Author Topic: New Canon 70-200 worth the upgrade? (Read 11187 times)

MatHayward · « **on:** December 22, 2010, 00:09 »

Has anyone here upgraded from the Canon 70-200f/2.8L IS to the new version yet?

My 70-200 is coming loose at the joint near the focal point so I need to send it in to get tightened up. It's fully functional but I find myself using my 100 f/2.8L IS Macro more and more and getting sharper and sharper images. Problem with that is that I need the focal length of the 70-200 more often than not. What I'm reading is the new version is as fast and as sharp as the primes. Do any of you have personal experience that can verify this? Anyone want to buy my 70-200 as it is to simplify my world and make my decision to upgrade easier?

Mat

chrisroll · « **Reply #1 on:** December 22, 2010, 01:18 »

Hi,

I've one since 6 months.

It's a very good lens !
The bokey is splendid and AF speed is very fast.

And last but not least , the resolution is excellent from f/2.8 to f/8 throughout all focal lengths.

A bit pricey, but It worth it, if you can afford it.

It's the best 70-200 mm on the market even better than nikon one.

Here is a link to a review : http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/510-canon_70200_2is28

Merry christmas !!!

lagereek · « **Reply #2 on:** December 22, 2010, 02:08 »

I spoke to Canon only the other day. I did upgrade but frankly, I wonder if it was worth it? See, this is it; the 70-200/2.8.IS, is optically identical to the non-IS, as is the 70-200/F4L to this IS version of F4.
All the lens-groupings, constellations, etc are identical, the question is, IS or non IS. My upgrade 70-200/2.8.ISII, is only slightly better in stabilizing not optical-quality.
My old 70-200/F4L, is optically just as good. Question is ofcourse, do you need the IS or not.
Even my Canon rep said, yep! its expensive, just for an IS motor. In any event, all of them are better then my Nikon version.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 22, 2010, 04:31 »

Mat off topic question.. is approval ratio at FT relevant?

lagereek · « **Reply #4 on:** December 22, 2010, 06:51 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 22, 2010, 04:31

Mat off topic question.. is approval ratio at FT relevant?

Yeah you get 110% approval but youre previous shots gets thrown into the dustbin. Tisk, tisk, tisk. ha, ha.

merry xmas.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 22, 2010, 08:37 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 22, 2010, 06:51

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 22, 2010, 04:31
Mat off topic question.. is approval ratio at FT relevant?

Yeah you get 110% approval but youre previous shots gets thrown into the dustbin. Tisk, tisk, tisk. ha, ha.

merry xmas.

I am asking this because my approval ratio at FT is the lowest around all agencies, like 40%

MatHayward · « **Reply #6 on:** December 22, 2010, 12:16 »

No, that isn't relevant to me as my approval ratio is pretty high (no preferential treatment I can guarantee without a doubt) and I have other sources of income through photography. I already have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and there is no doubt that I am in desperate need of the help that the image stabilizer offers. I'm just wondering if I fork over another thousand bucks after selling my current lens for the new version if I will notice any difference in quality.

Time will tell, I've pretty much talked myself into it.

Have a good one,

Mat

lagereek · « **Reply #7 on:** December 23, 2010, 02:17 »

Quote from: MatHayward on December 22, 2010, 12:16

No, that isn't relevant to me as my approval ratio is pretty high (no preferential treatment I can guarantee without a doubt) and I have other sources of income through photography. I already have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and there is no doubt that I am in desperate need of the help that the image stabilizer offers. I'm just wondering if I fork over another thousand bucks after selling my current lens for the new version if I will notice any difference in quality.

Time will tell, I've pretty much talked myself into it.

