70-2002.8L IS comments

[Feinwerkbau]

OK, I did a search, but came up with nothing.

Is the 70-2002.8L IS such a heavy or expensive beast that no one uses it?

Or is there some kind of major roblem with this lens that prevents most from using?

The overseas reviews all seem to sing praises for this lens, but how come no one talks about it here?

Anyone using it? Any comments, good and bad?

[Deadpoet]

Are you saying all the reviews in all the websites are lying?

This is arguably the sharpest and fastest focusing zoom in Canon's lineup.

[Hacker]

Going by your logic, the Canon 600mm must not be good, rarely see folks talk about it here.

[CYRN]

Hahaha... it's one of the "must have" (if you can afford) lens.

However, I believe because of the cost (especially Canon Sg RRP is so high compared to US or HK), the f4 option seems more viable in terms of price-to-performance comparision.

Furthermore, with 1.6x crop on most Canon's consumer DSLR, it's pretty long on the short end.

[Snoweagle]

I've used this lens twice. It's damn gd and fast and sharp, but weight is a put-off.

[+evenstar]

overseas reviews aren't enough? the lens is the same both overseas and in SGP, so what kind of comments are you expecting from the locals?

also, CS does not have a subforum just to lens reviews if you've noticed, unlikes forums like FM

[wanzw]

i own the 2.8L non IS version.

never regretted buying that piece of glass even the image stabiliser is a big plus for lens at such focal lengths, but no money so settle for 2.8L. bokeh and speed is good.

[jsbn]

Originally Posted by Feinwerkbau OK, I did a search, but came up with nothing. Is the 70-2002.8L IS such a heavy or expensive beast that no one uses it? Or is there some kind of major roblem with this lens that prevents most from using? The overseas reviews all seem to sing praises for this lens, but how come no one talks about it here? Anyone using it? Any comments, good and bad?

So, a forum must talk about a lens constantly to let it prove its worth?

If that's the case, yes - the 70-200L IS is crap, the worst lens ever produced by Canon that no one's here raving about it.

Ditto that to the 400DO, 600L and the 1200L since there's no one here talking abt it.

[+evenstar]

Originally Posted by jsbn So, a forum must talk about a lens constantly to let it prove its worth? If that's the case, yes - the 70-200L IS is crap, the worst lens ever produced by Canon that no one's here raving about it. Ditto that to the 400DO, 600L and the 1200L since there's no one here talking abt it.

u forgot the 400 f2.8L IS and the 300 f2.8L IS

[adamadam]

Originally Posted by Feinwerkbau OK, I did a search, but came up with nothing. Is the 70-2002.8L IS such a heavy or expensive beast that no one uses it? Or is there some kind of major roblem with this lens that prevents most from using? The overseas reviews all seem to sing praises for this lens, but how come no one talks about it here? Anyone using it? Any comments, good and bad?

That no one uses it? Many people use it, it's a great lens and the weight shouldn't be an issue - even if carrying it all day.
It's not that heavy, and you get used to carrying and using it. On top of that, the pictures you would take with it will make you happy

[Splutter]

I think there've been many threads regarding this. Somehow the search functino doesn't return those results though. It's a good lens, but I feel if you are looking for tack sharp images, the non IS version will be a better choice.

[CYRN]

Originally Posted by Splutter I think there've been many threads regarding this. Somehow the search functino doesn't return those results though. It's a good lens, but I feel if you are looking for tack sharp images, the non IS version will be a better choice.

cuz search function dun search for numbers

[Feinwerkbau]

Originally Posted by Splutter I think there've been many threads regarding this. Somehow the search functino doesn't return those results though. It's a good lens, but I feel if you are looking for tack sharp images, the non IS version will be a better choice.

I was just wondering, that's all.

I've seen folks with the non-IS, and now many are switching from the f4 to the f4 IS.

Lots of discussions about the Sigma vs the Canon, and the 2.8L vs the 4L, and now the 4 non-IS vs the 4 IS, but when I searched, no results on the 2.8IS.

Read here about folks here leaving their 2.8 non-IS mostly in the dry-cabs or end up selling it off due to lack of use and/or weight issues, so because of the lack of search results here, you can't blame me for wondering why no one talks about the 2.8 IS, can you? Naturally, what came to mind was - Weight? The high price? Or other issues affecting performance (what I'm most interested in)?

I don't think weight would be a major issue as I'm used to carrying lots of stuff by myself (up to 10 kg without a trolley, but I'm getting older now).

I used the 100-400L last week and found that IS was crucial, even when using a mono, so naturally I was leaning towards the 2.8IS as opposed to the non-IS version since I envisage using the lens in unfavourable lighting conditions.

Splutter, could I ask - why do you feel that the non-IS version giver sharper images than the IS version? I'm not nit-picking your helpful contribution; I'm trying to find out as much as I can.

