Art and Photography

New canon 70-200 2.8 IS II

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 8th, 2010 1:59 am
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 15, 2002
2856 posts
133 upvotes
Markham
demi2004 wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 4:57 pm
I don't know about that. 4-stop claimed benefit is a lot. being able to shoot at 1/40-1/60s would be amazing. Currently, the absolute minimum for me is 1/125
It will be popular with A LOT of wedding photographers.
I've owned a non IS version for many years now. It has been an absolute workhorse for anything I do. I might just pull the plug on this one,after I read some reviews. The only reason I stayed away from upgrading all these years is because many claimed better IQ of a non IS version of this lens.
Of course the IQ varies between different copies. My current 2.8IS is just as sharp as the f/4IS and the f/4 I used to own wide open. I'd say the 2.8IS is even sharper once stopped down to f/4.

Shooting at 200mm 1/40-1/60s would be nice, but if you really need those kinds of speeds, you could always get primes and have much better IQ and edge to edge sharpness...

If you're into natural lighting, you're typically using primes...if you're into off-camera strobing, any lens will do as long as it's sharp.

1-extra stop of IS isn't going to make too much a difference. The extra focus speed is great for sports, but the 2.8IS is already fast (no blinding fast like the 135 mind you). There is no change in focal length or weight. Sharpness will be huge plus. But as I said, if sharpness is what you're into, you're better off spending the money on fast primes....

I'm sure the reviews will be extremely positive either way and help anyone who has it.

Just don't see a need to upgrade from a MKI to MKII...
Deal Addict
Oct 21, 2006
2113 posts
347 upvotes
I hope this drives down the price for the used mk 1's , since I've been saving up for a bit.
Sr. Member
Oct 29, 2005
969 posts
46 upvotes
You guys are nuts. Sharpness is overrated! :cheesygri I have slight mis-focused shots that look like doodoo on screen but looks the biz when printed to 13x19.

I've compared both my 70-200 2.8IS (wide open) and 200IS (@2.8) -- tripod test, same scene and camera settings. Processed identically, printed both shots on super B and myself & others could barely tell the difference in the final print output. On the screen, the prime is MUCH sharper - even @ F/2, it's still sharper than the zoom @ 200mm F/5.6.

For me, it's the recessed buttons that made me pull the trigger... I'm always bumping my darn switches :o
Deal Addict
Feb 10, 2007
2219 posts
81 upvotes
Toronto
demi2004 wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 4:57 pm
I don't know about that. 4-stop claimed benefit is a lot. being able to shoot at 1/40-1/60s would be amazing. Currently, the absolute minimum for me is 1/125
It will be popular with A LOT of wedding photographers.
I've owned a non IS version for many years now. It has been an absolute workhorse for anything I do. I might just pull the plug on this one,after I read some reviews. The only reason I stayed away from upgrading all these years is because many claimed better IQ of a non IS version of this lens.
really?
even with the mk1 ive shot @200mm w/IS @1/60th and even 1/50 with it being sharp. the issue is stopping motion at that point not the handshake...
Banned
User avatar
Nov 19, 2005
2985 posts
1 upvote
Markham/Kingston
Nikko is right about sharpness being "overated"! ;)

Unfortunately Shane is wrong about primes being the best way to get good ambient light shots indoors --- at least at these focal lengths.

I have the Canon 135mm F2 but the IS would be much more useful even with the F2.8 penalty. I can't handhold the 135L effectively with any shutter speed under 1/160th of a second especially when I am excited and running around for photos.

The primes sure are light weight though...
Toronto Wedding, Fashion & Lifestyle Photographer
www.spencerfu.com
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 15, 2002
2856 posts
133 upvotes
Markham
sfu_engineer wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 6:01 pm
Nikko is right about sharpness being "overated"! ;)

Unfortunately Shane is wrong about primes being the best way to get good ambient light shots indoors --- at least at these focal lengths.

I have the Canon 135mm F2 but the IS would be much more useful even with the F2.8 penalty. I can't handhold the 135L effectively with any shutter speed under 1/160th of a second especially when I am excited and running around for photos.

The primes sure are light weight though...
That's cause your skinny arms shake just lifting up a glass of water! Bulk up man!!

But seriously, you need a combination of a great high ISO body and fast lenses to get the most from ambient lighting. Shooting 2.8 with IS can only get you so far...even at 6400-12800 there is always sacrifices to be made...
Banned
User avatar
Nov 19, 2005
2985 posts
1 upvote
Markham/Kingston
SENSEI wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 6:19 pm
That's cause your skinny arms shake just lifting up a glass of water! Bulk up man!!

