Art and Photography

Thoughts on Canon's 70-200 2.8 IS II?

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 16th, 2017 11:00 am
Tags:
[OP]
Deal Addict
Aug 4, 2008
2404 posts
488 upvotes
Toronto

Thoughts on Canon's 70-200 2.8 IS II?

Trying to add to this to my kit for cityscapes/landscapes.

I could use a bit more reach and its the last of three trinity zooms I don't have as of yet.

How do you guys find it?

It seems like the Mark 3 isn't due out yet, apparently, since Canon Rumors suggests Canon is working on a 24-70 2,8 with IS
8 replies
Newbie
Jun 19, 2015
8 posts
2 upvotes
Montr
Personally I rented it twice for weddings and I really hated it because it was way too heavy to for a whole day of shooting. I usually shoot with primes on two separate full frame bodies. I bought the 135L instead and I much prefer it. The difference in reach btw 135 and 200 mm is a couple of steps and the compression and shallow dof with the 135L at f2.0 is perfect for what I do mostly which is portraits. I photograph moving subjects so the image stabilization is irrelevant for me. I understand your needs are different than mine so my best recommendation is to rent it first given it's a pretty big investment. I initially thought I'd purchase it but after renting twice I am glad I didn't. Renting here in MTL is barely 40 $ tx in for full weekend. I usually only purchase Canon lens for focus accuracy but in your case I would consider the latest Tamron 70-200 or even better but way more expensive the 120-300 Sigma f2.8 :) might be better for wildlife but amazing optics.
Deal Addict
Mar 11, 2004
2098 posts
213 upvotes
Mississauga
Back when I had a dSLR I had this in my arsenal. Very heavy piece of glass but an amazing piece of glass for a zoom lens. If you really dont need the f2.8 I would suggest the F4 version which I also had. Much cheaper, much lighter and also excellent quality.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 23, 2014
1344 posts
281 upvotes
Toronto, ON
The 70-200 Canon L lenses doesn't undergo refresh that often. The Mark I version lasted for so many years and is still highly sought after. I have the IS II version of this lens and use it primarily for portraits and people shots. The IS is out of this world and can confidently shoot under 1/30 handheld in many occasions.
Dual XEON E5-2696V4 | ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080Ti OC | 3X NEC PA301W | 64GB DDR4 ECC |1 TB Samsung 960 Pro
FreeNAS & Plex Server XEON E3 1265L V3 | Supermicro X10SAE | 16GB DDR3 ECC | 6 X 3TB HGST 7K4000 RAIDZ2 | 3 X 3TB HGST 7K4000 RAIDZ1
[OP]
Deal Addict
Aug 4, 2008
2404 posts
488 upvotes
Toronto
traderjay wrote:
Nov 15th, 2017 1:52 pm
The 70-200 Canon L lenses doesn't undergo refresh that often. The Mark I version lasted for so many years and is still highly sought after. I have the IS II version of this lens and use it primarily for portraits and people shots. The IS is out of this world and can confidently shoot under 1/30 handheld in many occasions.
Ya, I'm concerned if a Mark 3 is on its way.

The 16-35 Mark 3 finally came out.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 15, 2012
9838 posts
4209 upvotes
Southern Ontario
I use it for weddings and portraits, sold my 135L for it. My favorite next to my 50L.

It’s a huge chunk of glass (so not great for traveling), very fast AF in Servo, I get lots of keepers, beautiful compression bokeh. Decent reach for most sports, not something I would use for scapes though.

I don’t see much they can improve on in a MarkIII.
Sr. Member
Nov 12, 2012
505 posts
163 upvotes
Calgary
Mark III would be 2-3 years away, but that's pure speculation based on the refresh cycle from the original to the IS II. They would probably toss in a third IS mode, but like the above post says, there isn't much to improve. it's an amazing piece of glass.

I have used the 85L, and its biggest drawback is the focus speed. You can't shot any moving subjects with it. Haven't tried the 135L yet, so no comparison there. 100L macro might also be suitable for landscapes/cityscapes at a fraction of the cost if that's enough additional reach. That's a fun lens to play around with.
Sr. Member
Aug 12, 2012
511 posts
67 upvotes
Richmond Hill
I have the f4 IS version and really like it. I'm usually shooting outdoor family portraits though, following active kids, so I usually shoot around 4.5-5.6. For city/landscapes, would you really need 2.8? You can probably save yourself the cost, weight, & size and get the f4L.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 23, 2014
1344 posts
281 upvotes
Toronto, ON
MikeinYYC wrote:
Nov 16th, 2017 1:48 am
Mark III would be 2-3 years away, but that's pure speculation based on the refresh cycle from the original to the IS II. They would probably toss in a third IS mode, but like the above post says, there isn't much to improve. it's an amazing piece of glass.

I have used the 85L, and its biggest drawback is the focus speed. You can't shot any moving subjects with it. Haven't tried the 135L yet, so no comparison there. 100L macro might also be suitable for landscapes/cityscapes at a fraction of the cost if that's enough additional reach. That's a fun lens to play around with.
Yes and even if the Mark III is released tomorrow, there will be no significant drop in price on the Mark II because there is such a high demand for these lenses. Even the Mark I are still selling for quite a bit!
Dual XEON E5-2696V4 | ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080Ti OC | 3X NEC PA301W | 64GB DDR4 ECC |1 TB Samsung 960 Pro
FreeNAS & Plex Server XEON E3 1265L V3 | Supermicro X10SAE | 16GB DDR3 ECC | 6 X 3TB HGST 7K4000 RAIDZ2 | 3 X 3TB HGST 7K4000 RAIDZ1

Top