Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

This is such a pleasure to use and I am so happy I bought it.
Coupled with my 5D I am finally getting the results I have sought for so many years.
It is heavy but what quality and performance. I wanted the IS version but could not afford the extra price. I shoot mostly at night so a tripod is a must anyway.
Every day is a learning experience with this lens, but I am a proud owner.

Tremendous brokeh and sharpness. Focusing has been effortless and the feel of the lens is pure luxury.

None just a little heavy and takes some getting used to.

70-200 f4L which I sold to purchase this lens.
24-105 f4is
50mm 1.4

Canon quality has always been satistactory and substantial.

After listening to the advice of many (more experienced) wildlife photographers, I decided to buy the Canon EF 70-200mm/f2.8 USM lens. I have spent many weeks in the bush with this lens and can state with absolute confidence that this is the best zoom lens I have ever used.

Firstly, it has crystal-clear resolution; at all focal lengths. It remains amazingly sharp, even at the corners. Even with the 1.4 Extender attached, I couldn't fault the lens. And believe it or not, it performs even above-average with the 2x Extender (used on my EOS 20D). Now, this really says something of the inherent sharpness of the lens: Normally, wildlife photographers steer clear of the 2x Extender: not because it`s bad, but because it brings out all the optical flaws inherent in a lens. However, there is an exception to this rule: If a lens is optically approaching some degree of brilliance, it can still give satisfactory results with this Extender. A notable example is Canon`s EF 300mm/f2.8 USM: Many wildlife photographers in Africa will swear by this: The 300mm/f2.8 yields surprisingly sharp images when mated with the 2x Extender. It is an exceptional lens, optically speaking. But so is the 70-200/f2.8. And because it is so sharp, it is the only zoom lens that I have ever found to work well with the 2x Extender.

What does all of this mean to the average entusiast, planning a trip to the game reserves of Africa? If you are budget-conscious (like I am) and you can`t afford
a 300mm/f2.8 or a 500mm/f4, consider this beauty, with the addition of both the 1.4 and 2x Extenders. On my 20D, the lens + the 1.4 Extender translates into a focal zoom length of 157-448mm/f4, and combined with the 2x Extender, I have a
224-640mm/f5.6. Not too shabby...

The best news (for African bush conditions) is that you have a zoom lens which is virtually dust-free. The zoom action doesn`t change the length of the lens, so the lens doesn`t suck up dust particles like other zooms. (This can be a nightmare for digital sensors. A friend of mine uses the excellent 100-400mm/f4.5-5.6, but spends a lot of time cleaning his sensor!) With an extender attached, the back of the lens is virtually sealed against dust entering the system. I use the secon-generation Extenders (MK II), and found them to be well-sealed against dust.

Even if you never go to dusty Edens, the 70-200mm/f2.8 still mkes an incredible portait lens and is perfect for landscapes (to isolate detail and to compress distant hills), in addition to a good wide-angle lens.

I know that a lot of people would still buy the more expensive Image Stabiliser version of this lens, but I have found it to be less sharp around the corners, especially with the Extenders. It is therefore a pity to see this magnificent lens slowly dissappearing from the shelves of dealers. A lot of people are going to miss out on a superb lens...

Optical performance to challenge prime telephoto lenses at all focal lengths.
Superb protection for digital sensors.
Versatility: portrait/wildlife/landscape photography.
Compact for its performance levels.
Excellent value for money.

Not as well-sealed at the back of the lens as the newer IS model: however, the addition of the 1.4 and 2x MK II Extenders solves the (potential) problem amicably.

No Image Stabiliser. However, if your camera handles high ISO`s fairly well, it shouldn`t be a problem to just crank up the ISO. If you use it on wildlife (with the help of Extenders), you would be resting it on a beanbag, mostly. It works well in African light if you want to hold it without support, e.g. when you stand under a tree and want to shoot a bird in the tree. If you use ISO 400, you`d still be able to get 1/800 exposure on most daylight shots. Even if you use a 2x Extender, you should be able to handhold this lens at 1/800, without blurring your image.

Canon EF 100-400mm/f4.5-5.6
Canon EF 300mm/f2.8
Sigma 170-500/f5-6.3

Never needed customer service in 3 years, whilst using it on more than 20 wildlife excursions.

I used to be a "prime lens only" user. That is until I bouhgt a 24-70mm f2,8 L lens. With this beauty I soon found out that zooms are much more convenient and the quality can be amazingly good. This is only true for the high-end expensive zooms, though. The only significant drawback is weihgt and bulk. For this reason I have used a 1,8/85mm and 2/135 L lenses in the telephoto range up until recently. They are both very, very fine lenses very well suited for people shots. In some situations, however, I started to miss the zoom capability and also a tripod mount. That´s why I bought a 70-200 f 2,8 USM. I must say it is much heavier than the 135mm f2 but nott as heavy as I had thought. It is very well built and it has a tripod mount!!! With this beauty shooting from a tripod is so much easier! The quality of the glass must be extremly high as I am unable to find any significant differences between shots from this and the 135 f2 lens( which is perfect in all respects!), apart from slihgtly bigger light fall-off in the corners with the zoom. This, however, doesn´t bother me at all, as I usually darken the corners of people shots anyway, and much more than the lens does! I was also very pleasantly surprised with it´s performance with the TC 2x. Even at 200mm, f5,6 the quality remains very, very usable- and you get a 140-400mm f 5,6 lens! Overal I am very pleased with this lens and will be using it together with the 24-70mm f2,8 L lens as my main combo for weddings. At weddings it doesn´t matter that the lenses are so bloody big. Quite the opposite- you make a "bigger" impression! In situations where I don´t want to attract so much attention I will be using my Canons ( EOS 5d and EOS 3´s) without the vertical grip and with my much smaller primes.