But seriously, you need a combination of a great high ISO body and fast lenses to get the most from ambient lighting. Shooting 2.8 with IS can only get you so far...even at 6400-12800 there is always sacrifices to be made...
True! (I do need to bulk up .. haha). But at long focal lengths the IS at F2.8 with 3-4 stops advantage beats out the non-IS at F2 lens.

Unfortunately they do not make a 135mm F1.2 lens.
Toronto Wedding, Fashion & Lifestyle Photographer
www.spencerfu.com
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 15, 2002
2856 posts
133 upvotes
Markham
sfu_engineer wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 6:42 pm
True! (I do need to bulk up .. haha). But at long focal lengths the IS at F2.8 with 3-4 stops advantage beats out the non-IS at F2 lens.

Unfortunately they do not make a 135mm F1.2 lens.
I guess it really depends on what you want to photograph...sure I can handhold down to 1/30s at 200mm with the IS on, but what kind of action can I freeze at that shutter speed?

If you're steady, I'd rather have a 1/100s shot with the 135mm and expose to the right..you'll get sharpness and freeze action.

But I guess it depends on your style and what you want to achieve...I have both lenses and use both in different situations...
Deal Guru
User avatar
Dec 3, 2004
10943 posts
420 upvotes
Markham/Mississauga
sfu_engineer wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 6:42 pm
True! (I do need to bulk up .. haha). But at long focal lengths the IS at F2.8 with 3-4 stops advantage beats out the non-IS at F2 lens.

Unfortunately they do not make a 135mm F1.2 lens.
You would think lugging around all that heavy equipment all day with your straps you'd bulk up. :razz:

I know that when I have my 70-200 2.8 IS on my back up body all day long, I often come home with sore arms or shoulders.

I guess bulking up would help myself too as I can't remain steady at anything below 1/100th - but then again, when I do shoot that slow of a shutter it's at the banquet in the evening and by then I'm a bit tired already from earlier in the day.
Deal Addict
Feb 10, 2007
2219 posts
81 upvotes
Toronto
sensei wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 7:20 pm
i guess it really depends on what you want to photograph...sure i can handhold down to 1/30s at 200mm with the is on, but what kind of action can i freeze at that shutter speed?
bingo!
Sr. Member
Oct 29, 2005
969 posts
46 upvotes
If you guys are getting sore from shooting long hours, that means you're not stretching well/enough before working. You have to build your muscle endurance and the only way to do it is to shoot more often with good posture.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 26, 2003
2027 posts
261 upvotes
Canada
I don't seem to be timing my lens purchases very well....

A few weeks after I purchased my 100 f/2.8 macro, the new 100L f/2.8 macro is released. I just purchased late last year my 70-200f/2.8LIS and now I see this... :cry:
Banned
User avatar
Nov 19, 2005
2985 posts
1 upvote
Markham/Kingston
SENSEI wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 7:20 pm
I guess it really depends on what you want to photograph...sure I can handhold down to 1/30s at 200mm with the IS on, but what kind of action can I freeze at that shutter speed?

If you're steady, I'd rather have a 1/100s shot with the 135mm and expose to the right..you'll get sharpness and freeze action.

But I guess it depends on your style and what you want to achieve...I have both lenses and use both in different situations...
1/100 with a 135mm telephoto lens? I can do slow shutter speeds with wider lens but I can guarantee you I would have to rapid fire in bursts to get a steady shot like that. The ability to go 1/30th of a second to 1/8000th of a second depending on the conditions of your location shows off the flexibility and versatility of the 70-200mm F2.8 IS. For everything else primes win!



I think it comes down to flexibility.
Toronto Wedding, Fashion & Lifestyle Photographer
www.spencerfu.com
[OP]
Deal Addict
Oct 19, 2006
1877 posts
122 upvotes
lz7j wrote:
Jan 5th, 2010 11:12 pm
If you guys are getting sore from shooting long hours, that means you're not stretching well/enough before working. You have to build your muscle endurance and the only way to do it is to shoot more often with good posture.
Or go to the gym. I have held my 70-200 2.8 IS and 7D for videos for 5 minutes. It's not fun but my arms didn't feel sore after either.
Deal Guru
User avatar
May 6, 2005
10380 posts
920 upvotes
Vancouver
Sure this is the 2.8 thread... but all this love for the 2.8...

I mean, obviously 2.8 beats 4... but its double the weight :(

My F4 is starting to feel pretty light and something I could carry around all day! I didn't originally think I'd get to that point with this lens - at least this quickly...

With this update, at least from Canon's perspective, I suppose the 2.8 is now considered superior to the F4 in terms of quality/sharpness? (I recall reading many times that the F4 - I think the F4non-IS was sharpest...)

Top