Reading mode: Light Dark

i hate 70-200 2.8 L

Go to last post
Hmmm, well a lot of people say i must have a bad lens, or bad body. But I've had two of this buggers and my 75-300 F4.5.6 III USM has focused faster than the EF 70-200 F2.8 L (non IS). Everyone is telling me that the IS version is faster... yes I know, but I don't have the extra.. $400-500.

I've had two 70-200 f2.8 L's, and i will admit, they do focus very quickly, but not as fast as the cheap $170 75-300. People have said there's no way, but I can see in the pics!! It's VERY clear that the cheaper ( 4 year newer model) is out performing in terms of AF speed only. Yes the quality is much better with the 70-200 f2.8 L, but i need AF speed before quality, when shooting sports for the news paper.

If I have a bad combo, like camera and lens, then I guess i'll keep it since i'm beating out everyone else on the paper as far as who's getting their shots published. The funny thing is, they see me out on the football/soccer field with a dinky lens! hahaha

I've been shooting for years now, and sports for the past 3 years, shooting every home and some away games for football at CMU, and all the home games for CMU soccer, I know what i'm doing. I've owned the D30, D60, 10D, 20D now.

I still have a few more days before I have to return my canon 70-200 f2.8 L and the only way it will save its self is if it does a great job at the indoor volleyball game today (fri oct 8th). I will also set my camera to F4 to see if that's fast enough in cause i want to go with the Sigma 100-300 F4 ($900).

thanks to all, if you haven't tired the 75-300 you should. I'm not trying to sell anyone on a cheap crappy quality lens, but to really see the AF speed that your camrea has... you can't with the 70-200 F2.8 L (non IS).

later buds,
Dave
 
I'm starting to wonder, if you are mixing up terms here. You say your 75-300 USM pictures are better because of the AF, I dare to say (without seeing them it's a gamble I know) that this is because you are shooting at f/5.6 and thus get a deeper DOF. If you are aiming for fast shutter speeds you'll be shooting the 70-200 f/2.8L at f/2.8 where the DOF is minute compared to the f/5.6 of the el-cheapo lens. This might make all the difference if your technic isn't up to the fast lens and no AF in the world - except maybe for the 1DMk.II - would help remedy that and even that won't cut it probably by your reports.
--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
 
dwill23 said:
Ok, so the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L USM came out in 1995. And if you
read on canon's website, the new IS version says it has faster AF
(auto focus) responce time, and better tracking speed. Over what?
Over the older lens. The one I just bought brand new.
Click to expand...
My 70-200 F/4 is plenty fast. Seems just as fast as my 24-70
--
Mitch
 
dwill23 said:
Ok, so the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L USM came out in 1995. And if you
read on canon's website, the new IS version says it has faster AF
(auto focus) responce time, and better tracking speed. Over what?
Over the older lens. The one I just bought brand new.

I was useing a $170 Canon EF 75-300 F4-5.6 III USM, (note this is
version 3). This lens came out in 1999, and the AF is unmatched by
any lens i've tired. The AF is EXTREEMLY fast, but... the quality
isn't that great. Lots of blue halows around bright subjects. I
hardly ever get any of that with the L lens, cause of course it's
better. I've had another 70-200 f2.8 L last year, but i bought it
used, so i thought the AF was slow cause maybe it was just old, and
the greese was drying up, so that's not it. Yes I know zooming in
at 300mm gets me closer so the AF can work better, and yes I know
shooting at F5.6 would make things sharper than the F2.8 L lens at
f2.8, but I set my AV to f5.6 on the white lens, and they still
seem soft. All I shoot is sports for Central Mich University, so I
NEED AF. I don't really need quality... really. So then what's
the point to this post? I need faster than f5.6 for faster shutter
at night games, and want to blur my background so the
football/soccer players don't blend in with the people in the
stands behind them.

I think i'm going to try the Sigma HSM 100-300 F4, anyone heard
good thinigs about that lens, before I buy it? No one seems to
have it in stock, (retail stores), so i can't even look at one.

Also, i'm sure a lot of you guys have the Sigma 70-200, does that
one seem like it has fast AF?

Thanks a bunch,

Dave W.

CM-Life photog
Click to expand...
 
I'm just curious, as an owner of the 70-200 2.8 Non IS, which is the fastest AF lens I have (about the same as the 17-40) aren't we really talking about fractions of a second here when we say "WAY faster" and " totally faster".. I mean c'mon people... we're talking about less time than it takes to read the green light on the Christmas Tree of a drag race here... giving that it isnt a miss focus and has to search out to infinity and back
dwill23 said:
Ok, so the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L USM came out in 1995. And if you
read on canon's website, the new IS version says it has faster AF
(auto focus) responce time, and better tracking speed. Over what?
Over the older lens. The one I just bought brand new.