Excellent built and optical quality, handling. Buy it if you can and use it for taking beautiful pictures!

None. Do not buy it if you are weak, though!

Canon EF 135mm f2, 85mm f1,8, 24-70mm f2,8...............etc.,etc.

Non needed so far- for any of my lenses in some 15 years!!! Touch wood.

After missing some shots on assigment with a 200 prime L I broke down and bought this lens from newegg. (New specail 6 months same as cash). Got the lens and out of 100 pics got 2 sharp. CAlled canon and they advised that they have been having alot of problemswith the focusing issue. Still in the process of sending it back. (horrible Customer service, Another story). Took the advise again of another reviewer on a tamoron I picked up and shopped locally. I went through 3 copies before I found the one I wanted. The shots and quality are very good. I can still catch more with the primes but loose the veristlty. Image comparision to my 200 prime is it is about 95% (where it should be). Long story short, I am cheap but do not mind paying for great quaility. DO yourself a favor and walk in to buy one. Test it. Try not to make a jerk of yourself, but test it. Localy I paid $250 extra for lens. (Testing fee) in the long run it will save you money. For those who say they can't afford it. Think of it this way. I have kids and if you do how many plays, dances, games, graduations will you have only blurry pictures of. I missed a couple and was so aggrevated I stepped up to a quailty lens and have not regretted it one bit. My advise is stay with the kit lens as long as possible, save your money and buy the best, which this is. Couple this with a 2?-7? f/2-2.8 and you have a life long investment which you will continually use and enjoy. And, have the pictures you wanted instead of what you wish you had.

Sharp and fast

Only having to make a quest for a very sharp on at f/2.8

200 prime L Tamron 28-75 2.8 50 -1.4 20-70L 28-135 IS quantry 70-300 18-55 kit

Canon's Customer service has always been good to me. No complaints.

The Canon 70-200 2.8 L is an excellent value product when it comes to price and performance ratio. Yes, $1,110.00 (after rebate) is still a lot of money for a lens especially for an amateur who doesn't make a living out of photography. Yet, RATIONAL must be the key word here for an amateur like me. One has to balance the pros and cons from price/performance ratio. Who wouldn't be ATTRACTED to the same kind of lens for either half a price or 2/3 of its price? (Tokina 80-200 2.8 + Sigma 70-200 2.8). I can attest to you all that I'm first in line when it comes to a good deal but at what price in the long run? Personally, I'd shot with this lens on and off (by renting it) and I'd also shot with the Tokina 80-200 2.8 Pro in the past and lately with the new Sigma 70-200 2.8 ex apo dg. In all fairness, I challenge anybody who can pick out from an assorted photos and tell me which ones had been shot with which lenses? Soft corner, color not warm enough, etc... well, good luck! What I'm trying to say is that both the Tokina and Sigma lenses are also very very good products by all means. To make matter worse the Tokina is currently costing $550.00 after rebate and the Sigma is reasonably priced at $780.00. So what am I doing spending $1,150.00 for a Canon lens? The word "snob" is certainly not in my vocabulary! Don't even go there! Here is my RATIONAL reasoning: 1) FUTURE COMPATIBILITY WITH CANON BODIES IS MY #1 REASON. I'm currently shooting with 2 Digital Rebels (why not Canon 20D? Dust problems + evolving technology + rather put 80% of my investment into lenses that actually take pictures while the body is simply a box with a zillion features that I may never need. Yes, if I ever hit a jackpot I'll get not one but 2 or 3 EOS 1D Mark IIN ...) The new Sigma 70-200 2.8 ex apo dg has a very nice 4 years warranty (Hello, Canon!) but since digital photography is an evolving high tech ... the current full frame Canon 5D w/ its 12.5 meg priced at $3,250.00 would be around $950.00 in about 4-5 years from now and that's when I plan to upgrade to a full frame Canon 6D or 7D body. By then will my Sigma or Tokina still "TALKS" to my newly acquired Canon body? That's my #1 concern. So, the moral of the story is $1,150.00 is expansive now but after 5-6 years of usage it's well amortized. I totallly agree with Michael Guliani's article in Nature Photographers about the merits of the Sigma 70-200 2.8 but the main difference between us is he's a pro and I'm not! After a few shooting sessions Mr. Guliani has already broken even with the purchase of his lens. After a few years he can afford to throw that lens away if it stops talking to his new camera! But me, I don't make any money from this hobby, remember? In the end, since I shoot with Canon bodies then I may as well use Canon lenses for the PIECE OF MIND in the long run. Either one pays now or would pay later on. In comparison to a Konica-Minolta 70-200 2.8 apo at +/-$1,800.00 ... my Canon 70-200 2.8 L is rather CHEAP! Of course, the Canon 70-200 2.8 L is a constant 2.8 aperture so for it being heavy is a GIVEN! Anybody wants lightweight? Go and get a $180.00 Canon 70-300 or better yet the variable aperture $1,200.00 Canon 70-300 DO lens instead! I plan to use it 20% handheld and 80% with a monopod! No need to spend another $500.00 for the IS model b/c I rather use a monopod instead (not as cumbersome as a tripod).

. Will always "talk" to my future Canon bodies when time comes to upgrade to a full frame digital SLR. . Stunning bokeh (but once again the Tokina + Sigma can also deliver) . My most used lens (90%) versus (10%) standard zooms or even primes due to its CONVENIENT/PERFECT RANGE (John Shaw's photos) . Use it for landscape, portrait, streetwalk, sports, etc... (what more would one want?)

None. In the end, the price is right! It's the best 35 mm photographic gear one can have so if the exposure, composition, etc... don't come out right ... blame the photographer instead!

I've shot with Tokina 80-200 2.8, Sigma 70-200 2.8 ex apo (dg) hsm and they're all very good products.