Do you get enough use of the Canon Lens EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM?

<p>I enjoy photographing people and kids. FWIW, I opted for the 135mm 2.0L over the 70-200mm 2.8L. I can shoot 135mm wide open and get sharp(er) results and shallow(er) DOF than with the 70-200. Although one can never ignore the versatility of the 70-200, especially during a more fluid setting such as a wedding. 135 is more...um...specialized, for lack of a better word.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for the valuable feedback. here are some points to answer some of the comments you made:</p>

<p>- i do have an 85mm 1.8 and I did use it. However indoors I found that it was not long enough from the back of the cerimony room to do the 'kiss shot' and other close ups (my partner was at the front so she took those and we were OK)</p>

<p>- the 2.8 aperture would allow me to work indoors without flash when you have some natural light</p>

<p>- I would like a zoom because when you are outside, shooting the guests, they are invariable milling around and you need different focal lenghts and sometimes zooming with your feet is not enough in these circumstances</p>

<p>- I am thinking that maybe the 24 - 105 3.5 is a more suitable choice but I know nothing about this lens apart from the specs which seem suitable for the needs I expressed above</p>

<p>Many thanks!</p>

<p>Nobody has said it, but have you considered the 70-200f4L IS? This lens is the same weight as the 135 and 200mm primes and yet has a 4 stop IS - effectively in terms of camera-shake avoidance a 200mm f1. While it will not freeze action as well, because of the IS you can use it exactly where you would use a f2.8 zoom (whose IS is not quite so effective). It is also $600 cheaper than the larger zoom. While is might not be exactly what you instinctively think of when thinking wedding, it does bear thinking about. Also as it is such a small size and weight, you don't leave it at home much. On the other hand if low light is really what you need then the 135mm f2 is a real blinder of a lens - but it is obviosuly not as versatile.</p>

<p>Not stabilized on Canon but there's also the Tokina 50-135/2.8 which might be a more useful range on a smaller sensor body in a package that's actually a little smaller than the 70-200 <em><strong>f/4</strong> </em> , and costs a little over $500.<br>

The 24-105 L IS is actually f/4 rather than f/3.5. I read it's a good lens but 105 really isn't that much longer than your 85mm so it would be handy from a versatility standpoint but wouldn't do much to extend your reach.</p>

<p>Jamie, yours must have been bad, my 70-200 is super sharp at 2.8.</p>

<p>It's worth every penny. From indoor sports such as basketball and gymnastics, to portraits, to landscapes, to some closer wildlife, the 70-200 has you covered. It is extremely sharp all around, however, the chromatic abberation wide open is <em>ehhh</em> .. but it is a zoom lens. And a really damn good one at that, in fact probably one of the best out there. I say if you have the cash, just buy it, and never look back.</p>

<p><em>"Jamie, yours must have been bad, my 70-200 is super sharp at 2.8"</em><br>

<em></em><br>

I tend to agree with you there but I never had the chance to try another to compare it to. Having said that, the ISO12223 crops on Digital Picture seem to reflect the findings on my lens i.e. crap wide open. If yours is sharp wide open then make sure you keep hold of it!</p>

<p>I do feel that the 70-200 f4 IS is a better lens. It is sharper wide open (compared to my f2.8) and has better IS. The much smaller size and weight make it much more attractive to me if I were to buy another.</p>

<p>I have the non-IS version and I hear its a bit sharper so maybe its that. I just used it for some portraits and I had to soften things up a bit in post after using it at 2.8. Either way I can't believe its that bad wide open. Must be something wrong.</p>

<p>The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is my most frequently used Canon EOS lens. Next would be my 24mm f/1.4, which is so fast I rarely have to use a tripod. (I have the 24-70 f/2.8 but rarely use it, for some reason--probably because it does not have IS. When I do use it, it is great.)</p>

<p>The 70-200 2.8 IS is remarkably useful in many indoor situations.</p>

<p>I have wide angle zooms that also don't get a lot of use. I almost never shoot a 50mm lens or my 85mm f/1.2, which I will sell soon.</p>

