 |
|
|
AshtonMarie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2022
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 8, 2022
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $2,250.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Great zoom range.
|
|
Cons:
|
Newer models are much sharper.
|
|
|
This lens is great for having a 70-200 on hand, but you'd be better served to save your money and at lest get the mkii.
|
|
 Jun 8, 2022
|
|
kathrynfaye
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 13, 2022
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 13, 2022
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fast focus, sharp, beautiful compression
|
|
Cons:
|
can get heavy
|
|
This lens is fast to focus, incredibly sharp, and the compression is excellent... similar to my 85mm 1.2. The weight of the lens can get quite heavy, but that is to be expected given it's size. A staple for every professional photographer!
- Kathryn Faye Photography
https://kathrynfayephotography.com/
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2022
|
|
natedawg
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 261
|
|
Review Date: Jul 16, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, IS works very well, useful zoom range especially when combined with other L 2.8 lenses ie 24-70.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus problems when using filters, doesn't respond well to being pointed vertical with IS turned on (elements appear to float around inside the lens and show strange distortion that isn't present when shooting horizontal).
|
|
|
Great lens for weddings, sports, and general zoom telephoto. I bought mine used (off this forum I think) and got a very good deal considering the average price paid shown above.
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2015
|
|
Photoguy1956
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2015
Location: Iceland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great IQ at 2.8, sharp across the whole frame at 2.8 and No flare
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, when are they going to make plastic lenses as good as glass
|
|
|
The only way I can make this lens flare is to point it directly at the sun and what I want to take a picture of is not in the frame. 200mm is a narrow angle of view.
I have taken hundreds of pictures of my Grandsons, birds other small wildlife and I have yet to get any off colour cast. The images always seem to just pop right out with very good sharpness. Yes, even at 2.8.
2.8 is a blessing to have on an overcast day.
Wide angle sigmas are the only lenses I know that give a yellow colour cast. I must have the 1 in a million good lenses from Canon.
I could not be happier with a 2.8 lens. I highly recommend it.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015
|
|
Pertinax222
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jun 20, 2014
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 17, 2015
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
I've used it a couple of months.
Built-quality: very sturdy but a bit heavy compared to nikon equivalent model.
Sharpness: Amazing. At f/4, it's sharper than the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II.
Vignetting: There is an acceptable amount of vignetting shooting wide.
Color: On par with other lenses of same quality.
Contrast: This lens is very contrasty, which is a cool feature. I think this is an element of lens reviews that is often skipped over, but which is very important.
Chromatic aberration: No negatives to mention.
Flare: I don’t like the sun flare with this lens. But it's a common problem on 70-200mm zooms. Too much orange color cast over the photo is thrown and it always reduces sharpness.
CreativeView
http://creativeview.ch
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2015
|
|
aestiva
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 17, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 12, 2014
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at 2.8
|
|
Don't buy this lens if you want a sharp lens at 2.8. The 100mm 2.8L IS and f135 2.0 are better options. I onwned this lens at 2011 - 2012 (see http://facebook.com/totaalfotografie for samples at that year) and than I upgraded by the version 2. This one is a lot better!
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2014
|
|
hans.dampf
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2014
Location: N/A
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: May 9, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, Bokeh, Build Quality, Image Isolation Qualities
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, Price, Size
|
|
I now work for several years with this lens and DSLRs and I can only report good things about this lens. The focus accuracy is really impressive on the entire zoom range. The build quality is as it should be for an L lens, extremely good and robust. This is a workhorse, using it everyday will not wear it down. This is also one reason why this lens still enjoys great popularity with the press, sports and wedding photographers since its release almost 16 years ago. The value for money at for this lens is very well done. Only the new version of the 70-200 2.8 L II may still show better sharpness values ​​and a nicer bokeh, but also it costs almost twice as much. The bokeh is really wonderful, even when shooting wide open at f2.8. For portraits, this lens is really very good. Only specialized prime lenses are of course even more beautiful in terms of the exemption possibilities and the bokeh . If you like extreme subject isolation qualities and absolutely creamy bokeh, take a look at the primes like 85 f/1.2 L, 50mm f/1.2 L or the 135 f/2L . But the 70-200 2.8L IS has a great advantage against fixed lenses: It's flexible! practise and get to know this lens, it has to deliver good images under allmost all conditions. For wedding photography or similar activities this lens is simply better because it is more flexible than fixed lenses. Only the weight can be a limiting factor, it's really heavy.
