200mm alone is too short, yet the 200mm + 1.4x is too dark. So if you are shooting field sports in dark conditions, you may want to consider saving for a 300 2.8. But nonetheless, this is an amazing lens that every sports shooter should own just because of its versatility and IQ at all focal lengths and apertures.
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2007
|
|
Sorensiim
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 30, 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 403
|
|
Review Date: Jul 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, sharpness, colors, AF speed. Built like a tank.
|
|
Cons:
|
Makes all my other lenses look bad.
|
|
A perfect 10, nothing less. Got this baby used 3 weeks ago, and have been loving it ever since. Colors are great, sharpness is amazing. It makes all my other lenses look bad. A bit heavy, but thats what monopods are for! Took this shot with it: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=850805387&size=o
If you don't own this lens yet, buy it! If you can't afford it new, get one used! Mine is 7 years old, pretty bashed up but performs flawlessly.
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2007
|
|
Dreamliner
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2007
Location: Greece
Posts: 320
|
|
Review Date: Jul 11, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, contrast, bokeh, autofocus speed, robast built.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing actually.It's weight and size is average for an 70-200/2,8 lens so it's ok for me. And the price it's right. You cannot have something for nothing...
|
|
|
I had this jewel for a small period a few years ago and sold it in order to finance the -new then- 70-200/2,8 IS. While i was far from being dissapointed with the IS version -it was very versatile actually- there was something missing: the impressive sharpness that the non IS had ! After some testing i found that in every focal length and especially in the 170-200mm zoom area, the IS version i had was significantly less sharp compared to the non IS. Actually, my IS version needed a three f/stop down to almost reach the performance level of the non IS classic ! I repeated the test a few times in order to be sure about the results and took the decission to sold the IS version and buy this masterpiece of lens crafting once again. Because of my background as an editor of a related to photography magazine, i was able to do some more tests with two brand new versions of both lenses and discovered that the non IS version has better centering in general, resulting in more even and higher performance from center to corners in full frame. The center of the image especially is sharper at all focal lengths resulting in better performance with the extenders. I also did some comparissons with three brand new copies of the 70-200 f/4 IS and found my f/2,8 non IS copy to be superior in general, except maybe the absolute center, in which i found the two lenses to be equal with the f/4 giving a more contrasty impression. Finally i did some testing comparing my 70-200/2,8L (at around 180mm) with my 180/3,5L macro and found to my surprise the zoom to be superior ! I also own the EF 400 mm f/5,6L USM and my impression is that the zoom is better -at least- in the middle focal distances having better micro contrast. My opinion is that the only zoom lens in the Canon line up that can challenge the EF 70-200/2,8L in terms of optical performance is the f/4 L without IS which i also tested (2 copies). But having read some other posts here, there's always a possibility to buy a lemon. My only complain -if any- about the f/2,8L, has to do with the extreme corner performance at 70mm in full frame format, which could be a little better.I believe this to be the only weak spot compared to a good copy of the other versions. I hope that this review will help any one of you to make a better choice.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2007
|
|
Steven Everitt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 488
|
|
Review Date: Jul 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything really, Speed of AF and Bokeh are fantastic
|
|
Cons:
|
I guess after a while the weight is very noticable but I will just try and work out in the gym a bit more!
|
|
|
I must have read more or less every review on this forum when I was deciding whether to buy either 70-200 or 100-400 and it is with great pleasure I can now sit here and write my own review on the 70-200! I bought it specifically for my recent trip to Tanzania along with a 2x extender. Being 2.8 through out the range meant a constant 5.6 with the extender, a major factor in my choice.
I won’t bore you to much apart from saying that everyone who said it is an excellent lens is right! I am now reviewing over 2000 pictures from my trip and I am over the moon with my results (if I do say so myself). Some of the birds are still a bit far away in the frame and a bit further reach would have been better for them, but that is something for the future. The lens gives perfect mid-range access for me!
If you are unsure - buy it! You won’t be disappointed!
|
|
|
Jul 3, 2007
|
|
Lasse Bruhn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 30, 2007
Location: Denmark
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything!
|
|
Cons:
|
Bit high price. But, you get what you pay for!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2007
|
|
petr vokurek
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 16, 2007
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: May 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
iq, build quality, versatility
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
For a long time I thought I did not need this lens- I was using 85 and 135mm primes for my wedding and portrait shooting. Then one day I became a bit lazy and tired of changing lenses all the time and finaly got the 70-200/2,8. One thing I will tell you- I should have had it from the start! The quality is amazing even when comparing to primes ( the 135mm f 2 is better wide open and at 2,8 but not that much and it is not a zoom...) and the versatility it gives me is truly liberating. This lens has the best bokeh I have seen in a zoom- amazing! My standard lens now in combination with the 24-70/2,8 and the 85mm f 1,2. The 85 f1,2 is another fantastic lens I should have had from the start but it is not a rival for the 70-200. They do different things and do them extremely well. Excellent work Canon!
|
|
|
May 22, 2007
|
|
Helmetfire
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 8, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything.
|
|
Cons:
|
No longer available in the UK.
|
|
|
This is my first L lens and it is fantastic.
