Honestly, before you go that route, I would at least give the zoom a try. I think you’ll like it for what you do.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Is it Time to Get the 70-200 2.8 IS II?
- Thread starter MMACory
- Start date
highlights
Well-known member
The 70-200 f2.8 Mkii is simply superb. I was a primes fan but these new zooms (this lens plus the 24-70 and 16-35) are as good optically, as most primes - if you don't need greater than f2.8 aperture - and have displaced the various incarnations of 24mm 35mm 28mm 85mm 135mm & 200mm units that had for 35 years enjoyed a permanent home in my field kit. As a commercial photographer i would not be without my primes - especially the F1.2/1.4s but they are only used when the their larger apertures are required.
Given this lens is a F2.8, has IS and loses only a little IQ when fitted with a 1.4x teleconverter (although things start to get a bit horrible looking with the 2x tele) its utility, portability, clarity are best there is right now. If only i could fit one to the D850.
So to get a 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk 2 ? Increase your mortgage and buy one!
MMACory
Senior Member
I'm thinking, from all of the responses weighed against my innermost agonizing, that I don't really use the 135 a ton even though it's FLAWLESS when I do (and I rarely go below 2.8).
And that my 16-35 and 40 pair nicely so a 70-200 might minimize my "need" for a 50; also in light of having the ultra-mega-convenient 40.
So saving $1300 from not buying the 50 and selling my 135 would exactly pay for the 70-200 2.8 IS II and would probably use it a lot more than my 135.
With that, I say "****", and probably very maybe do it immediately.
In conclusion - 16-35, 40 and 70-200 a good kit? I had also mentioned the 100-400, but I almost never really need 200+ (having rented one twice and it was glorious, but infrequent).
And that my 16-35 and 40 pair nicely so a 70-200 might minimize my "need" for a 50; also in light of having the ultra-mega-convenient 40.
So saving $1300 from not buying the 50 and selling my 135 would exactly pay for the 70-200 2.8 IS II and would probably use it a lot more than my 135.
With that, I say "****", and probably very maybe do it immediately.
In conclusion - 16-35, 40 and 70-200 a good kit? I had also mentioned the 100-400, but I almost never really need 200+ (having rented one twice and it was glorious, but infrequent).
hotdog321
Forum Pro
I shoot incredibly varied editorial work for a living. I own some spectacular lenses, but probably shoot 85% of everything with a 16-35 and 70-200. Simply a great, flexible combo.
Nick5
Senior Member
Love my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. Sure it's heavy, big and bulky. But for the paid gigs, it gets the job done. For traveling and walking all day I have been swapping out the f/2.8 L IS Mark II for the smaller little brother, the 70-200 f/4 L IS. Having the flexibility of a zoom for me certainly comes in handy while covering events, weddings or city strolling.
hotdog321
Forum Pro
Depends on the rumors you've heard. I upgraded from the Mark 1 to the II and was pleased with the added resistance to flare, slightly sharper image and snappy autofocus. But is it worth the upgrade? Unless you are a pro doing critical work with high-end cameras, probably not.
--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
hotdog321
Forum Pro
Oops, good catch. I didn't see the extra digit.
I think the only way a model III could be a contender would be if it was significantly lighter, equal optical quality and maybe cheaper (ha!) The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is just so darn good that it is almost impossible to make a meaningful optical or mechanical improvement.
--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
Like many of us, money isn’t unlimited to me. I do have a nice camera 1dxii but it just seems harder for me to pull the trigger for the lens upgrade. When considering it, I searched and noticed few rumors of a iii in 2017. Those are going to be wrong but I’d have some disappointment if a iii came out a month after I upgraded. It’s a personal thing. If my search had said 2030 for possible next then I’d probably not be asking.
How could weight be saved? Opportunities are probably limited to the housing and motors. Magnesium or titanium, perhaps? The latter would likely lead to a substantial price boost.
Last edited:
hotdog321
Forum Pro
Totally clueless on my part. I was just postulating "what if" scenarios, not realistic possibilities. To make it lighter they might have to sacrifice ruggedness. I also suspect much of the present weight comes from the lens components that are just packed inside this beast. I wouldn't care to be a Canon engineer tasked with making this thing lighter.
Let it go dude. Your animosity isnt being met.
Animosity??? Explanation, please.
Spotted Cow
Senior Member
You can always sell it and get yourself the 70-200mm f2.8L IS MKII?! As for me, I don’t have the need for the70-200mm f2.8 lens nearly as much so I enjoy my primes...the Canon 85mm f1.2LMKII and 135mm f2L. I bought the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 OS and it does the job for the times when I need to use such a lens.
Spotted Cow
Senior Member
For me, I’d swap out the 40mm STM for the 50mm STM. Still a light and small lens and you can go to f1.8. YMMV.
R
Redring1
Guest
The lens available is totally awesome until a new and improved version is built. I had a Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF on a Nikon F4. You couldn't beat that untill they added a tripod mount and.....
Andy Blanchard
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,350
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 192
Lots of advances in materials science at present, so it's entirely possible that there's a suitable material for part of construction that could reduce the weight without hiking the price or impacting durability too much. Short of a new optical formula that lets them reduce the amount of glass, the best bet for any significant reductions would seem to be in the barrel and zoom assembly, but both of those limit the options. For instance, the barrel has to be pretty tough - especially given this is an L lens - so almost certainly a metal/alloy, and the zoom assembly shouldn't generate dust when any moving parts rub against each other.
If might be another decade or so of advances away, but I'm certainly not expecting any weight reduction miracles from the MKIII as there's less than 2kg to play with in the first place. Even if they shave off another 100g or so, like they did with the MkII over the MKI, I'll be very impressed.
Andy
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum