 |
|
|
websurfer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 27, 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 270
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
Update -
Just don´t understand how some people can rate this lens under a 9. It´s an extremly sharp zoom lens even wide open.
|
|
 Nov 17, 2007
|
|
juberisk2
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Sep 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 500
|
|
Review Date: Nov 16, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
this is a versatile, quality product, with outstanding overall image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
some copies are soft, as others have mentioned. some copies have occasional focusing issues, as discussed below. most lose noticeable sharpness on the long end, which is fairly common with zooms.
|
|
|
I agree with the overall ratings this lens has received for build quality, pricing, etc. I gave it a "9", which is a bit harsh, but I can't give it a "10." I believe a lens should be rated by how it performs given its respective specifications (aperture/IS/focal length, etc); it should not be rated ON its specs.
Like others have said, this lens produces some great photos, with remarkable sharpness, contrast, and bokeh. It has saved me several times at weddings and other events. Now comes the "however": Every once in a while, maybe 1 shot out of 100, the focusing is just a tad off. Accounting for human error, poor technique, bad lens copy, calibration, etc., the fact remains that this lens inexplicably provides one poor to average image (in terms of sharpness) from out of nowhere. this has been said by other reviewers and (posters in other forums here on FM) who have provided convincing examples of this strange phenomenon. Does it occur enough for me to sell the lens or not recommend it? No. Especially when the other 99% of the shots are spot on fabulous.
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2007
|
|
Mike Stan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 2, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 2, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Looks cool and make you feel important.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not up to the hype everyone says it is.
|
|
|
I rented a perfectly good 70-200 2.8 IS to shoot my kid's championship football game, I also burrowed a tele-extender for the occassion. Body attached to is Canon 10D. I got better results using my $300 70-300 4.5 lens. The speed of the 2.8 was great, but I did not get 1 image out of 500 that did not require sharpening or some type of editing. A few others commented on similar problems like this and I stand behind them as proof, this lens is not worth the money.
|
|
|
Nov 2, 2007
|
|
Peter Kotsa
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 1, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 268
|
|
Review Date: Nov 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,500.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
IS
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy, soft at 2.8
|
|
|
not happy at all with this lens. The non IS performs and balances so much better...dissapointed.
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2007
|
|
sivrajbm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3430
|
|
Review Date: Oct 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,474.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Speed, handling, bokem, IQ with good copy, balance on 1-series, focus limiter, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
tripod mount I like the Sigma mount better. It's not black
|
|
|
This lense along with the 24-70 and the 16-35 have not been very good to me. Soft copies abound at every turn. Finally a sharp copy. I wanted the IS for low light wedding and event work, now I have it. I have a very good copy of the Sigma that I can let go of now. The King is dead long live the King...!!!
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2007
|
|
Ray Lipscombe
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 23, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Usual 'L' Quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
After 6 months of use I really can't think of any!
|
|
As an enthusiastic amateur, I agonised for ages and trawled the internet for the lens that would offer the greatest flexibility. This was it for me. Not cheap, but I have long stood by the philosophy of ‘Buy Cheap - Buy Twice’. It will be in the bag until I am in the box (some years I hope)!
Although not what many people consider a landscape lens it does provide a different perspective. As a portrait lens I don’t need to be literally ‘in the face’ of the subject and it provides the length to obtain more candid shots.
Depth of field images are easily obtainable and to my relatively untrained eye, seem to have a quality feel.
Slight vignetting wide open on a 5D, but easily rectified and not really too much of an issue.
This lens has really re-ignited my passion for photography after years in the wilderness that is kids and nappies. The bank balance has taken a bit of a hit, but hey....middle age does have its advantages...cheap car insurance and some spare cash for small luxuries like this!
Some samples
http://www.lipscombe.info/canon/
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2007
|
|
Chris Fawkes
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 4265
|
|
Review Date: Oct 2, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
One awesome lens. Weel built, super sharp and it looks great.
Samples can be seen at http://www.chrisfawkes.net/wedding3.html
|
|
|
Oct 2, 2007
|
|
Eike Schroter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
There is something I don't understand about this lens.
I'm sure it's a great lens.
How is it that when I'm shooting at f2.8, 200mm, with the IS on, at 1/6400 of a second, the shots are out of focus?
I'm shooting with one shot auto focus on.
Even with a mono pod, at F4, on the 30D, bright overcast light, at 1/3400 of a second, IS on.
I'm baffled.
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2007
|
|
csm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11471
|
|
Review Date: Sep 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, build, 2.8, IS
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
Workhorse lens, super sharp, IS is tops for lowlight, tough (can withstand a drop, or wet, or sand), and it is 2.8. 2.8 is critical for sports. I'd buy a 70-200 2.0 if they made one tho. 
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2007
|
|
TimesUP
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 6, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 652
|
|
Review Date: Sep 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,425.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, excellent contrast, focus.....etc,.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I have read everything there is to read about this lens. I have laughed at folks who were willing to spend an "arm and a leg" on
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2007
|
|
Kari Post
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 685
|
|
Review Date: Sep 10, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, good AF speed, accurate focusing, IS, AF with 1.4x and 2x extenders, included tripod collar
|
|
Cons:
|
I've noticed some C/A in high contrast areas
|
|
|
I owned this lens for about six months before switching to the 70-200mm f/4 IS. Previously, I owned the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens for comparison.
This is a top notch lens. The lens is quite sharp, performing exceptionally well for a zoom, and does well even with converters added, although the AF hunts considerably more with the 2x and focus acquisition is slower. When used on a tripod with the IS off this lens is one of the sharpest I've seen, zoom or prime.