What about the corresponding alternatives? There are still 2 70-200 4,0 L USM lens from Canon. Both very sharp and also a still image stabilization. However, F4 is sometimes simply not fast enough, especially since the 70-200 4,0 L IS USM also has a pretty high price. Alternatively, there is also the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. It is quite sharp (if you get a good copy), but much slower in terms of autofocus speed. Furthermore, there is also a Sigma 70-200 2.8 which is not necessarily super sharp at maximum aperture, and autofocus is by far not as reliable as with this Canon lens.
For me as a wedding photographer, this lens is simply a must, even with the relatively high price and weight. The fact is that there is really no alternative to it if you need nice and sharp pictures from further away or if you need to isolate your subject from the background. Don't think about saving some money by going without the IS - the stabilizer helps a lot at long focal distances and handholding this thing is tough.
One word about the version II of this lens - yes, it's sharper and a bit better. But really - this lens has been top notch and best in class for 16 years, it has not gotten any worse since the new version came out!
Take a look at real life examples (not brick walls!!) of this lens in action in a couple shooting that I did recently:
Photographe de Mariage à Genève
These pictures were shot with it:
Photographe de Mariage à Genève
Photographe de Mariage à Genève
Photographe de Mariage à Genève
|
|
|
May 9, 2014
|
|
dkyeah
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 10, 2013
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 26, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Weather sealing, fast and accurate AF, not so expensive anymore
|
|
Cons:
|
Less sharp than the newer version, heavy
|
|
While the newer version is noticeably sharper, this lens is very good. You can get it on eBay for quite cheap. If you shoot sport or wedding this is a must have lens. Though I must say, I tend to use more and more my 85mm 1.2 instead of this lens for most of my work. I still use my 70-200 when I need faster AF or a longer focal.
When I'll update it, I'm might take a look at the 135mm f/2. As it is lighter, smaller and has a 1 stop advantage, though it's not stabilized.Will see.
If you want to see how it performs in low light, check the following link. It's a wedding runway I shot for a magazine and the 70-200 2.8 IS was perfect for that job: http://quentindecaillet.com/blog/4262-photographe-mariage-geneve-salon-du-mariage-de-geneve-2013-defiles.html
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2014
|
|
michaeldejesus
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Jan 29, 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 25
|
|
Review Date: Feb 7, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Still great after all these years. I look back at all the keepers I got from this lens, especially paired with my original 1D classic, and I'm amazed. Even if I had the money I'm not sure I would buy the Mark II version of this lens. Would I get the incremental value out of buying the newer version? I think not.
|
|
Cons:
|
None that I can think of. Sure, it's not the latest and greatest, but you're not losing much.
|
|
|
A great lens that keeps getting better. Built like a tank and sharp as a tack. Amazing lens.
|
|
|
Feb 7, 2014
|
|
ezekiele
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 16, 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Image stabilizer
|
|
Cons:
|
Not the as sharp as I would like at 2.8
|
|
|
As a <a href="http://ezekielephotography.com/">wedding photographer</a> I use the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM in tandem with the 24-70mm f/2.8L EF USM on 5DMK II's, they are a great pair for fast paced events. I really have no complaints about this lens for the work I do it gets the job done.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2013
|
|
scott_scheetz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 31, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 130
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,070.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, good contrast, Lighting fast AF, accurate AF, Weather sealing, Good IS system. IQ wide open from 70-135mm is Great! Excellent build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
IQ at 200mm wide open is a little weak. Flares very bad when shooting towards a light source even with the hood attached. HEAVY!
|
|
I've gotten some brilliant shots with this lens. The IQ is really quite good wide open, except at the long end of the range (~200mm). Its not terrible at 200mm, but its not as good as at 70mm, and no where close to a prime.
