EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM, opinions please

I am a prime user, I have never owned a zoom lense. Now I am

thinking fo buying EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM and I was wondering how

would you guys judge this lense? Is a good investment?

I own 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 macro.

Would like to get a tele lense. Was considering 200mm f.28L, light

weight, small to carry but on the other hand, zoom lense is also

very tempting.

(1)Please tell me in what situation do you use this 70-200, how

often and how do you rate it. Reports on this lense is welcome!

(2)How is 70-200 IS compared to 200L?

Thanks in advance.<div></div>

1) I use the 70-200IS when I need to use a zoom lens and/or IS. Mostly

weddings or sports. With IS and f/2.8, there is little that this lens can't do

within its focal range.

2) The sharpness of the 200/2.8 is a notch better than the 70-200IS. Both are

excellent and perform very well. But when I need to use an extender or two

stacked, I will definitely reach for the 200/2.8 first unless I'm shooting in light

that requires IS. The zoom is certainly much more convenient to use. I never

take the zoom hiking because of its size, weight, and cost.

If you do not shoot subjects under any time pressure, the 200/2.8 should

serve you well enough and will fit in with the rest of your setup nicely.

My only caution about the 70-200IS is getting 'addicted' to L zoom quality.

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is the sharpest zoom that I own and easily hangs with some of the primes I have too. Michael Reichman (of Luminous Landscape fame) says of this lens:

"Once upon a time zoom lenses were regarded as inferior to primes. That was then and this is now. Superb image quality and superior handling make this one of Canon's most highly regarded lenses. It has a rotating and removable tripod mount collar. An IS version became available in the second half of 2001 and I upgraded. The best just got better! This lens works exceptionally well with the Canon 1.4X Extender."

I would have to agree 100 percent. It's the most-used zoom lens that I own and I'm always blown away by the images I get with it. There are only two downsides, IMHO: 1) It's expensive and 2) It's heavy as hell. Good luck!

It is a fantastic lens, very usable, and the IS is wonderful. It has allowed me to get shots I would have missed with a lesser lens.

Be aware that it will be bigger and heavier than you expect (if you haven't handled one), so it's not a light-travel lens. But the results are well worth the weight.

A bit overcast in my garden today but...<div></div>

It's obvious from your post that you only have lenses that are really small compared with the 70-200 F2.8 that you are looking at. I once had the 100-400 which is a similar size - from memory perhaps a little lighter.

These are lenses that take a lot of lugging around, which you will begin to feel once the initial bias in favour of a newly acquired (and expensive) acquisition has worn off. At least, that's what happened to me, and I sold it.

If you're looking for a compact long zoom, and speed is not of the essence, don't be too influenced against the 70-300 DO lens by those who knock it. It has its quirks, but once you are used to them it can produce very good results.

And the lens you have with you will get better shots than the one you leave at home because it's too big...<div></div>

It's a great lens but do yourself a favor and join a gym at the same time. It is one heavy bugger. When birding, I use it on one body and the 400mm f5.6L on another body. Never used it with a 1.4X extender but I have used it with a 2X and, as would be expected, there's noticeable softness compared to the 400. The IS seems faster to me than that of the non-L lenses and the pan feature of the IS is nice.

All in all, it's an awesome, heavy lens.

Very good lens, no problems there. The problem for me was carrying it on mountain and desert trips. The range for travelling/landscape photography is very useful, and the flexibility as well.

I ended up buying the 70-300 DO, it is lighter, more compact, and stopped down to f/8 or f/11, it is very good too.

>> I own 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 macro. Would like to get a tele lense. Was considering 200mm f.28L, light weight, small to carry but on the other hand, zoom lense is also very tempting.

The zoom is longer, 1000$ more expensive and 1 Kg heavier. You also have the lower end nicely covered. Do these differences mean anything to you? If so, get the 200/2.8. I have it and - like all its owners - think very highly of it.

That said, the 70-200 IS is the only Canon zoom I'd consider purchasing unless I already had the 85/1.8 and 200/2.8. Truth must be said that I was considering it in the past but the primes were about 600$ cheaper. That was a deciding factor for me as I thought my wife will appreciate the saving. As things turned out, she didn't :-) Oh well, never mind. These primes are excellent and I like them a lot.

HTH.

Happy shooting,

Yakim.