DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 USM IS how good is it ?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 60, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/15/2006 04:41:12 PM · #1
I am almost at the point of being able to afford this lense and before I take the plunge is it worth the big price tag.
It looks like a good all round performer but I havnt held one or view one, so If you have got one please let me know your thoughts.

Cheers
02/15/2006 04:44:02 PM · #2
The only way you'll be disappointed is if you expect 200mm to reach further than it really does.

I don't own it, but I've never heard a bad word about this lens. It is the gold standard by which telephoto lenses are compared.
02/15/2006 04:44:29 PM · #3
In a word...Awesome. this is one shot I did with it, hand held. Other than a crop and a resize, it's straight from the camera.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/27431/thumb/176235.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/27431/thumb/176235.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
02/15/2006 04:45:26 PM · #4
i have had the pleasure of using one of this lens twice. I want one. I will sell my soul to get one (just kidding).. in all seriousness, i am a newbie and even I noticed how great this lens is. Some of these soccer shots were taken with this lens, others were taken with my 75-300 and I noticed a massive difference. Top lens in my book!
soccer
02/15/2006 04:48:53 PM · #5
I have little use for the IS and use the version without one, which is worth every penny, IMO. It is my primary lens and has delivered shots like this.
02/15/2006 04:53:11 PM · #6
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The only way you'll be disappointed is if you expect 200mm to reach further than it really does...


If you use it in combination with a Canon EF 2x converter, you'll still get good results with this lens. If you mount a 1.4x there is, to my eye, no discernible loss of quality - none, while still having enough speed (brightness) for most situations.

Message edited by author 2006-02-15 16:56:16.
02/15/2006 04:58:04 PM · #7
I don't think there is a lens for the Canon EF mount that is better than the 70-200L f2.8 IS

these shots were taken with that lens..
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/159926.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/159926.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/344/thumb/182649.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_challenge/344/thumb/182649.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/166252.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/166252.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/159928.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/159928.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/183615.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/183615.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/153141.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/153141.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/152374.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/152374.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/159925.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/159925.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/223425.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/223425.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/223424.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/223424.jpg', '/') + 1) . '' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/223423.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/31794/thumb/223423.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

and since I'm such a bad photographer the lens can give much better results :)

ps: the first picture is a 200% crop from the original, the bird was 300 feet away
02/15/2006 05:01:47 PM · #8
I have it and to sum it up in one word
SWEET!
02/15/2006 05:13:38 PM · #9
Great replys.
I think my mind is mad up !
02/15/2006 05:15:39 PM · #10
I've had the chance to borrow it a few time..

It's a nice lens, and well worth the price IMHO, not that you need any more convincing :D
02/15/2006 05:15:52 PM · #11
Originally posted by judojoe:

Great replys.
I think my mind is mad up !


'Mad up' and gone! I know the feeling. ;-D
02/15/2006 05:16:18 PM · #12
look what gary does with it :-)
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5728/thumb/64857.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/5728/thumb/64857.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
02/16/2006 06:06:45 AM · #13
How would you guys rate it compare to the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 ?
02/16/2006 08:25:07 AM · #14
Originally posted by paddyfrenchman:

How would you guys rate it compare to the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 ?


the canon would get 10 out of 10 and the sigma 6 out of 10

the canon has faster focus, better optics, IS, weatherseal, and it's white to withstand more heat than the black sigma lens.
02/16/2006 08:27:45 AM · #15
Originally posted by DanSig:

Originally posted by paddyfrenchman:

How would you guys rate it compare to the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 ?


the canon would get 10 out of 10 and the sigma 6 out of 10

the canon has faster focus, better optics, IS, weatherseal, and it's white to withstand more heat than the black sigma lens.


Plus it's badasser.
02/16/2006 08:57:07 AM · #16
Originally posted by paddyfrenchman:

How would you guys rate it compare to the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 ?

sigma rated 9.1 on a scale of 10
canon 70-200 2.8 rates 9.8
canon 70-200 2.8 IS rates 9.6/10

IS has it's advantages, but it will provide slightly less image quality, but only very slightly less.
get the sigma and the canon IS versions, and you are covered for every situattion for slightly less cash than getting both canon lenses.

BTW, the 70-200 f4 canon rates 9.4

Message edited by author 2006-02-16 08:58:48.
02/16/2006 09:02:12 AM · #17
I love mine. Sure, it's a lot more money, but at least you'll have the confidence in knowing that you have the best. Later on you'll probably think about upgrading anyways, so if you have the money you might as well do it now.

If you've never held one or seen one in person, it's a lot bigger than those stock photos show on B+H. It has a very solid feel to it, and is a bit heavy if you're not used to bigger lenses. If you wear your camera around your neck for long periods of time, maybe get a neoprene strap as well to ease the load on your neck.
02/16/2006 01:47:05 PM · #18
Another question:

I've been a digi-photog for a while but never much looked into the glass I was using. I hear you definately get what you pay for with lenses. Is this true? I'm looking at either a 70-200 or 70-300 lens. Are canon's that much better? Is there anywhere that has a comparison of the quality between the different brands (like the same shot taken with different brand lenses)? The shots being posted here are nice, but what is the visual difference in the brands?

Thanks for any thoughts.
02/16/2006 01:55:03 PM · #19
Originally posted by wee_ag:

Another question:

I've been a digi-photog for a while but never much looked into the glass I was using. I hear you definately get what you pay for with lenses. Is this true? I'm looking at either a 70-200 or 70-300 lens. Are canon's that much better? Is there anywhere that has a comparison of the quality between the different brands (like the same shot taken with different brand lenses)? The shots being posted here are nice, but what is the visual difference in the brands?

