Experience with Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM ?

Hello,

Can somebody give me some information about the lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM ?
What are the good and bad things ?
Sigma has an alternative : Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM Canon AF ?

I need a lens for sports action when the weather is gray, dark...

Hans

I have the 70-200L and it's probably the best lens I own. It is sharp, clear, fast, and basically takes great pictures....especially portraits, close-ups, scenery, architectural detail.

The drawback is that it's very heavy...so heavy that I don't bring it with me all of the time. I have longer lenses that I use for sports...fixed 300/4.0L or 35-350/3.5-5.6L. I have used the 500/4.5L with a tripod. This allows you to get close and still get the players expressions and be off the playing field or on the beach at surf events.

I could see using the 70-200L for sports if you were on the basketball court under the net or on the Football/Ruby sidelines.... but not from the stands or box seats.

Hans Deveuster said:

Hello,

Can somebody give me some information about the lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM ?
What are the good and bad things ?
Sigma has an alternative : Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM Canon AF ?

I need a lens for sports action when the weather is gray, dark...

Hans

Click to expand...

First let me say the Canon is a great lens. One of their best. I'm not sure what sports you intend to use it for. Photographers at Football games, for example, have a tendancy to use longer lenses, like 300mm and 400mm.

As far as the comparison to the Sigma goes, I know all about that. I initially bought the Sigma to save money vs. the Canon. I ended up returning it for the Canon. The Sigma I got was much, much softer than the Canon at F2.8. It really had to be stopped down to F4.5 or F5.6 to get decent quality which negated the big aperature of the lens. This is counter to the results of Photodo, where they actually found their Sigma to be ever so slightly sharper wide open then their Canon. I considered ordering a second Sigma to replace the faulty one, but in the course of testing several lenses I found a second reason to buy the Canon. The Canon was much faster at achieving focus than the Sigma...and this was greatly exacerbated when a 1.4X teleconverter was installed. Being that, I wanted the lens for sports, like you, focus speed was a very high priority on my list. I reluctantly spent the extra $500 dollars for the Canon version.

Here is a somewhat of a comparison shot from both a Sigma and Canon lens. The Canon is much sharper than the Sigma even though it is stacked on top of a Kenko 1.4X TC.

First the Sigma:



Next the Canon:



Here is an action shot taken with the Canon:



Good luck,
Danny

Hans Deveuster said:

Hello,

Can somebody give me some information about the lens
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM ?
What are the good and bad things ?
Sigma has an alternative : Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM Canon AF ?

I need a lens for sports action when the weather is gray, dark...

Hans

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip Daniel.

I think i will go for the Canon an buy a 2x converter to. Than I will have 400 mm. Will the convertor have any effect on the av of the lens ????

I will use the lens especially for Soccer and Cycling.

BTW : Great shot of that kid on the snowboard.

Hans.

Daniel Lauring said:

First let me say the Canon is a great lens. One of their best.
I'm not sure what sports you intend to use it for. Photographers
at Football games, for example, have a tendancy to use longer
lenses, like 300mm and 400mm.

As far as the comparison to the Sigma goes, I know all about that.
I initially bought the Sigma to save money vs. the Canon. I ended
up returning it for the Canon. The Sigma I got was much, much
softer than the Canon at F2.8. It really had to be stopped down to
F4.5 or F5.6 to get decent quality which negated the big aperature
of the lens. This is counter to the results of Photodo, where they
actually found their Sigma to be ever so slightly sharper wide open
then their Canon. I considered ordering a second Sigma to replace
the faulty one, but in the course of testing several lenses I found
a second reason to buy the Canon. The Canon was much faster at
achieving focus than the Sigma...and this was greatly exacerbated
when a 1.4X teleconverter was installed. Being that, I wanted the
lens for sports, like you, focus speed was a very high priority on
my list. I reluctantly spent the extra $500 dollars for the Canon
version.

Here is a somewhat of a comparison shot from both a Sigma and Canon
lens. The Canon is much sharper than the Sigma even though it is
stacked on top of a Kenko 1.4X TC.

Click to expand...

Thanks, the combination of the fast focussing 70-200 and the D30's AI Servo focus allowed me to get a large percentage of keepers when photographing my boys snowboarding.