I was useing a $170 Canon EF 75-300 F4-5.6 III USM, (note this is
version 3). This lens came out in 1999, and the AF is unmatched by
any lens i've tired. The AF is EXTREEMLY fast, but... the quality
isn't that great. Lots of blue halows around bright subjects. I
hardly ever get any of that with the L lens, cause of course it's
better. I've had another 70-200 f2.8 L last year, but i bought it
used, so i thought the AF was slow cause maybe it was just old, and
the greese was drying up, so that's not it. Yes I know zooming in
at 300mm gets me closer so the AF can work better, and yes I know
shooting at F5.6 would make things sharper than the F2.8 L lens at
f2.8, but I set my AV to f5.6 on the white lens, and they still
seem soft. All I shoot is sports for Central Mich University, so I
NEED AF. I don't really need quality... really. So then what's
the point to this post? I need faster than f5.6 for faster shutter
at night games, and want to blur my background so the
football/soccer players don't blend in with the people in the
stands behind them.

I think i'm going to try the Sigma HSM 100-300 F4, anyone heard
good thinigs about that lens, before I buy it? No one seems to
have it in stock, (retail stores), so i can't even look at one.

Also, i'm sure a lot of you guys have the Sigma 70-200, does that
one seem like it has fast AF?

Thanks a bunch,

Dave W.

CM-Life photog
Click to expand...
--
http://www.meucciphotographic.com
 
Your 70-200 will be way too slow to shoot indoor volleyball unless the lighting is superb. An 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2 is the way to go for indoor sports.

Mike
dwill23 said:
Hmmm, well a lot of people say i must have a bad lens, or bad body.
But I've had two of this buggers and my 75-300 F4.5.6 III USM has
focused faster than the EF 70-200 F2.8 L (non IS). Everyone is
telling me that the IS version is faster... yes I know, but I don't
have the extra.. $400-500.

I've had two 70-200 f2.8 L's, and i will admit, they do focus very
quickly, but not as fast as the cheap $170 75-300. People have
said there's no way, but I can see in the pics!! It's VERY clear
that the cheaper ( 4 year newer model) is out performing in terms
of AF speed only. Yes the quality is much better with the 70-200
f2.8 L, but i need AF speed before quality, when shooting sports
for the news paper.

If I have a bad combo, like camera and lens, then I guess i'll keep
it since i'm beating out everyone else on the paper as far as who's
getting their shots published. The funny thing is, they see me out
on the football/soccer field with a dinky lens! hahaha

I've been shooting for years now, and sports for the past 3 years,
shooting every home and some away games for football at CMU, and
all the home games for CMU soccer, I know what i'm doing. I've
owned the D30, D60, 10D, 20D now.

I still have a few more days before I have to return my canon
70-200 f2.8 L and the only way it will save its self is if it does
a great job at the indoor volleyball game today (fri oct 8th). I
will also set my camera to F4 to see if that's fast enough in cause
i want to go with the Sigma 100-300 F4 ($900).

thanks to all, if you haven't tired the 75-300 you should. I'm not
trying to sell anyone on a cheap crappy quality lens, but to really
see the AF speed that your camrea has... you can't with the 70-200
F2.8 L (non IS).

later buds,
Dave
Click to expand...
--
I am a sex object.
Everytime I ask girls for sex they object.
http://www.teriba.com
 
Todd Meucci said:
I'm just curious, as an owner of the 70-200 2.8 Non IS, which is
the fastest AF lens I have (about the same as the 17-40) aren't we
really talking about fractions of a second here when we say "WAY
faster" and " totally faster".. I mean c'mon people... we're
talking about less time than it takes to read the green light on
the Christmas Tree of a drag race here... giving that it isnt a
miss focus and has to search out to infinity and back
Click to expand...
Compared to the 70-200 f/2.8L the lens he's referring to as being way faster is an external focusing, micro USM equipped el-cheapo lens, that is - and let's be fair to it - a dog to focus. There is nothing on the 70-300 III USM that would warrant the attribute fast focusing. This is more a case of wrong technic on the photographers side than a lens issue.

--
regards
Karl Günter Wünsch
 
dwill23 said:
What? no! I used to work at ritz camera, so i could test a bunch
of these lenses out. You guys tell me that my 75-300 F4-5.6 USM
can't be faster than my 70-200 F2.8 L USM, but I'm telling you when
i shoot sports, and use that cheap lens
Click to expand...
--
Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.
 
I have a 70-200 f/2.8L (The non-IS version). It is sharp, the color and contrast are beautiful and the autofocus is whisper quiet and it is most certainly fast to focus. The difference between the pictures I take with it and those I take with my 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 EF are very easy to see. I love it. The people I know who have them also love them. Every review I've ever seen has sung its praises. If you're having problems with yours then you have a bad one. period.