Thanks for any thoughts.


Things to consider:
there is consumer glass and pro glass. (canon's L, tamron's SP, sigma's EX and tokina's Pro). Across the board they are sharper, better built, optically superior and more expensive than consumer glass. There are a few consumer lenses that stand above the rest.

What are you shooting? Then you can buy a lens for that. The 70-300 are general purpose telephotos. Get above 300 and you are heding into wildlife territory. the 70-200 (f4 or 2.8) are for indoor sports, some outdoor sports, portraits.

The 20-90 range 2.8 are for weddings, general use type of thing.

The faster max aperture (2.8 usually on zooms, 1.x on primes) give a much brighter image in the viewfinder, easier/faster focusing and the ability to shoot in darker surroundings successfully.

I had a Sigma 70-300 4-5.6 APO lens. Very sharp. I moved up to a Tamron SP 70-200 2.8. HUGE difference. The tamron is all metal and about 3 times the weight of the sigma. i do not miss the 100mm at the long end at all. I can use the tamron indoors, like in my (dark) house where the sigma just was useless (too dark, hard to get it focused). The difference in feel was great too - go drive a hyundai and a mercedes - which feels better?
02/16/2006 10:33:58 PM · #20
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:


Things to consider:...
What are you shooting? Then you can buy a lens for that. The 70-300 are general purpose telephotos. Get above 300 and you are heding into wildlife territory. the 70-200 (f4 or 2.8) are for indoor sports, some outdoor sports, portraits.

The 20-90 range 2.8 are for weddings, general use type of thing...


Most of my shots will be landscape, nature, and hopefully wildlife soon. But I do want to look at portrait and weddings in the future. Currently I've got the stock lens that came with the 20D and a Tamron 70-300 that I got at best buy for cheap (i'm assuming not a great lens) I've been happy with the quality in small prints, but haven't blown anything up to see a noticable difference in quality, plus don't have good glass to compare it to.

I may need to run to the camera store and take some test shots with some differnt ones to see how they compare.
02/16/2006 10:42:09 PM · #21
wee_ag,

The glass is worth the difference in price in most cases. If it wasn't you'd probably see alot of us with $1500-2000 lenses trying to trade them back for a $500 lens (Hmmm, I could buy another pizza or two then). I'd point out that Chris' links are to cumulative totals of subjective evaluations. I've yet to see a print where the 2.8 nonIS equals or outperforms the IS version (frankly the f/4 produces nice images and both the IS and nonIS 2.8 produce superior quality images given a superior quality photographer). ;)

If you want a site that measures differences in lenses between manufacturers try photodo.com. There are a few others out there that will give you more info than you want but for the purposes that you seem to have I think photodo will give you enough info to make a good judgement.

Kev
02/16/2006 11:19:43 PM · #22
My problem with photodo is it's quite out of date - june 2000 was the last update on many or most pages. A lot of lenses listed there are no longer available and no new ones are listed. that's nearly 6 years old info there.

for landscapes you want fairly wide - in no particular order:
sigma 18-50 2.8 EX
tamron just announced a 17-50 2.8 SP lens, should be nice.
sigma just released a 17-70 2.8-4.5 - no info on it so far that i have seen

canon 17-40 4 or tamron 17-35 are both nice. if you want wider the tokina 12-24 pro gets rave reviews, or perhaps the sigma 12-24. the canon 10-22 is nice, but slower and twice the price.

for wildlife, what kind and how close? Sigma's 'bigma' 50-500 is nice and at about $880 not too expensive for a 500mm lens (compared to the canon 500 f4 at $4000) Generally for wildlife yo have to be farily far back and stationery, so a tripod works. small critters are tough. if you shooting moving things somewhat close, the 70-200 2.8 might work, with a 1.4X TC it becomes a 100-300 f4, not too shabby speed/length compromise.

Message edited by author 2006-02-16 23:25:42.
02/16/2006 11:46:32 PM · #23
I've picked up the 80-200mm f/2.8L and took it shooting on a friend's 300D body. We shot it by itself and with a Kenko 2x TC. We found it to kick some serious keester.

I've heard that this lens is also another serious contender for those looking for a slightly cheaper and lighter approach. Apparently it's a tiny bit slower (still heart-stoppingly fast) in the autofocus department and edges can get a tiny bit soft near the wide end I believe. It's black, not white, but it's still L.

I actually like having something a bit smaller and lighter. Fantastic lens. You can usually find one on Fredmiranda for around 750-850 dollars US. I got mine for a bit less than that, so it was really worth it to me.

Keep your eyes open for other choices too.
02/17/2006 01:12:25 PM · #24
Ugh. Thanks for all the replies, but it looks like I'm going to be waiting until some money comes in from the new business before I can even THINK of getting anything quality.
02/19/2006 02:14:26 PM · #25
I visited a place called Bath In England this weekend and I called into a Photography shop and the assistant was nice enough to let me have a little go of the lense outside the shop, and yes I realised that this is the very fella for me.
In the next couple of weeks Judojoe should have in his small collection of lenses a 70-200 f2.8 usm is.
By the way when I was there I purchased a Lowepro Nature Trekker aw 11
its very nice and covers all my needs.
Cheers every one for your over whellming support.
only been here 1 week and I love it
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/28/2020 12:54:51 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/28/2020 12:54:51 AM EST.