Based on my results with the 1.4X I'm going to pick up the 2X Kenko Pro TC. I would expect even better results with Canon's own 2X TC.

Because TC's cut down on available light, they also negatively impact focus speed. The 2X will reduce the light 4 times so it will be that much worse than the 1.4x which cuts the light in half. That is one of the reasons that I bought the Canon over the Sigma. With the reduced light of the 1.4X the Sigma was significantly slower than the Canon...much more noticeable than when comparing the bare lenses.

Good luck,
Danny

Hans Deveuster said:

I think i will go for the Canon an buy a 2x converter to. Than I
will have 400 mm. Will the convertor have any effect on the av of
the lens ????

I will use the lens especially for Soccer and Cycling.

BTW : Great shot of that kid on the snowboard.

Hans.

Daniel Lauring said:

First let me say the Canon is a great lens. One of their best.
I'm not sure what sports you intend to use it for. Photographers
at Football games, for example, have a tendancy to use longer
lenses, like 300mm and 400mm.

As far as the comparison to the Sigma goes, I know all about that.
I initially bought the Sigma to save money vs. the Canon. I ended
up returning it for the Canon. The Sigma I got was much, much
softer than the Canon at F2.8. It really had to be stopped down to
F4.5 or F5.6 to get decent quality which negated the big aperature
of the lens. This is counter to the results of Photodo, where they
actually found their Sigma to be ever so slightly sharper wide open
then their Canon. I considered ordering a second Sigma to replace
the faulty one, but in the course of testing several lenses I found
a second reason to buy the Canon. The Canon was much faster at
achieving focus than the Sigma...and this was greatly exacerbated
when a 1.4X teleconverter was installed. Being that, I wanted the
lens for sports, like you, focus speed was a very high priority on
my list. I reluctantly spent the extra $500 dollars for the Canon
version.

Here is a somewhat of a comparison shot from both a Sigma and Canon
lens. The Canon is much sharper than the Sigma even though it is
stacked on top of a Kenko 1.4X TC.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Daniel Lauring said:

Based on my results with the 1.4X I'm going to pick up the 2X Kenko
Pro TC. I would expect even better results with Canon's own 2X TC.

Click to expand...

So, you sound pretty satisfied with the Kenko teleconverters. Have you tried either Canon converter? Just curious how significant the quality differences are between these two lenses, particularly on big glass like the Canon 70-200/2.8L or the 100-400L-IS.

While I'm at it, let me throw this one out for the group. As many of you know, Canon converters have a protruding front element which renders them incompatible with all but a few EF lenses. Using them with non-Canon glass is out completely. However, I've heard from more than one source that simply inserting a 12mm extension ring between converter and lens can overcome the physical incompatibility. Has anyone tried this?

Thanks,
JCDoss

I am very satisfied with the performance of the Kenko Pro300 1.4X TC (not to be mistaken with the cheaper non-pro version.) I've not compared it to the Canon directly. The main reason I went for the Kenko was the positive reviews I read about it and its compatibility with more lenses than the Canon converters.

Here again, is a photo with the Canon 70-200 F2.8 fully open at F2.8 coupled with the Kenko Pro converter. I think it is very sharp.



The full sized image can be accessed here.

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=18328&a=9766106&p=34523329

This image is softer on the right hand side because the paper was not completely square with the camera. The washed out look of the letters is not an indicater of contrast loss but of the flash bouncing off the paper.

JCDoss said:

Daniel Lauring said:

Based on my results with the 1.4X I'm going to pick up the 2X Kenko
Pro TC. I would expect even better results with Canon's own 2X TC.

Click to expand...

So, you sound pretty satisfied with the Kenko teleconverters. Have
you tried either Canon converter? Just curious how significant the
quality differences are between these two lenses, particularly on
big glass like the Canon 70-200/2.8L or the 100-400L-IS.

While I'm at it, let me throw this one out for the group. As many
of you know, Canon converters have a protruding front element which
renders them incompatible with all but a few EF lenses. Using them
with non-Canon glass is out completely. However, I've heard from
more than one source that simply inserting a 12mm extension ring
between converter and lens can overcome the physical
incompatibility. Has anyone tried this?

Thanks,
JCDoss

Click to expand...