There aren't any secrets on the Internet. If even 1% of the 70-200L lenses out there were bad, that would translate to hundreds of people ranting and raving about it in net forums. The fact that your post is the only one I've ever seen thats negative about the lens is a clear indication of how good it is.
 
dwill23 said:
Ok, so the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L USM came out in 1995. And if you
read on canon's website, the new IS version says it has faster AF
(auto focus) responce time, and better tracking speed. Over what?
Over the older lens. The one I just bought brand new.

I was useing a $170 Canon EF 75-300 F4-5.6 III USM, (note this is
version 3). This lens came out in 1999, and the AF is unmatched by
any lens i've tired. The AF is EXTREEMLY fast, but... the quality
isn't that great. Lots of blue halows around bright subjects. I
hardly ever get any of that with the L lens, cause of course it's
better. I've had another 70-200 f2.8 L last year, but i bought it
used, so i thought the AF was slow cause maybe it was just old, and
the greese was drying up, so that's not it. Yes I know zooming in
at 300mm gets me closer so the AF can work better, and yes I know
shooting at F5.6 would make things sharper than the F2.8 L lens at
f2.8, but I set my AV to f5.6 on the white lens, and they still
seem soft. All I shoot is sports for Central Mich University, so I
NEED AF. I don't really need quality... really. So then what's
the point to this post? I need faster than f5.6 for faster shutter
at night games, and want to blur my background so the
football/soccer players don't blend in with the people in the
stands behind them.

I think i'm going to try the Sigma HSM 100-300 F4, anyone heard
good thinigs about that lens, before I buy it? No one seems to
have it in stock, (retail stores), so i can't even look at one.

Also, i'm sure a lot of you guys have the Sigma 70-200, does that
one seem like it has fast AF?

Thanks a bunch,

Dave W.

CM-Life photog
Click to expand...
 
I used the 70-200 2.8 L version all last year and earlier this year I upgraded to the IS version. Focus was noticibly faster and it was sharper even when shooting sports at a high shutter speed with no IS turned on.

I shoot a lot of running races and on my 10D with the older L lens I would still miss a lot of shots (7-9 out of a hundred would be too soft). The first day I shot with my IS version I looked through the shots from the busiest part of the race and I found that I shot 100 photos in a 3 minute period. That is one photo ever 1.8 seconds and I had only 3 soft shots and all of them were usable.

There is a BIG difference. I was very surprised. The main reason I upgraded was because I was shooting weddings and needed the IS for that. I figured it would make no difference in the sports shots but it focuses faster and seems sharper.

With my 20D and the 70-200 2.8 IS my images range from tack sharp to slightly soft on occasion. That is more of an issue with where the focus point lands than anything else though.

rent an IS version if you can and take it for a spin.

cheers
-david
 
i dont shoot sports or moving objects that often. wonder if this lense is worth buying.

thanks for the help.
Rick said:
dwill23 said:
I think i'm going to try the Sigma HSM 100-300 F4, anyone heard
good thinigs about that lens, before I buy it? No one seems to
have it in stock, (retail stores), so i can't even look at one.
Click to expand...
Check out this thread in the Canon lens forum:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=10641196
--
Rick A. Diaz
http://www.mcjournalist.com
The image is everything.
Click to expand...
 
dwill23 said:
Ok, so the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L USM came out in 1995. And if you
read on canon's website, the new IS version says it has faster AF
(auto focus) responce time, and better tracking speed. Over what?
Over the older lens. The one I just bought brand new.

I was useing a $170 Canon EF 75-300 F4-5.6 III USM, (note this is
version 3). This lens came out in 1999, and the AF is unmatched by
any lens i've tired. The AF is EXTREEMLY fast, but... the quality
isn't that great. Lots of blue halows around bright subjects. I
hardly ever get any of that with the L lens, cause of course it's
better. I've had another 70-200 f2.8 L last year, but i bought it
used, so i thought the AF was slow cause maybe it was just old, and
the greese was drying up, so that's not it. Yes I know zooming in
at 300mm gets me closer so the AF can work better, and yes I know
shooting at F5.6 would make things sharper than the F2.8 L lens at
f2.8, but I set my AV to f5.6 on the white lens, and they still
seem soft. All I shoot is sports for Central Mich University, so I
NEED AF. I don't really need quality... really. So then what's
the point to this post? I need faster than f5.6 for faster shutter
at night games, and want to blur my background so the
football/soccer players don't blend in with the people in the
stands behind them.

I think i'm going to try the Sigma HSM 100-300 F4, anyone heard
good thinigs about that lens, before I buy it? No one seems to
have it in stock, (retail stores), so i can't even look at one.

Also, i'm sure a lot of you guys have the Sigma 70-200, does that
one seem like it has fast AF?

