Looks good. However, in Germany it is 1600 Euros, the Canon was around1718 Euros at Amazon, hardly a difference. Regarding the still excellent performance of the Canon 70-200ii, I bought it two weeks ago in perfectly mint condition for 1400. I still trust Canon AF more in dim and artificial light at weddings.
Big thanks for this very welcome heads-up to another uniquely erudite, not to mention understandable, lens review by the now-legendary Roger Cicala & Company!!
Nice to see this review and it perform well. A 70-200 lives and dies by af performance for me though, it will be interesting to see how it stacks up there.
Shame about the backwards focusing and zooming. You'd think that with Canon having largest market share in ILCs for a couple of decades now, third party makers would have gravitated away from the "default" Nikon layout, or at least gone the extra distance to offer lenses for each mount that work like the OEM's.
(And before anyone says that Nikons focus the way God intended, Canon follows the Leica standard. )
The Canon version is frequently available refurbished for $1500 so I can't imagine them selling many of these in EF mount. It makes much more sense in A mount or F mount to me.
Mark_L wrote:
Nice to see this review and it perform well. A 70-200 lives and dies by af performance for me though, it will be interesting to see how it stacks up there.
good review of real world AF, and quality comparisons against the new nikon. solid review, looks like a winner of a lens.
mb126 wrote:
The Canon version is frequently available refurbished for $1500 so I can't imagine them selling many of these in EF mount. It makes much more sense in A mount or F mount to me.
garyvot wrote:
Shame about the backwards focusing and zooming. You'd think that with Canon having largest market share in ILCs for a couple of decades now, third party makers would have gravitated away from the "default" Nikon layout, or at least gone the extra distance to offer lenses for each mount that work like the OEM's.
(And before anyone says that Nikons focus the way God intended, Canon follows the Leica standard. )
I have the 18-35f1.8 Sigma that is 'backwards' in its zooming and I never really even notice this in use. To me this is a completely non-issue that would never influence my decision of whether I would buy a given lens
mb126 wrote:
The Canon version is frequently available refurbished for $1500 so I can't imagine them selling many of these in EF mount. It makes much more sense in A mount or F mount to me.
That might help you in the US but the rest of us cant buy refurb
I am in the market for a 70-200 2.8 for Canon right now, and although this looks like a nice lens, the price difference isn't enough to pull me away from the Canon lens.
dreamlander wrote:
I am in the market for a 70-200 2.8 for Canon right now, and although this looks like a nice lens, the price difference isn't enough to pull me away from the Canon lens.
I just received mine today, though, and there is a piece of dust inside on the second or third element. D: Probably not going to affect image quality (I can't actually check yet, the body I'm going to use it on is still in the mail), but it is easily viewable to the naked eye, and for a brand new, "dust resistant" lens, that also happens to be the most expensive I've purchase, I'm pretty disappointed. Not sure what to do about it, and B&H is still shut down for the holidays at the moment.
)
Not sure what to do about it, and B&H is still shut down for the holidays at the moment.