Have a good one,

Mat

Frankly I would hold on. Many report the ISII works wonders, others report its pretty much on par with the old one. If my one works better? dont really know. best is to rent one for a few days, test it, etc. I was stupid, I didnt.

merry xmas and happy new year.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #8 on:** December 28, 2010, 17:48 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 22, 2010, 02:08

I spoke to Canon only the other day. I did upgrade but frankly, I wonder if it was worth it? See, this is it; the 70-200/2.8.IS, is optically identical to the non-IS, as is the 70-200/F4L to this IS version of F4.
All the lens-groupings, constellations, etc are identical, the question is, IS or non IS. My upgrade 70-200/2.8.ISII, is only slightly better in stabilizing not optical-quality.
My old 70-200/F4L, is optically just as good. Question is ofcourse, do you need the IS or not.
Even my Canon rep said, yep! its expensive, just for an IS motor. In any event, all of them are better then my Nikon version.

Seems we fell into the same conclusions. I downgraded from the f/2.8 IS/USM to the f/4 non-IS version of the 70-200. Leftover money bought more toys, and the cute little lens is every bit as good as the Big Brother. Never regretted the change, once I started shooting and saw the images, the weight reduction, size reduction, cost reduction and no loss in image quality. Doesn't need a tripod collar and hand-held it's very manageable. Not that the big honkin one was a problem, just less of an issue.

Yes, I don't use IS and don't shoot low light. For some people it may be necessary, but on an average day, I'm very happy!

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** December 28, 2010, 22:10 »

Quote from: MatHayward on December 28, 2010, 19:56

That is definitely not an option for me. I would say I should 85% of my images at f/2.8 as inevitably I am always shooting in dark scenarios be it candlelit wedding receptions or concerts. I shoot most of my wildlife wide open to to get the shutter speed up there. I am going to take my existing lens to the shop next week and see if it gets a bit sharper for me. If not, upgrade here I come.

You have to be kidding. Shooting at f2.8 (or wider) is virtually useless for 98% of shots (especially for stock) because the DoF is so abysmally short. You might get the eyes in focus but the nose certainly won't be on any sort of portrait. I put up with the cost and weight of an f2.8 lens so I can shoot at a useable speed at f5.6 or preferably well above. Even at f5.6 it can be virtually impossible to get both eyes and the nose in focus.

I'd agree entirely with Race that the f4 non-IS is vastly preferable and I wish I'd bought that instead of the f2.8 monster that I did get and can hardly ever be bothered to lug around with me. I already had the 100-400 and the marginal extra sharpness of the f2.8 is entirely dissipated by the fact that I could instead crop a 100-400 image with much better results.

Personally I wouldn't dream of shelling out for the latest USM II version. Utter waste of money IMHO.

lagereek · « **Reply #11 on:** December 29, 2010, 01:52 »

Quote from: MatHayward on December 28, 2010, 19:56

That is definitely not an option for me. I would say I should 85% of my images at f/2.8 as inevitably I am always shooting in dark scenarios be it candlelit wedding receptions or concerts. I shoot most of my wildlife wide open to to get the shutter speed up there. I am going to take my existing lens to the shop next week and see if it gets a bit sharper for me. If not, upgrade here I come.

Mat

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 28, 2010, 17:48
Quote from: lagereek on December 22, 2010, 02:08
I spoke to Canon only the other day. I did upgrade but frankly, I wonder if it was worth it? See, this is it; the 70-200/2.8.IS, is optically identical to the non-IS, as is the 70-200/F4L to this IS version of F4.
All the lens-groupings, constellations, etc are identical, the question is, IS or non IS. My upgrade 70-200/2.8.ISII, is only slightly better in stabilizing not optical-quality.
My old 70-200/F4L, is optically just as good. Question is ofcourse, do you need the IS or not.
Even my Canon rep said, yep! its expensive, just for an IS motor. In any event, all of them are better then my Nikon version.

Seems we fell into the same conclusions. I downgraded from the f/2.8 IS/USM to the f/4 non-IS version of the 70-200. Leftover money bought more toys, and the cute little lens is every bit as good as the Big Brother. Never regretted the change, once I started shooting and saw the images, the weight reduction, size reduction, cost reduction and no loss in image quality. Doesn't need a tripod collar and hand-held it's very manageable. Not that the big honkin one was a problem, just less of an issue.