This lens is just as good as, or better than, the Nikon version in all regards, including AF speed and accuracy and overall image quality.
I really enjoyed this lens, but have traded it for the f/4 version for lighter weight when backpacking.
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2007
|
|
reburns
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 266
|
|
Review Date: Sep 10, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Wider aperture than alternatives
|
|
Cons:
|
Tested several copies and found them too soft to use on a full-frame digital
|
|
|
Please, when you post a review for a lens, state which camera bodies you used. I used a 5D with this lens.
I assumed that this was a good performing lens based upon the high review marks received here. After purchasing and testing 3 copies, and testing three other copies, I conclude that this lens cannot keep pace with full frame digitals. I was hoping to use this lens for available light indoor photography and DOF subject separation.
I am choosing the 70-200 f/4 IS instead. Photozone tests that model to be Canon's highest resolution zoom. Folks like the contrast, and it's supposed to have the latest & greatest stabilization.
The test was a controlled still-life setup, testing all three copies at the same time on a tripod-mounted camera. Tests were conducted wide-open because I want to be able to use the lens that way. Tests were done at the limits and middle of zoom range. There were inconsistencies between the copies, but all were soft. I later compared the best of the three to the so-so 100-400L lens with the longer lens wide open and the 70-200 f/2.8 stopped down to match. The result: the 70-200 & 100-400 produced virtually identical resolution (accounting for different magnification). Also compared was the most dependable copy of the three to a colleague's copy. His was substantially sharper at 70mm but softer at 200mm. Another test was between this 2.8 IS model and a store's f/4 non-IS model, and the f/4 model was substantially superior.
I would not recommend this lens until Canon updates it, and instead produce better images using the cheaper and smaller f/4 model.
|
|
|
Sep 10, 2007
|
|
racketman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, weather sealed.
|
|
Cons:
|
weihgt, price.
|
|
|
I had the f4 L and that was a fine lens but I was frustrated at having to protect it in rainy conditions. If you want to shoot in all weather and have a 1 series body there is only one choice.
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2007
|
|
DavidWEGS
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Apr 15, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,599.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, well not really, but I can't complain about anything else ;-)
|
|
|
As has been said, this works as advertised and has performed at the top for over three years now.
If using with a TC the images are slightly softer, but still very close to the 400/5.6's IQ.
I would buy it again.
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2007
|
|
Brian Matchick
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 12, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build, IS, USM, contrast, bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, heavy and only descent image quality.
|
|
Writing this review makes me feel like the guy who shows up to an Apple forum and bashes the iPod. But I feel this lens was given a fair go 'round and must call it as I see it. I bought the 2.8L IS based solely on the reviews posted here. I wish I had seen this: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm first. Everything people say in the FM reviews is dead on, except for some of the raves about image quality. This lens has great contrast and bokeh, but it really isn't that sharp overall and there is way too much purple fringing. I shoot RAW with a 20D and PP everything with PS at 100%, which does mean I'm a tough grader. And viewed at 50% things look much better (they may also look good printed; I didn't print anything). But for $1600 I really wanted to love this lens, but so many shots were a disappointment and needed a lot of sharpening and other work, even at f8 or f10. I even exchanged the lens with Amazon to make sure I had a good copy, but my results were looking just like those in the review I link to above, so I think it's simply that the new version of this lens has issues. It's sad because I've (in my mind) drooled over this lens for a while and am still kind of shocked that I just couldn't deal with the image quality. I no longer have the 2.8 and will be ordering the f4, which really does seem to be stellar (I hope!). If I wasn't such a nit-picker, I may feel differently, but for that much $$ I just couldn't live with it. BTW, someone mentioned that the 2x converter works well with the 2.8. I must respectfully disagree. My results were awful, and a quick forum search at someplace like dpreview will reveal that almost everyone with this setup is not happy. The 2x simply magnifies the 70-200 2.8s flaws and using that combo really is no better than cropping and upsampling without using the converter. Please check it out before spending $300 2x unless you have an 70-200 f4 or some good primes to use it with. I'll just add that I had the 2.8 for a month and did everything I could to make sure it wasn't *me* causing the issues. I've at least convinced myself that it wasn't. But YMMV, I suppose. http://www.pbase.com/matchick
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2007
|
|
David Hiten
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image Quality - Speed - Image Stabilizer - Reach
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight consideration - Size Consideration - Price Consideration
|
|
|
This lens rocks!
If you are going to get a job done properly then get the right tools. I was out a few fay back at a Rock concert and obviously no flash was allowed + I could not stand in the front the whole time blocking the view of other fans.
This lens allowed me to sit back and pick up on some amazing shots. The quality is astounding. I am amazed every time I look at the photos shot at between iso 800 - 1600.
I use a 30D and the noise levels were contained while getting an exceptional amount of detail.
I cannot imagine a time when I will not have a lens like this. It is pure heaven to own a tool like this.
Weight wise it is heavier than other options but why would you want a lighter tool that cannot do the job - that does not make sense. If you need 2.8 and want the extra stop the IS offers then start gym now!!
Price is relative. IMHO this lens is a steal for the doors it opens up artistically as a photographer and professionally as a return on investment.
I held this baby for 5-6 hours with limited breaks between and although I admit it had my back aching a bit on the walk to the car - I could still smile knowing that my images were gonna look as sweet as possible with only compromise being my ability to get the best out of this amazing machinery!
Call Santa and tell him you're a good boy! - 0800SANTACLAUS
|
|
|
Aug 12, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
356
|
792261
|
Jun 8, 2022
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
91% of reviewers
|
$3,240.34
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.81
|
8.18
|
9.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
