Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

Started May 24, 2014 | Discussions
RogerZoul
RogerZoul Senior Member • Posts: 2,200
Re: Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

Phil Geusebroek wrote:

diness wrote:

Phil Geusebroek wrote:

Thanks to everyone who posted:

- I don't think I strictly need it for the landscapes and travel stuff I mostly shoot, but do shoot the odd bit of wildlife that wanders in. Maybe the lens would have application for zooming composition with a 1.4x or 2x extender, but wonder about the image quality with the latter and it wouldn't outreach my 300mm f4 IS.

- I don't shoot weddings, sports or events on a regular basis. Once in awhile I'll bring the 135L or 200 f2.8L for informal stuff.

- I can afford it.

- I do mind the weight and the colour, but will try it if I'm missing out on something very useful. I've bought lenses not knowing their utility before and discovered things about them I really liked, and they became mainstays. This is why I'm asking what I might be overlooking in this lens.

Based on these things, I wouldn't bother with it. Sounds like weight is an issue for you and so is the size and color... Since you already have a 135L and a 200L which are both very sharp and are smaller and black... I would use those when you wanted 2.8 or larger aperture and didn't want the white color. Then when you want the flexibility of the zoom you can use the 70-200 f4L IS. Those three lenses you have area all incredibly good lenses and if they're less sharp than the 70-200 2.8 II it's not by much. I would say keep what you have and enjoy it! (or give them to me...)

Thanks, you and others are leading me to again decide I don't need it. I used to argue that the 100 macro was a better choice than the 70-200mm because it's in the middle of the angle of view, small, black, sharper and more unobtrusive: people didn't feel like you were aiming a bazooka at them. But every pro seems to swear by that lens and I've never owned one, so began to wonder...

Of course pros swear by it...they need to be able to deliver the goods under any kind of conditions, so that extra stop of light makes the difference and thus enabled them to better do their job, which is important to them for getting paid.  I have the F4 IS and feel zero reason to buy the F2.8 because I'm not a pro.  And I rather put my money in other types of lenses.

The 135mm f2L is pure joy at f/2, and people hardly notice you sneaking around with no flash. I suspect the 100mm f2.8L IS will be really handy as a low light portrait lens as well, but haven't tried it yet.

I like lightweight kit.

 RogerZoul's gear list:RogerZoul's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 80D Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 400mm F4 DO IS II USM Canon EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II +31 more
hotdog321
hotdog321 Forum Pro • Posts: 19,392
Re: Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

Phil Geusebroek wrote:

Thinking a long time on this but keep backing off. I have the F4 IS and it's wonderful. Am I missing something really special in not trying a lens most working pros consider a given?

I'm a photojournalist, so I'll chime in. If you shoot under low light or low light action, especially for a living, the f/2.8 is the way to go. Sports, podium shots, existing light head shots, etc. make the f/2.8 a wonderful tool for working pros.

But if you shoot under "normal" light and daylight, to heck with it. The f/2.8 is heavy and expensive and, if you need it, you already know it. Otherwise, the f/4 lens is terrific.

 hotdog321's gear list:hotdog321's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
rebel99 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,025
Re: Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

RogerZoul wrote:

Phil Geusebroek wrote:

Thinking a long time on this but keep backing off. I have the F4 IS and it's wonderful. Am I missing something really special in not trying a lens most working pros consider a given?

Based on what you have written here I see no compelling reason for buying the 2.8. You're happy with the F4 IS. You've answered your own question, my friend.

+1

besides, IQ wise, there is no difference between the 2, that is the reason why i would not upgrade to f2.8II version. f4.0 IS has the same IQ, less weight, smaller, half the price, less conspicuous.  that is good enough for me

cheerz.

Jorrit Regular Member • Posts: 148
Re: Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

Phil Geusebroek wrote:

Jorrit wrote:

Thinking a long time on this but keep backing off. I have the F4 IS and it's wonderful. Am I missing something really special in not trying a lens most working pros consider a given?

You're not giving us a lot of info. Why do you think you might need one?

I've elaborated above, but you pretty much addressed it below.

I did actually read all the posts before replying, but I took a long time writing the post (got distracted) and your own elaboration posts and the writing of my response crossed eachother.

Glad you've figured what to do. This thread is almost making me consider getting an F4 myself, haha.

Al Downie Senior Member • Posts: 1,362
Re: Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

The important thing to recognise about 'professionals' (I used to be one) is not that they're better photographers than the rest of us, or more knowledgeable, or more demanding of equipment. It's simply that their living depends on them getting a usable shot. In the case of photojournalists and press photographers (probably the groups who rely most on the 70-200 f2.8), their picture editors won't be looking for artistic bokeh, or eye-watering sharpness - the only thing that matters is getting that shot of Obama sneezing, or the child crying, or the angry Islamic mob, or whatever. The 70-200 is dependable and versatile, but it's not spectacular compared to any prime in its range; nor does it do anything special. In the right hands, it's as good as a guarantee of getting a *usable* shot, and that's all a professional needs. If you don't have to work under that kind of pressure, you'll probably have a lot more fun with good primes.

If you're looking for something *REALLY* special to spend your money on, why not save a bit longer for the 200mm f2? That's an astonishing piece of glass!

 Al Downie's gear list:Al Downie's gear list
Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R APD XF 90mm Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +1 more
hotdog321
hotdog321 Forum Pro • Posts: 19,392
Re: Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

Al Downie wrote:

The important thing to recognise about 'professionals' (I used to be one) is not that they're better photographers than the rest of us, or more knowledgeable, or more demanding of equipment. It's simply that their living depends on them getting a usable shot. In the case of photojournalists and press photographers (probably the groups who rely most on the 70-200 f2.8), their picture editors won't be looking for artistic bokeh, or eye-watering sharpness - the only thing that matters is getting that shot of Obama sneezing, or the child crying, or the angry Islamic mob, or whatever. The 70-200 is dependable and versatile, but it's not spectacular compared to any prime in its range; nor does it do anything special. In the right hands, it's as good as a guarantee of getting a *usable* shot, and that's all a professional needs. If you don't have to work under that kind of pressure, you'll probably have a lot more fun with good primes.

If you're looking for something *REALLY* special to spend your money on, why not save a bit longer for the 200mm f2? That's an astonishing piece of glass!

Well said--and I agree completely. The final image is the thing. Though the 70-200 or the new 24-70 compare favorably to primes. I have high hopes for the new 16-35, too. Canon deserves some real kudos for coming up with some incredibly complex, tough and sharp zoom lenses.

 hotdog321's gear list:hotdog321's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 16-35mm F4L IS USM +3 more
Schwany
Schwany Forum Pro • Posts: 10,129
Re: Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

I would say if you have to ask, you must not need one. Maybe you just want one?

I see a lot of pros using the cheaper lens these days at outdoor daytime sports events. I don't do the indoor dark stuff, but would never buy an f/4 70-200. Too much subject isolation lost at f/4, which does limit some forms of creative expression. It also lowers the shutter speed in poor light for any given ISO setting. The f/2.8 is a tad heavy, but if you can afford one, I doubt you'd be disappointed. If it is a financial stretch, I'd say forget about it. You might get some buyers remorse, and talk yourself into regretting the purchase.

 Schwany's gear list:Schwany's gear list
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS-1D Mark IV Canon EOS-1D X Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM +14 more
Abu Mahendra Veteran Member • Posts: 4,828
Re: Do I need a 70-200mm f2.8L IS II?

Well...don't go the other way either and under-estimate the lebs either.

 Abu Mahendra's gear list:Abu Mahendra's gear list
Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads