I've side by side tested the 70-200 f/4, the 80-200L "drainpipe", and the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and they were all great. But now I've got the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and it soundly beats them all.
garyvot wrote:
+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.)
I only went thru 5 copies, but then I gave up. My 24-105mm L is much better than any of the 5 copies of the 24-70 I had. However, I do realize that if I kept trying, eventually the odds are that I'd find one of the excellent 24-70's. My 70-200 f4 IS was sharp as a tack, and still is, even at MFD its excellent. My 17-55mm was also very good, but still a step down. I just bought a new 100-400mm L. I only use it at or near the long end, and it is better than I had expected, not as sharp as the 400mm f5.6 unless I compare hand held images at slow shutter speeds, and then it blows away the prime due to my shakey arms.
Not that I've tried a lot of Canon zooms, but I feel the 70-200/2.8 L IS (mark one) is the best. Never lets me down and - maybe I have a lower margin of tolerance - it did a good job with 2x TC. I'm sure the mark two is better but it costs an arm and a leg.
17-55/2.8 IS was also excellent, but I can't say I made a lot of great shots with it because I was more of a newbie back then (though one should never stop learning).
I now have a 17-35/2.8 L ($600) and it's surprisingly good for a 13 year old lens. A shot wide open at 17mm and ISO 3200 that I particularly love for no reason whatsoever: http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa262/snopchenko/hongkong/IASN3462.jpg
Dunno about best ever Canon zoom, I haven't used enough of them to be able to judge on that subject.
I really like my 24-70, based on continuous usage and joy it is my best Canon zoom. None of my other zooms generate the same feeling, but they have their moments and quality.
Ruy
Jun 05, 2010 at 03:08 AM
Jonathan Huynh Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Adopting a broad definition of "best" that takes into account overall versatility and price, size and weight in addition to IQ and BQ, I'm tempted to say ... 15-85 IS?
owned a drainpipe in mint condition, sold it here in a firesale to raise quick cash
regretted it ever since
i miss it, and still have the tripod mount which is useless to me
PetKal wrote: 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.
The "magic drainpipe" was or still is indeed a great lens; I had one of those quite a few years back. I was just wondering what current owners of that lens may say about their lens if they had a chance to try out the new 70-200 Mark II lens... . I am not insinuating that newer is always better but in case of the Mark II lens, I have to. Pete, are you volunteering ?
All this talk about the 70-200 2.8 nonIS, After three trips to Canon service and an internal lens replacement I finally dumped it. I found that my 28-300 IS, or my 100-400 IS even with the 2XTC beat the 70-200. The 28-300 doesen't get near enough credit.
Just an opinion.
Paul
It's been almost four years since I sold my 80-200/2.8L. I've used the MK I version of the 70-200/2.8L IS since that time, until about two months ago when I bought the Mark II. I was always content that for my shooting, IS was more important than the sharper images that the magic drainpipe provided. Now that I have the Mark II, I'm content that I have both IS and the sharpness of the 'pipe. Plus, it's under warranty.
AGeoJO wrote:
The "magic drainpipe" was or still is indeed a great lens; I had one of those quite a few years back. I was just wondering what current owners of that lens may say about their lens if they had a chance to try out the new 70-200 Mark II lens... . I am not insinuating that newer is always better but in case of the Mark II lens, I have to. Pete, are you volunteering ?
Joshua, the new lens looks quite sharp. Mind you, so are my Pipes (2) and my 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.
If someone were kind enough to lend me their lens for a day, I'd be happy to do a bit of comparative shooting.
PetKal wrote:
Joshua, the new lens looks quite sharp. Mind you, so are my Pipes (2) and my 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS.
If someone were kind enough to lend me their lens for a day, I'd be happy to do a bit of comparative shooting.
Peter, if I had two copies of the 70-200 Mark II, I would send a copy to you for your evaluation. Wait, I saw that you had two copies of the magic 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. 
. I am not insinuating that newer is always better but in case of the Mark II lens, I have to. Pete, are you volunteering 
?