Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: Chiefdog72  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Chiefdog72 to your Buddy List
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

Review Date: Oct 6, 2011 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 


I’ve been shooting with this lens for over a year…….

Over the years I’ve owned three versions of this lens; non-IS, IS ver 1, and now IS ver 2. I absolutely loved the non IS version, so when the IS version came out I bought one. I had to send it in to Canon Irvine for adjustment (which was free). After I got it back I loved it and sold my non IS version.

I was very happy with version one of this lens, so I was hesitant to spend the bucks for version two…….I bit the bullet and bought it, but was skeptical that it would be worth the upgrade…….I was surprised Canon could improve an already great lens this much.

To me the upgrade was well worth it…’s faster, sharper, and the IQ is stunning. I own a 300 2.8 L IS, 135 2.0 L and have had the opportunity to use a 200 2.0 L IS on several occasions; this lens does not beat these lenses, but it certainly can hold its’ own against them. For a zoom to even be mentioned with, much less compared to, these lenses is phenomenal; you will not be disappointed with this lens.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

Review Date: Jul 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,699.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Amazing IS, Weather seal, Overall quality and feel.
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.