Overall, I think the 70-200/2.8L IS is the best Canon zoom that I own, but it depends...
I've used a lot of great Canon zooms and I really can't say that any one of them is the best ever. I agree that the 80-200/2.8L is fantastic, but I have no regrets that I replaced mine with the 70-200/2.8L IS - I often use it handheld at low shutter speeds, down to about 1/30 at 200mm with no worries. I also agree that the 24-70/2.8L is a fantastic lens. I'm as happy with mine as David is with his. OTOH, I use my 24-105/4L IS more often. I really like using a 5D + 24-105/4L IS and 40D + 70-200/4L IS, but when the weather is bad and the light is crap, then I go to my trusty f/2.8's and 1DII bodies. I hope to upgrade the bodies. I'm happy with the lenses.
I vote for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. How can you vote against this zoom lens. If you look at most pro sports shooters, they carry either the 300L or the 400L and then they also carry the 70-200f/2.8L IS.
jbfaulconer wrote:
I vote for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. How can you vote against this zoom lens. If you look at most pro sports shooters, they carry either the 300L or the 400L and then they also carry the 70-200f/2.8L IS.
But not because it's the "best" by the way the OP defined the criteria. They carry it because it's the most useful for their particular task, not because it's the sharpest or has the best bokeh. They carry it because it's the best there is, which is unfortunately not saying much by today's standards.
For me, the "best" zoom is the 28-300 (of those that I actually own, anyway). But it would not win in any category that was laid down by the OP - yet for _me_ it's still the most useful one.
For sheer value, I'd have to say that the best zooms would be
17-40
24-105.
The best Canon zoom ever for me would be my 24-70. Following by my 70-200 2.8IS, and lastly my 16-35 MK1. Whilst I feel that the MK2 is better, the price difference was more substantial than I could afford at the time, AND I think for what I shoot, the difference is moot.
I use it as an UWA f/2.8 event lens. If I'm shooting say a landscape or such, my 24-70 almost always comes out to play.
PetKal wrote:
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. ...Show more →
PetKal wrote:
Zooms like 80-200L can also be good for BIF photography.
That one with led in glass? It is illigally stunning lens and great shot.
Actually I am very happy with 70-200mm F4L IS too. Following shots made with 1.4tc and it is great lens not worse than any L prime.
PetKal, in your experience as a lens collector, would fungus be an inevitable problem for vintage lenses such as these, or would proper care and maintenance off hold off this potential blight?
Dawei Ye wrote:
PetKal, in your experience as a lens collector, would fungus be an inevitable problem for vintage lenses such as these, or would proper care and maintenance off hold off this potential blight?
Dawei, I've been very lucky, haven't had one single instance of lens fungus, even on a couple of lenses 15 years old which must have spent most of that time in storage because they look unused. Granted, we don't know what kinda storage that was, etc.
I take no special precautions myself other than making sure that our home A/C works well on humid days in summer.
