Anyone using Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II

<p>How do you like it? Will you recommend this lens for weddings?</p>

<p>I've got the new lens. I was at a workshop with it and two other photographers also had the lens. We all had our focus alignment checked and while my lens was right on, the other two were so far off that they couldn't correct it i n camera. One had bought his lens from a US dealer and when he called he was told to send it back for a replacement. The other guy had purchased his in Canada and I don't know how that worked out. So if you get one I suggest that you check the lens alignment right away.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>I've got one, significantly better than my 70-200 2.8 IS v1, both in sharpness and focus accuracy. The vast majority of all users are reporting very positive results. It's an expensive lens, but highly recommended.</p>

<p>Husker, IMO it would be too long for wedding, unless of course you will be shooting it from 100 yards away :) I'd recommend Canon 24-70 2.8 and 85mm 1.2 II for weddings.</p>

<p>Ilya -- it depends on the body -- full frame, the 70-200 is not "too long" by any means. MANY wedding pros use the 70-200 2.8.</p>

<p>For Canon 50d and 7d bodies.</p>

I used the 70-200 2.8 in many of my weddings. I used it to shoot from a bush to get 80 photos of a ceremony where photos were prohibited but the bride wanted them. I have used the same lens for 12 years. It is particularly useful for shooting tight candids at receptions so as not to get in people's faces. Having shot a lot of football on 100 yard field the lens won't get much at the other end zone at 200mm. or 400 or 800 for that matter.

<p>How do you do the focus alignment check?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>I like the lens much better than my version I and I loved that lens. The II <strong>is</strong> that much better.</p>

<p>I'm not a wedding shooter, but I think you'll find many with both crop bodies and FF using it very effectively for that purpose.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wow, 12 years experience. You must have used the non-IS version?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2372607">Dick Arnold</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 15, 2010; 05:04 p.m.<br>

I used the 70-200 2.8 in many of my weddings. I used it to shoot from a bush to get 80 photos of a ceremony where photos were prohibited but the bride wanted them. I have used the same lens for 12 years. It is particularly useful for shooting tight candids at receptions so as not to get in people's faces. Having shot a lot of football on 100 yard field the lens won't get much at the other end zone at 200mm. or 400 or 800 for that matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>What are the other options?<br>

Get a Canon 70-200 2.8<strong> non-IS</strong> with another lens to complement it?</p>

<p>There are probably many, many options for wedding photography. But although I don't often do weddings or have this lens, I do have the 100-400 and it's a great lens for candid shots in any event.<br>

Many claim an 85mm to be one of the better portrait focal lengths. The 70-200 covers that and the f/2.8 will be needed for low light situations and controlling the DOF. </p>

<p>I would not get the 70-200 without the IS or consider using the difference in IS or No IS towards another lens. You will probably regret it!</p>

<p>I think the majority of wedding shots are taken hand held. That's what the IS is for!</p>

Husker. I am still using the same 70-200 2.8L that I bought in 1997. The lens did not come with IS then. At that time I also had a 70 or 75-300 IS. I sold it and bought the 70-200 as I needed better low light capability for sports. It operates and looks like the day I bought it. As I said I did weddings with it. I have done portraits with it in my studio and shot lots of high school sports for a paper including lots of night football. I have used the hell out of it. Would I like IS? Yes but it does not help much with moving sports. I have it on a 100-400 with IS and I find it useful and I think that the lens is a great good light lens and occasionlly the IS is very effective. I mostly handhold both lenses. However, for pure all around utility the old 70-200 is like my right arm. I am absolutely sure the mark II is marginally better but I think that increment of improved quality might be hard to differentiate on a lot of pictures. I don't lust after the new one as I plan on keeping my old one for another twelve years or until it quits. I currently shoot a lot of indoor swimming meets where I make some prints but most of my pictures go up on the web. I am sure the new lens would do a better job but this old 70-200 does the job adequately in very questionable light common in indoor pools. You could probably get a good used one for under a thousand bucks. If you buy used learn how to read the serial number because you can determine the year of manufacture from the number.

<p>Dick,<br>

Thanks for sharing your experience. With the kind of experience you have I bet you can shoot with almost anything with or without IS. I on the other hand do not have half of your experience :)<br>

As of right now the only thing stopping me from purchasing <strong>2.8 IS II</strong> is the focusing issue mentioned in this thread. I am unable to find any other evidence of this issue, other than the fact that some people experience slow focusing with <strong>version II</strong> lens as oppose to the original <strong>non-IS</strong>?</p>

<p>To me the 70-200 2.8 IS is by far the BEST zoom I have ever used. I have it welded on my full frame and I shoot weddings with it all the time. For a crop body I would say it's long but not on a full frame. This is my weapon of choice, 7D with 17-55 2.8 IS and 70-200 2.8 IS on my full frame. AWESOME. Buy it, v/r Buffdr</p>