<p>Let's face it: it all depends on the type and style of shooting that one does.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Jamie and Tommy, when I bought mine the IS version was very new - I shot (film) on both the IS and Non-IS 70-200 F2.8 lenses and found the non-IS version to be sharper and cheaper so I bought the non-IS lens. It may be that the IS version has more variation in quality than the non-IS version.</p>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">I just sold mine after 4 enjoyable years. Reason for sale: Just don't use it enough to justify the cost of keeping it. However, if I was a wedding or a sports photographer I'm sure I'd keep it.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>Tommy,</p>

<p>I did borrow a non-IS version a year or so before I bought my lens and that was definitely sharp wide open. My lens was a disappointment. Sounds like it could be another case of lens variability from Canon. I really am delighted with my 200mm prime though.</p>

<p>You should wait till October for the Canon EF-S 40-125 f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>Plain and simple this lens is amazing. Ran test on it through out the aperture and zoom range and it is tack sharp. I even hand hold this with confidence at a 60th. This is my primary lens during the ceremony for all of my candids. Also when shooting sports it's very fast when focusing.</p>

<p>Everyone, I have just bought a second hand 28-135 f3.5 IS from ffordes to see whether this will help by giving a longer zoom range than I had while giving me a decent aperture.</p>

<p>I am going to play with it this weekend. If I then think I still need the longer focal lenght, increased aperture and improved glass, I will look at the 70-200 again. But right now I'm looking to see whether I can get away with spending less. Thanks for all the input. best,</p>

<p>Fred</p>

<p>I have the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM lens. I use it on a canon EOS 1Ds Mark II. Together, this is a heavy setup (10 pounds), but, I don't mind the weight. I use the lens, but, I do not use it very much, because I have found a much better combination, in terms of color saturation, sharpness, contrast, 3-D effect, minimal distortion, beautiful Bokeh (especially in Macros), with Hasselblad lenses on the 1Ds Mark II.<br />I have a friend who was a die-hard Canon digital man, until he saw my Canon EOS-Hasselblad photos.<br />I use the Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM in situations where I am shooting a moving target, or, if I want to capture spontaneity. With a manual lens, one does not have the time to focus - by the time the photographer sees the shot, it's gone before the lens is set. There are many situations in which the IS digital lens - in AF mode - is far superior to a manual lens.<br />I almost always shoot with a narrow depth of focus, so, a manual lens in moving situations is not nearly as user-friendly as the digital lens with AF and image stabilization.<br />There is one exception to the aforementioned. If the movement of the model is choreographed to move in the same plane, then [it is my opinion that] a manual Hasselblad lens will take a superior picture. <br />If the image is still, I choose a Hasselblad lens, 90% of the time.<br />I shoot all my photos is RAW format and edit with Adobe Photoshop CS3. The RAW format allows me to "go back in time" and shoot the same image over and over again. As far as I have learned, thus far, this can be done only with the RAW format.<br />In summary, it boils down to your shooting preference.<br />If you like shooting moving photos - sports, social events, children, animals - by all means, if you have the money to spend, I recommend adding a 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM to your lens collection. Incidentally, the IS feature is definitely worth the extra money.<br />If still shots - portraits, posed photos, macros, architecture - are what you like to shoot, then, I would definitely spend my money on Hasselblad lenses and adapt them to a Canon EOS.<br />I shoot both moving and still, so, use both digital lenses (on AF) and Hasselblads. Of the two, I personally, love the Hasselblads.<br />Ron</p>

<p>Mine is welded on my 5D and it is by far the sharpest zoom I have. For a crop sensor, I would NOT buy it. If you plan on moving to full frame, buy it. The lens is truely magical and every time i download my CF cards, it make me smile! V/R Raz</p>

<p>My 70-200 2.8L IS spends an awful lot of time on my 30D and is useful in so many different shooting situations. I <em>love</em> using it on my crop-sensor camera, but I also love using it on my 1vHS when shooting film.</p>