Thanks a bunch,

Dave W.

CM-Life photog
Click to expand...
 
gaf1958 said:
If however the AF on the 75-300 is faster than that of your
70-200L, then I'd suggest you get the 70-200 checked to find out
what's wrong with it...

Likewise if the image quality is no good...

The 70-200 is a much better quality faster focusing lens than the
75-300 could ever hope to be - provided everything is working as
expected that is.

Cheers
Gary
dwill23 said:
Ok, so the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L USM came out in 1995. And if you
read on canon's website, the new IS version says it has faster AF
(auto focus) responce time, and better tracking speed. Over what?
Over the older lens. The one I just bought brand new.

I was useing a $170 Canon EF 75-300 F4-5.6 III USM, (note this is
version 3). This lens came out in 1999, and the AF is unmatched by
any lens i've tired. The AF is EXTREEMLY fast, but... the quality
isn't that great. Lots of blue halows around bright subjects. I
hardly ever get any of that with the L lens, cause of course it's
better. I've had another 70-200 f2.8 L last year, but i bought it
used, so i thought the AF was slow cause maybe it was just old, and
the greese was drying up, so that's not it. Yes I know zooming in
at 300mm gets me closer so the AF can work better, and yes I know
shooting at F5.6 would make things sharper than the F2.8 L lens at
f2.8, but I set my AV to f5.6 on the white lens, and they still
seem soft. All I shoot is sports for Central Mich University, so I
NEED AF. I don't really need quality... really. So then what's
the point to this post? I need faster than f5.6 for faster shutter
at night games, and want to blur my background so the
football/soccer players don't blend in with the people in the
stands behind them.

I think i'm going to try the Sigma HSM 100-300 F4, anyone heard
good thinigs about that lens, before I buy it? No one seems to
have it in stock, (retail stores), so i can't even look at one.

Also, i'm sure a lot of you guys have the Sigma 70-200, does that
one seem like it has fast AF?

Thanks a bunch,

Dave W.

CM-Life photog
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You seemed more focused on the image quality than focus speed. Focus speed is hard to measure anyway unless you are using both lenses side by side. I think you are compareing 300mm to 200mm and the 300mm you can see more detail. I've tried the 75-300 usm and found it much slower than my 200 2.8L or 400 f5.6L, hell my 100mm macro seemed just as fast in good light as the 75-300. I think you have a really good copy. :^}

--
http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root

 
dwill23 said:
Hmmm, well a lot of people say i must have a bad lens, or bad body.
But I've had two of this buggers and my 75-300 F4.5.6 III USM has
focused faster than the EF 70-200 F2.8 L (non IS). Everyone is
telling me that the IS version is faster... yes I know, but I don't
have the extra.. $400-500.

I've had two 70-200 f2.8 L's, and i will admit, they do focus very
quickly, but not as fast as the cheap $170 75-300. People have
said there's no way, but I can see in the pics!! It's VERY clear
that the cheaper ( 4 year newer model) is out performing in terms
of AF speed only.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you are talking about, please define what you think fast autofocus means? You can not see the speed of a lens autofocus system in a picture.

Yes the quality is much better with the 70-200
dwill23 said:
f2.8 L, but i need AF speed before quality, when shooting sports
for the news paper.

If I have a bad combo, like camera and lens, then I guess i'll keep
it since i'm beating out everyone else on the paper as far as who's
getting their shots published. The funny thing is, they see me out
on the football/soccer field with a dinky lens! hahaha

I've been shooting for years now, and sports for the past 3 years,
shooting every home and some away games for football at CMU, and
all the home games for CMU soccer, I know what i'm doing. I've
owned the D30, D60, 10D, 20D now.

I still have a few more days before I have to return my canon
70-200 f2.8 L and the only way it will save its self is if it does
a great job at the indoor volleyball game today (fri oct 8th). I
will also set my camera to F4 to see if that's fast enough in cause
i want to go with the Sigma 100-300 F4 ($900).

thanks to all, if you haven't tired the 75-300 you should. I'm not
trying to sell anyone on a cheap crappy quality lens, but to really
see the AF speed that your camrea has... you can't with the 70-200
F2.8 L (non IS).

later buds,
Dave
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root

 
PaulyOly said:
I don't understand what you are talking about, please define what
you think fast autofocus means? You can not see the speed of a
lens autofocus system in a picture.
Click to expand...
You can if you're shooting sports or fast action... With AI Servo, that is...

Ante Vukorepa
 
this is my best lens...I have 3 other L lens...17-35, 28-70 and the 100-400IS....and the 70-200 is my favorite and best performing.....I try to stick with only Canon L lens where I can...I am not professional.....just a die hard amateur......maybe you got a bad lens????

regards, Herb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top