My 70-200 2.8 IS is just plain awesome. At f/4 it is easily as good as any 70-200 f/4 IS, and it does 2.8, has better bokeh, and did I mention it does 2.8?
garyvot wrote:
The lack of IS in the otherwise amazing "baby 200L" makes it hard for me to leave the zoom at home.
The 200 f/2.8L feels like an afterthought as far as Canon lenses are concerned. It doesn't have the fanfare of the larger telephoto and supertelephoto lenses and it isn't bandied as an ultimate portrait lens.
kakomu wrote:
The 200 f/2.8L feels like an afterthought as far as Canon lenses are concerned. It doesn't have the fanfare of the larger telephoto and supertelephoto lenses and it isn't bandied as an ultimate portrait lens.
That's due to the success of the 80-200 and 70-200 zooms rather than anything about the 200L. The same could just as well be said about the Nikkor 180 f/2.8, a legendary optic from the pre-zoom era. Most people perceive greater utility in a zoom lens having the same aperture and focal length. Then again, you don't usually stand out from the crowd by being like "most people".
Not sure how the 100-400 would even qualify as a candidate, and not the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I have both, and the 70-200 is in a league of it's own. Stopped down to f/4 or more, it's just as good as the 70-200 f/4 (IMHO slightly better). I've never owned the 80-200, so can't make a comparison with that lens.
Also, the zoom range and versatility of the 70-200 f/2.8 is unmatched, at least for my use. And bokeh available from the extra stop compared to the f/4 is also significant. Don't get me wrong, the 70-200 f/4 is a spectacular lens, but the f/2.8 is better (assuming good copies of both lenses), with the exception of the lighter weight advantage of the f/4. Which can be a significant benefit depending on personal preferences and use.
And this all within the context of the OP's title, "Best CanonZoom Ever".
garyvot wrote:
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?
Gary, actually I don't miss IS in 80-200L. That's perhaps because I seldom need to go much under 1/FL rule of thumb. In fact, only once in a blue moon I need to take 70-200 f/2.8 IS out when low shutter speeds are kinda anticipated (or need faster AF).
I suppose I've been using longer non-IS lenses (i.e., 300, 400 and 500mm) for a while which has left me no choice but to improve my handholding somewhat.
PetKal wrote:
Please note that I spoke of my own personal preferences only. Didn't mean to generalize. Sorry if that was not made clear enough.
Actually, I'm sure it was my fault as I should have read through the thread more thoroughly. But I was wondering about personal preference vs. optical quality. I was assuming optically since there's not really any such thing as one "best" lens that everyone would agree on as we all have different needs. For wide angle or longest zoom range, the 70-200 (any version) wouldn't qualify!!
I have some more magic drainpipe love. I don't know if I'm qualified to comment here as I only have the drainpipe, 70-200/4, and 28-70/2.8. I haven't had much time with the 28-70 yet, but I get the feeling that the drainpipe leads the pack. I can't tell the difference between the drainpipe wide open and my 100/2.8. Its noticeably sharper than the f/4.
G. Thomas wrote:
80-200L's seem/appear to be uniformly excellent unlike other Canon lenses. Was the QA/QC that much higher in the 80's?
I don't read of many complaints about the 70-200L F/4 or F/4 IS. I suspect its more around the complexity of the lens than anything else.
I also *strongly* suspect that 'lens variation' is a meme heavily contributed to by user error vs manufacturing problems. Even if users replace 2 or 3 lenses, their technique in tne interim improves so that the first lens would have been acceptable.
Off course, all it takes is a handful of real lens variation incidents to be documented when they do actually occur, and its taken as gospel for the entire range of manufacturing from a vendor.
G. Thomas wrote:
80-200L's seem/appear to be uniformly excellent unlike other Canon lenses. Was the QA/QC that much higher in the 80's?
The 80-200L may well be a cat's meow of a lens even when it comes to copy to copy variations.
* never heard of a soft "drainage pipe".
* my two copies are indistinguishably excellent.
The only other lens which in my experience shows a similarly remarkable IQ consistency is 300 f/4 non-IS. Had three copies and couldn't tell them apart.
DavidJB wrote:
I also *strongly* suspect that 'lens variation' is a meme heavily contributed to by user error vs manufacturing problems. Even if users replace 2 or 3 lenses, their technique in tne interim improves so that the first lens would have been acceptable.
Off course, all it takes is a handful of real lens variation incidents to be documented when they do actually occur, and its taken as gospel for the entire range of manufacturing from a vendor.
It is not a meme. I bought a 24-70 lens online and when it arrived is was softer at f/4 then the 24-105, and backfocusing half an inch with the subject three feet away. I sent it in to Canon Jamesburg and it came back sharp and with the focus spot on.
Although the 70-200/4 IS is a very appealing lens to me, I have never used it. I have used the 24-70/2.8 though and while it has a number of drawbacks (notably, size and weight), the optics are *superb*. Count me one of the "lucky" ones that got a fantastic copy on the first try.
PetKal wrote:
...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.
Peter, I found the same issue with my 70-200 f/4 IS, so I sold it and kept my old 70-200 f/4 non-IS - amazing lens.