Yes it's heavy(ish), yes it's big(ish), but it is a joy to use.
The IQ and build quality are top notch, and used with a monopod there is no need to spend the extra £/$ for the IS version (which seems to be having a bit of bad press at the moment re IQ). As this lens is no longer widely available here in the UK I got mine from Hong Kong, which was cheaper than the UK price.
Oh, and one other thing...It's white...Nice!
|
|
|
May 8, 2007
|
|
Santoso
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 24, 2007
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 24, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $650.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Capture breathtaking picture, sharpness and bokeh is incredible.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Yes I would certainly recommend this piece of masterpiece to anyone who enjoy fine arts. I got 70-200 f/4 is in addition to this lens, tried it for two weeks and sold it. IMHO the only thing that beats 70-200 f/2.8 most of the time is 85 f/1.2 L for sharpness and 200 f/1.8 L for its focusing speed. Then again both of them does not have the flexibility of 70-200 zoom.
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2007
|
|
Penia Mon
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Feb 17, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Apr 15, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,140.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
L Glass, extremely sharp, great results
|
|
Cons:
|
no thus far
|
|
|
I'm an amateur photographer but I can still see what a fine product this is. I wanted a quality 70-200mm for sports, portraits, and walk around capability and this has satiated everyone of those needs.
The reach is far with 1.6 crop factor and you can always get more with a tele converter.
As the ebayers say, "A+++++++"
I would recommend this over the f/4 IS because the bokeh you get with a f/2.8 is beautiful and the IS is only necessary in low light situations where it would still be just as hard to get a clear shot with IS and f/4.
Those are my amateur ramblings, I really love this lens, a mucho pleasure for me
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2007
|
|
parintele
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 9, 2005
Location: Romania
Posts: 198
|
|
Review Date: Feb 17, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a tank, sharpness, contrast and colours are just great
|
|
Cons:
|
none...
|
|
i had f4 version of the 70-200...great lens, incredible colours, sharpness, contast... for 600 usd just great.
i shoot model and canine shows, sport, all in natural or poor light... at sunset for model, indoor for sport or dog shows, low light is there...
so i took a 2.8 non IS for price reasons... well, i consider every dollar worth for this piece of glass...
the motor is fast and reliable, the colors and contrast are incredible, is sharp at 2.8 all range, except maybe a little at 200 but minor, at f4 and above is INCREDIBLE...
the built and confidence it offers when u hold it is just ANOTHER CLASS compared to f4....
what can be said more than i do not regret even a single cent i spent on it. u pay more compared to f4 but u get more in terms of construction and reliability for difficult lightning conditions...
cons: well, there are not really...i consider if a need something i pay the price and that is is...i do not afford that means i do not really need it, my work is not important enough so payed good enough , so...
still, some may complain about the weight for example..yes, is heavy...compared to f4 is seriously heavyer... BUT as i said, that is because construction is much more solid, more glass that need to be greatly hold in palce and protected....
some may say the price is high...as i said we all would love to pay half the price for everything...i consider i have reasons to complain only when i fo not get for what i payed...in this care, no complain from me...for me, it worth every penny.
finally, the only thing i regret i do not have is the IS...i miss it sometimes....usually i ned 1/200-1/500 or lower as i use it for action photo... but sometimes i ue it for model as i said in natural low light, that great sunset warm incredible light....IS would really be great...
but there is a 70-200 with IS...much more expensive is true... this is the only regret i have, that i do not have a IS version cheaper and keepng the great quality of this one...i tried few IS verson copies and i didn't find the sharpness of this one...
bottom line, rate this lens 10 considering the built and image quality...really nothing to complain about...i love it so much it stayed on my 20D 90 % of the time....with battery grip and hand strap is ok...is true i am involved in bodybuilding and i am 188 tall and 115 kilos :D
i shoot 4-5 hours dog shows, 6-700 pictures, moving from one ring to another...i do not consider it heavy but offering stability...kind of IS 
on my new 5D is better as i can use it in more situations and i can use a 1.4 TC for longer reach comparable to 20D reach...
GREAT LENS, one of the best out there...
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
178
|
390480
|
Jan 26, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
98% of reviewers
|
$1,132.91
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.85
|
9.11
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
