Jump to content

EF 70-200/2.8 IS L II: What's it worth?


mark_pierlot

Recommended Posts

<p>I'm intrigued by the capabilities of the EF 70-200/2.8 IS L II, particularly by its purported performance wide open. But in order to finance the purchase of this lens at the present time, I'd have to sell off two or three of the following: 135/2 L, 200/2.8 L, and 70-200/4 IS L. So my question is, what, if anything, would I be missing with respect to IQ if I were to make this "trade"? I do realize that the faster zoom is much heavier and bulkier than the other lenses, and I do love the IQ of the 70-200/4, but I often find myself wanting to shoot at wide apertures.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any and all advice in this matter.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I own the EF 70-200/2,8 IS L II. IQ wise, my feeling is that it will easily replace your 70-200/4 IS L at the cost of more weight. But If I were you, I would'nt part with neither of the other two lenses from what I know of their IQ. I would wait for the money difference from the 70-200/4 sale. A zoom is only a zoom, even when it is this good, it still not the same as good primes. Good luck with your decision.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>

 

<p>I own a 70-200mm f/2.8 II as well, and I like it, but I can't say I love it [i didn't have it long enough yet] and that it's ideal for all the applications. I find it very versatile but I still wish for a 135mm f/2 specifically for portraits. I used 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS shortly, liked it...... now I am enjoying the IS but I haven't used it enough and gotten shots I otherwise wouldn't... well maybe this one, but with a tripod I would have gotten it.<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/arizona10/images/2010-06-25-superstitions-ramadas-7923.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

I have used the lens for a long time at a time, handholding... even hiking for 10miles where I used it part of the time, then had it resting on a front-facing small daypack [another daypack on my back], so that I would be ready for action as it happened. For that application, yes I would say I liked it a lot.. loved it I could say, not enough opportunities but some nevertheless.<br>

And for pictures like this, well at f/11 I think either 70-200 would have done the job, i wasn't using IS with this 3.2s exposure.<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/arizona10/images/2010-06-19-havasu-falls-6957m.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

I have not compared it side by side with other versions of the lens, nor have I used the lens in a situation where the IS would shine, like low light twilight environment...<br>

It would be too heavy of a lens for me for portraits, I would rather use the famous 85mm f/1.2 and 135mm f/2 for portraits, switching between them [what's the rush]. Zooms have their place but for portraits I would choose a prime. Or 2.</p>

 

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>On the topic of give up 2 lenses, 135mm f/2 + 200mm f/2.8 [in addition to the same zoom range lens 70-200mm f/4] -- well if you believe a "walkaround" 3.6lb zoom lens will be a good solution for you -- then it could be worth it, to some.<br /> However, I don't think you got a 135mm f/2 for it's focal length only, I think you might have gotten it for its portrait abilities?<br /> I view the zoom (70-200mm) as a quick-response solution, for sports where you want to go from one end to the other, or when you "walk around" or a situation where changing lenses is better avoided [and i don't mean 2-3 changes but 20+ changes as opportunities arise], such as for landscapes, waterfalls, etc.<br /> I heard a story from a person who switched from 135mm f/2 + 70-200mm f/2.8 IS [sold both] to purchase a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and he's happy with his choice -- he makes money with the lens and the new lens perhaps allows him to take pictures that are better [he did't elaborate on details].<br /> In support of new 70-200mm, with a new generation of a lens comes a design that fixes past issues [hopefully] such as weather-sealing, or improves on something like IS, makes autofocus faster? Definitely it's not a step backwards where things get broken with a new design.<br /> Is it so good though in the new design that you have 3 lenses in 1? And going from f/4 to f/2.8 zoom, will that TWICE THE WEIGHT be tolerable by you for different kinds of photos? Probably not. If you don't have the need for your 135mm and 200mm primes maybe it's ok to let them go, but you might return to them in the future when you need a break from the 3.6lb weight of the zoom.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Maybe if you told us which specific applications you are thinking for the 70-200mm f/2.8.... but those applications will likely be expanded.. you will take pictures of things you don't think about now... and probably 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II would do a better job than others in the family -- f/2.8 non IS, IS, f/4 no IS, f4 IS<br>

A classical compromise is 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS....... or 70-200mm f/4 IS...... both at $1200 new and half the cost of IS II. But then there will be low light situations when f/2.8 is not enough, and IS would be.... choices choices<br>

Sometimes you see a picture with a new lens and it looks great, but you could take pictures just as great with a different one... 70-300mm f/4-5.6 had great pictures in a catalogue, or Canon book - but they were in bright daylight, and camera body wasn't listed. Or you could use a 500mm f/4 on a low end body and make that an advertisement for the body itself?<br>

There comes a time when a new lens brings inspiration and a bit of a "kick" to help you "improve"... but then that wears out and you are back to reality.<br>

If you do get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, that's only half the story the rest is up to you. I find it motivational to work with something capable of great things [a camera lens, a carbon fiber road bike], but make sure once you have it to be in photogenic places often and at the right times of day -- make sure you have a good use for the lens too.<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/people10/images/2010-06-26-qcreek-dirtbikes-8577.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have the same thoughts (although I have not yet got a 200mm/2.8), but I think you would regret selling the 135mm f2 - would you not? I know I would as it really does have its special qualities. If I was you, I would not consider selling the 135. So that means more saving. I am in the same boat as your really. I love the f4IS zoom, but I shoot so much dance, concerts and plays that the faster zoom might be a better choice. Also the mark II is now so good that it truly rivals the primes in this area (the 70-200mm does too, but its f4).</p>
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...