Yes, I don't use IS and don't shoot low light. For some people it may be necessary, but on an average day, I'm very happy!

Shooting at 2.8, dark scenarios etc, well thats a tough call with any of these zooms, you might be better off with a prime 200/ 2.0 or something. Mind you they are pretty costly once you get down beneath 2.8.

elvinstar · « **Reply #12 on:** December 29, 2010, 09:50 »

Quote

You have to be kidding. Shooting at f2.8 (or wider) is virtually useless for 98% of shots (especially for stock) because the DoF is so abysmally short.

Quote

you might be better off with a prime 200/ 2.0 or something

I believe that Matt said that he was shooting wedding receptions and wildlife wide open. It's pretty tough in both situations to shoot with a prime... I know it's a shock to some of us, but there are more reasons than just stock to pick up our cameras!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #13 on:** December 29, 2010, 16:37 »

Quote from: elvinstar on December 29, 2010, 09:50

Quote
You have to be kidding. Shooting at f2.8 (or wider) is virtually useless for 98% of shots (especially for stock) because the DoF is so abysmally short.

Quote
you might be better off with a prime 200/ 2.0 or something

I believe that Matt said that he was shooting wedding receptions and wildlife wide open. It's pretty tough in both situations to shoot with a prime... I know it's a shock to some of us, but there are more reasons than just stock to pick up our cameras!

Yes, and I said, some people don't need the f/2.8 - which should imply that some people DO!

As far as more reasons, there are about 1000 more reasons for me to pick up my camera that aren't stock. But there are some good reasons for shooting stock now and then.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #15 on:** December 30, 2010, 14:17 »

I've seen a heck of a lot of these lenses (both Nikon and Canon) at racing events I've covered over the years. My understanding is that they are so popular because they CAN be used at the very fast f2.8 setting.

Actually, I think this and the 300 f2.8 dominate the sports scenes. I always thought they were pretty darn sharp.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #16 on:** December 30, 2010, 15:03 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 30, 2010, 14:17

I've seen a heck of a lot of these lenses (both Nikon and Canon) at racing events I've covered over the years. My understanding is that they are so popular because they CAN be used at the very fast f2.8 setting.

Actually, I think this and the 300 f2.8 dominate the sports scenes. I always thought they were pretty darn sharp.

True, 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 because of the distances from the media areas even though they are closer than spectators. I see one guy with a 500mm (or is it a 600?) Way too big, but he's happy? I had the 400mm f/2.8 (just like the 70-200 f/2.

and sold it. Now I carry a 400mm f/5.6 which is just about as good as far as image quality, I don't have a lens that's worth more than my car. I don't worry as much... oh did I mention, $1200 and 2.8 lbs. vs $7000 and #12?

Not quite the same as the f/4 70-200 vs the f/2.8 where the f/4 is sometimes considered sharper. (I find that hard to believe, but that's what reviews say?)

Here's another fine tidbit to consider. The extenders really don't work well with the f/4 lenses. Trouble getting the focus to settle down and lock. I didn't use extenders until last year. I found one shot where I want a 600mm and I'm not paying the price of a down payment on a home, for that shot. So I'll be giving up quality to slap a 2X on a 300mm and see what I get. Tried the 1.4 and a 400mm, which was fine. But if I'm going to ruin a good lens, might as well go for all I can get.

Anyway, let me add something else from a personal perspective. I had a list and was checking prices, reviews, quality, making myself crazy, deciding 70-200, 100-400, 300 or 400. Plus looking at the versions. I finally decided on the f/2.8 70-200 as my first choice. Loved it! Then I got the 100-400 because I needed more reach. Decided on a straight 400mm for a little better sharpness. Sold the f/2.8 70-200 and got the f/4. Sold the f/2.8 400mm and got the f/5.6... I'm still happy. Just found a 35-350 used which I wanted for that superzoom and all around lens, just can't wait to use it. I'm just looking at telephotos, forget about macro and walkabout lenses.

