I have owned or examined most of the EF zooms made by Canon.
One notable exception is 24-105L. Held it in my hands but that was about it.
The 70-200 f/4 IS ended up being returned after a couple of days....didn't like its unremarkable IQ at MFD.
Lastly, while 24-70L can be very good, I believe there are many lacklustre copies out there as well.
My top echalon contenders were 100-400, 80-200L and 16-35L MkII.
Unfortunately, 100-400 is not a very agile lens.......aperture- wise and AF-wise.
The 16-35L MklI is excellent per se, just that in the flat, low rise suburban/rural country where I mostly shoot, an extra wide lens doesn't get used often enough.
Therefore, my personal winner is the old "magic drainage pipe" : EF 80-200mm f/2.8L. . Plenty (prime-like) sharp, beautiful colours/bokeh, no aberrations of any sort that I have noticed, peerless build quality for a black lens (180L is in the same league) and fast AF drive although it is not USM based. Too bad it is not being supported by Canon any longer.
Those that wish to showcase their own personal favourite zoom, please try to enclose some images taken with the lens.
For me, the 70-200 f/4 L IS was the best ever zoom I used. So far, I used:
17-40L, 16-35 L II, 24-104 l IS, 24-70 L and the 70-200 f/4 L IS.
The lens was very sharp also at MFD. I was using it alot at MFD and was very happy with the results. It also was used as a macro with extension tubes. The IS was incredibly good and I had some sharp shots @200mm and 1/10sec or @70mm at 0.5 sec. I sold it because f/4 was just not enough, as well as all the others except the 16-35. I keep it for the 16mm end and the 2.8. For all the rest I got primes, and I still think that the 70-200 f/4 L IS holds it's own between the 85 1.2 or 135 2.0.
AGeoJO wrote:
Another big vote for the 70-200mm f/4L IS; that's one heck of a zoom lens. Except for the bokeh, it blows its bigger, f/2.8 brother away.
Peter, there must be something wrong with the one you tried.
That's what I thought too, Joshua. Just that I've never pursued it beyond that one copy because I guess I am happy enough with my old 70-200 f/4 non-IS.
BUT you have to find a good one, I went through 6 copies and now have one that's so sharp wide open it will cut your eyes. Stellar lens in every respect.
+1 on the Drainpipe.
Must of had a bit of a fever lastweek as I seriously thought about selling it and my 70-300 IS to buy the 70-200/4 IS. Anyway I'm better now
No doubt, the 70-200 f/4 IS is very highly regarded by its owners in general.
Plus it's light/smallish to carry and not exorbitantly priced (yet ).
However, the f/2.8 zooms have three distict advantages: subject isolation/bokeh, one stop shutterspeed for the same ISO (or 1/2 ISO for the same shutterspeed), and low light AF.
So one can choose based on their priorities.
BUT you have to find a good one, I went through 6 copies and now have one that's so sharp wide open it will cut your eyes. Stellar lens in every respect.
+1 on the goodness of the 24-70. Thankfully I didn't have to go through 6 copies. (Note to Canon: that's way ridiculous.)
The latest 2.8 zoom troika is as good as I've ever seen/used. I too prefer the 70-200 2.8L IS model over the f/4 versions.
I do sometimes wish for more compact gear. For example, I'd kill for a 200 2.8L IS to carry along with an 85 or 100 in lieu of the 70-200 white drainpipe. The lack of IS in the otherwise amazing "baby 200L" makes it hard for me to leave the zoom at home.
PetKal, you probably shoot in more outdoor "good light" settings than I do, but have you found the lack of IS to be limiting on the drainpipe?
. Plenty (prime-like) sharp, beautiful colours/bokeh, no aberrations of any sort that I have noticed, peerless build quality for a black lens (180L is in the same league) and fast AF drive although it is not USM based. Too bad it is not being supported by Canon any longer.