This lens is amazing on a full frame. The auto focus is lighting fast and accurate, even on a 5D. Weather sealing is great. I've shot in the rain several times without any problems. IS is great, and very beneficial for a lens of this range.
This is a heavy lens, but it has an excellent build quality. It balances very nicely on a gripped 5D.
Here are some shots using this lens on a 5D. (All are wide open)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/8347899745/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/8400255871/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/8341162208/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/8348959158/
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2013
|
|
nswelton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 16, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 282
|
|
Review Date: Apr 11, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
mind blasting if you're new to lenses of this grade. indestructible.
|
|
Cons:
|
has a washed out look, not much contrast, not as sharp as the newer versions, kind of a let down for a lens this expensive.
|
|
|
i loved this lens until i switched to primes. then, suddenly, i hated it and basically stopped using it. maybe it was the fact that i was using all L series primes? but maybe not: when i got the f4 IS version, i immediately knew that my distaste for this lens had everything to do with the fact that it just optically does not perform as well as the newer canon zooms (i.e. the f4 IS, the F4 non IS, and the f2.8 Mark II). it's soft compared to the current gen zooms and the colors and contrast need to be pumped up in post. if you're looking to save the money, get this -- but i highly highly recommend waiting a little longer, saving a little more, and getting the mark II version, which is simply phenomenal.
on the plus side, it's quick and accurate to focus, and can probably withstand having a bomb drop on it.
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2012
|
|
Nezza
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Nov 24, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 476
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2012
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Well made, IS.
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality wide open
|
|
|
This is a nice F4 lens. Wide open my copy is soft with a lot of image bloom. Stopped down 1 stop it is nice and sharp. I may have a rogue lens as everyone else seems to think mthe lens is exceptional.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2012
|
|
Kevin Sherman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1045
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Fast, Amazing
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy?
|
|
|
Compared with the Version II, this one is a great value now.
Fast focus, good sharpness, IS is tremendously beneficial. Money maker. Shoot a tooooooooon of sports with this puppy.
Only negative is the lens hood, the plastic mount wears down pretty quickly. Barely a year after purchase, I had to start using gaffers tape to keep it on.
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2012
|
|
dolina
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 4, 2008
Location: Philippines
Posts: 4793
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2011
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
20g lighter & $800 cheaper than the Version 2
|
|
Cons:
|
Since has been replaced by the Version 2 on March 2010, which is ok cause the Version 1's cheaper.
|
|
I have the Version 1 and Version 2 of this lens. I did a side by side test between the two during a football match using two EOS 7D bodies with the same brand battery and same brand 8GB memory card.
I noticed that the USM is much more responsive and quieter on the Version 2 than on the Version 1 that I immediately noticed which subject is in focus.
I would not have noticed this if I weren't switching between the two setups seconds between each other.
If you are a working photog with a Version 1 I would buy the Version 2 ASAP and keep or sell the Version 1. The Version 2 will shorten your workflow significantly. The shortening of workflow correspond to the improved image quality and keeper rate that benefits the Version 2. This is what you get from a decade's worth of R&D.
If you are a non-working photog with the Version 1 I would keep it and buy another zoom or prime lens.
To quantify the Version 2 I would say this is a 25% improvement over the Version 1
If you want to see lens samples on full frame, APS-H and APS-C bodies go to http://www.flickr.com/photos/alabang/tags/canonef70200mmf28lisusm/
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2011
|
|
DLP
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 2563
|
|
Review Date: Aug 3, 2011
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,600.00
|
|
Pros:
|
BQ, case and collar included
|
|
Cons:
|
CA, weight
|
|
|
I was so undecided between this lens and the F4 IS that I ordered both. The lens is heavier than the specs. My copy with collar and hood tipped the scales at 3# 11 OZ. Nearly a half pound heavier than the specs. Most dissapointing to me was the CA especially at 70mm. IS is a bit of a let down in a side by side comparison with the newer generation F4 IS. The IS on the F4 closes the gap to some degree between the two. I would still recommend this lens but if you have visions of better BQ or IQ simply because the price is higher you may be dissapointed. If you need a fast zoom I'm sure this one will be just the ticket.
|
|
|
Aug 3, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
356
|
791940
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