Here's what I'm getting at. If you buy any Canon L lens of the 70-200 variety, or a 300mm or a 400mm or a 100-400... it doesn't matter! Don't make yourself crazy, they are all fine lenses and preform perfectly in all situations that I've had them. The whole decision comes down to Just Do It and you'll be happy!

More on the 70-200: IS versions are weather sealed, Non-IS versions are not. f/4 lenses come without a tripod ring mount. (consider that when looking at price, it's a $100 addition) Although the f/4 you don't need a tripod/monopod mount because they are smaller and lighter. The f/2.8 lens comes in a nice zipper lens case, the f/4 comes in a grey cloth bag. The lens case is pretty nice and useful. So what you pay extra for the f/2.8 version, may look like a bunch more, but you get about $150 of options added in and "weather sealing" which one may consider as better dust and dirt sealing as well. Then there's always the wow factor and lens envy to contend with out in public. "Oh look, he's got a 40D and a 70-200 f/4 lens. How cute." Yeah and guess what, it's shoots and works.

It's not all about lens speed and cost.

(yes, 35-350 discontinued Canon L lens, just can't wait)

Reef · « **Reply #17 on:** December 30, 2010, 15:43 »

Quote from: MatHayward on December 30, 2010, 13:56

Quote from: gostwyck on December 28, 2010, 22:10
You have to be kidding. Shooting at f2.8 (or wider) is virtually useless for 98% of shots (especially for stock) because the DoF is so abysmally short. You might get the eyes in focus but the nose certainly won't be on any sort of portrait.

Weird. I guess I need to re-think my entire strategy on how to take a photograph. All this time I thought I was at least moderately competent. Turns out I've been a complete boob this entire time. Thanks for finally bringing it to my attention Gostwyck.

Mat

Depends what distance you are from the subject of course, but I'm also heavy on the 2.8 setting - its a great lens for taking creative bokeh type shots - I dropped mine a little while back and it put a dint in the end rim which means I can't fit a cap or filter anymore.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #18 on:** December 30, 2010, 16:15 »

@RacePhoto... my post was more about the need for speed. The mentioned lenses are all pretty good at their widest settings.
As for the best value ... No Idea.

leaf · « **Reply #19 on:** December 30, 2010, 17:06 »

@race

I did a blog post a while ago comparing using a 2x and 1.4x converter and simply cropping and upsizing an image. I found the image is sharpest without the teleconverters. I had both and sold both.

MatHayward · « **Reply #20 on:** December 30, 2010, 19:21 »

I do use the 2X converter with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS and lately I've been finding my images shot at 400mm f/5.6 are getting softer and softer. As I mentioned before, some of the fittings are getting loose so I need to take it in to the shop for a repair. When I get it back if I find the same results I will be trading in my version I for a version II. It'll cost me a thousand bucks for the upgrade but I need to be able to trust that my images will be sharp when it counts.

Mat

MatHayward · « **Reply #21 on:** December 30, 2010, 19:22 »

I should also mention that the softer images are a fairly new phenomenon with my lens. I've had it for several years now and it used to be my bread and butter. Only recently it's started to become less reliable.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #22 on:** December 30, 2010, 20:08 »

Mat - I was just looking into picking up a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS and also a 2x VII extender. Or maybe the new 2x VIII. How much does the extender affect the sharpness? Are shots still acceptable for stock?

leaf · « **Reply #24 on:** December 31, 2010, 06:37 »

here's the blog post I was referring to comparing the 1.4x converter, 2.0x converter and upsizing
http://simplefoto.com/news-editorial/camera-gear/upsize-vs-extender/

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New Canon 70-200 worth the upgrade? (Read 11187 times)

MatHayward

chrisroll

lagereek

luissantos84

lagereek

luissantos84

MatHayward

lagereek

RacePhoto

MatHayward

gostwyck

lagereek

elvinstar

RacePhoto

MatHayward

WarrenPrice

RacePhoto

Reef

WarrenPrice

leaf

MatHayward

MatHayward

PaulieWalnuts

MatHayward

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors