Art and Photography

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

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 28th, 2017 1:57 pm
Tags:
[OP]
Deal Addict
Aug 4, 2008
2841 posts
616 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
16 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
2168 posts
235 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
1492 posts
353 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
2841 posts
616 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 Guru
User avatar
Jun 15, 2012
10073 posts
4394 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
508 posts
164 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
513 posts
69 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
1492 posts
353 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
Member
Jul 12, 2010
396 posts
60 upvotes
The chance of a mk3 coming out argument is quite mute since the mk 2 is amazing - probably the best 70-200mm zoom out of ALL BRANDS due to the design. not to mention the used market won't really move at all can easily sell it back for like 1800-1900. The demand for it is always high and never enough used supply.

The real question would you really need for your cityscape/ land scape. I don't find ppl really using it for that type of photography unless u really want to flatten and close up on some details. You probably forsure don't need the 2.8 could save money and weight with a f4 (doesn't resell as well)

Maybe get a tiltshift lense instead probably would enhance your type of photography alot more... but if you just want to have versatility in your kit and do other types of photography, then yeah 70-200mm is an awesome option
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 23, 2014
1492 posts
353 upvotes
Toronto, ON
You know the the 70-200 F2.8 L II is legendary when Sony and other mirrorless shooters try to adapt this lens to their body :D This is a handmade masterpiece that will stand the test of time. The amount of optics science that went into this lens is another story on its own.

Might not be the best choice for cityscape due to its narrow FOV. For landscape its not bad if you are focusing on a specific area, instead of those wide grand pano shots. For people and objects, nothing comes close to this lens. Even "bad" photos look amazing on this thing.
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
Deal Addict
Oct 3, 2007
2978 posts
277 upvotes
I think this boils down to whether you like zooms or primes. I find that I am a lot lazier when I use zooms and not as inventive with my positioning and angles. I just prefer having a 135/85 combo than this lens. The only zoom I use is on the wide side where I can't physically give up the distance in tighter spaces.

For me, the 70-200 would only come in handy for things like events where I am getting safer more 'normal' shots.

I borrowed the 70-200 to shoot the women's march in DC earlier this year because I thought having a zoom would come in handy. By the end of it, I was wishing I stuck with the 135/85 combo.
Neil Ta, Epic Wedding Photographer. My Instagram
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 5, 2004
1301 posts
265 upvotes
Toronto
70-200 2.8 AND 2.8 IS II are both excellent and sharp lenses. Though, they are heavy. I am not exactly sure why they would need to update it. The rumor of the update started around 2014 and seems like never stopped...
It's already a top notch lens that outperforms the competition.
If you can afford it, I would suggest you get one. I've been using it and the non IS version since 2005.
Be aware of costly repairs though. I had IS malfunction right out of warranty and paid,if not mistaken, about $1100 to fix it... Not that any other branded equipment is cheap to repair.
Dmitri Markine Wedding Photography: My 500pix||My Flickr||My Pinterest||My Instagram
Deal Guru
User avatar
Jun 15, 2012
10073 posts
4394 upvotes
Southern Ontario
Hyphy wrote:
Nov 28th, 2017 1:32 am
dont understand when one would use a 70-200mm for city/landscapes. i tend to think of drone or wide angle lenses for this
anyone have examples/photos where this FL would be useful?
Not common, however narrow FoV compresses the background so things in the back appear larger/closer like the CN tower framed between two buildings, or the moon behind the Seattle Space Needle, although I think this was shot at > 600mm.

Image

The other scenario I can think of is shooting from a distance say from a hilltop and stitching a high res panorama. I recall someone here doing that in Japan with the super sharp 135mm f/2.

Top