CHEERS!

[spartacus.ret]

Originally Posted by Feinwerkbau Splutter, could I ask - why do you feel that the non-IS version giver sharper images than the IS version? I'm not nit-picking your helpful contribution; I'm trying to find out as much as I can.

here, read the review by castleman. go down to the part about using the lenses on film and digital and see for yourself.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/

[Splutter]

If you are ok with the 100-400's weight, the 70-200 2.8 IS or Non IS should serve you fine. I recall the weight being rather similar.

The sharpness findings are from my own experiences with several copies with both lenses. It's still sharper than most lenses lah, just that straight out from the cam, you could really tell the non IS version is sharper. Of coz it still can't be compared to primes like 135 f2 and 300 f2.8. The IS version is the only 70-200 range with weather sealing (does the new F4 IS have it?) so that's probably why it's the workhorse of many sports shooters.

I agree that the IS is really helpful. There was once I covered some theater work, had to use absurd settings like iso 3200 f2.8 1/30s to get acceptable exposures.

Oh yah, I sold off my 70-200 2.8 IS about 1.5 yrs back. Reason wasn't because of weight. More of the underutilisation. Somehow I only used this lens for event coverage and sports, something which I didn't do much. If you are a portrait person like I am, I think you'll find primes like 50,85,135 more useful.

[r32]

Simple - the 2.8 IS is still sitting at the top of Canon's range of 4 70-200mm L lenses. In terms of price, because there'll always be someone else saying that one of the cheaper ones is better, be it weight, size, sharpness or something else.

When you look at the specs, the 2.8 IS is the be-all end-all of the 70-200mm range, so there's not much point talking about it anymore if you already own it.

If the lens is as good as its cracked up to be, you'd be out shooting with it, not talking about it.

If the lens didn't live up to the hype, you'd keep quiet about it, since you've already spent so much - no point shooting yourself in the foot.

But seriously, does the degree to which a lens is talked about in a photo forum imply its desirability and hence your likelihood to buy it? Are we talking about lens quality or ego boosting here?

[Feinwerkbau]

Quote: The sharpness findings are from my own experiences with several copies with both lenses. It's still sharper than most lenses lah, just that straight out from the cam, you could really tell the non IS version is sharper.

Thanks Splutter. Appreciate your contribution. So, after post-processing, everything's fine I assume?

Quote: But seriously, does the degree to which a lens is talked about in a photo forum imply its desirability and hence your likelihood to buy it? Are we talking about lens quality or ego boosting here?

Lens quality, especially the results and experiences that others have been priviledged to have gone through that I have not - yet. Yes, field reports, not ego reports are important to me for practical reasons.

To me, a camera/lens is just a necessary (evil) box and appendage to get what I need to - photographs, which is why you will hardly see me hoo-haar-ing about a piece of equipment.

R Maitini once said that the 'ideal' camera was no camera. If I had my way, my equipment will be cloaked under a veil of invisibility so as to be totally unobtrusive.

Why do I even have to explain or justify this?

[Feinwerkbau]

Quote: The sharpness findings are from my own experiences with several copies with both lenses. It's still sharper than most lenses lah, just that straight out from the cam, you could really tell the non IS version is sharper.

Thanks Splutter. Appreciate your contribution. So, after post-processing, everything's fine I assume?

Quote: Of coz it still can't be compared to primes like 135 f2 and 300 f2.8.

I've worked many times with all primes before, and I appreciate their quality, value and also their versatility, but I'm looking to the 2.8L IS for the sheer convenience (besides performance).

Quote: But seriously, does the degree to which a lens is talked about in a photo forum imply its desirability and hence your likelihood to buy it? Are we talking about lens quality or ego boosting here?

Lens quality, especially the results and experiences that others have been priviledged to have gone through that I have not - yet. Yes, field reports, not ego reports are important to me for practical reasons.

To me, a camera/lens is just a necessary (evil) box and appendage to get what I need to - photographs, which is why you will hardly see me hoo-haar-ing about a piece of equipment.

R Maitini once said that the 'ideal' camera was no camera. If I had my way, my equipment will be cloaked under a veil of invisibility so as to be totally unobtrusive.

Why do I even have to explain or justify this?

[StreetShooter]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS.

I don't use it ALL the time, but when the situation calls for it (such as when you need a long tele lens in an indoors situation), there's nothing that can take its place. Of course it can be used outdoors, too.

It focuses very fast, is tack sharp, even wide open, and the bokeh is beautifully creamy.

The weight is really not much of a problem.

What else do you need to know?

[Feinwerkbau]

Thanks Streetshooter.

Guess that's about it...unless someone has a salient negative point to make about the lens.

Oh, and if anyone has a good copy in good condition for sale!