Prime quality throughout the total range
Relatively light considering range and aperture
Cheap considering the lens.
LIGHTNING autofocus
Bokeh is the best - period.
Can be used as a landscape lens within reason

Attracts attention (this is for you to determine as a weakness or strength based on your style, it works for me but some don't like the conspicous white lens pointed in their direction - especially the military, don't shoot anything military related with this lens it will get seized from you, justifiably).

The 70-200 2.8 is a beast of a lens, it's huge, but not huge for a telephoto of its class. It's heavy, but not heavy enough to strain your grip if you're relatively strong and are used to lifting around a lot of weight from time to time. It's not as heavy as the IS version, of course, but in my own opinion i think IS is a consumer feature and does not belong in professional photography, nor to justify a 600 $ price add on the lens for the feature.

I bought this lens 1269 $ (less tax) brand new, and am using it on a canon eos 50D. What surprises me, after using the 200 2.8 prime and the 135 2.0 prime, as well as the 100 mm 2.8 maco - this lens performs as good as primes at its selective focal lengths.

The build quality is excellent. Never again will I shoot a non_L. There's something about walking around with an L lens, especially that of the famous 70-200 category. Prime for wildlife, prime for portraits and even shines well as a landscape lens! I was worriied, at first, that i wouldn't be able to do landscapes anymore becaue I sacrificed a 17-40 and a 50 mm 1.4 as well as a mag fibre manfrotto to afford this lens.

On the othe hand i was wrong - sharpness PLUS bokeh in landscapes? Never heard of that before, maybe I'll post my shots but maybe I won't because there is something unique about having the dazzling gemstone blur mixed with flowing water.

A landscape photog is more concerned with minimum aperture than maximum, but maximum is great for capturing fast moving sprays of water, and flowing flowers.

It makes a great all purpose lens, I mean, absolute great. It never leaves my camera, though I have a deadly collection of Ls I prefer shooting the 70-200 unless on paid assignment for a specific purpose(wildlife, parks).

Another note: You need to know how to use this lens, it has it's very distinctive own personality. I see a lot of beginners and even amatuers buying the bundles of 70-200 (f4/2.8/with or without IS) and it's not a good situation. They give this lens poor reviews because they do not know how to shoot, in the first place, nor what to look for and how to use it. Any lens is a bad lens if you don't know how to make its good points shine. I rec. this lens for adv. amateuers - professionals ONLY.

It should be banned from being sold to newbies :) No offense to them, but this lens requires a legacy, like the 200 mm 2.0 had and that legacy cannot be shone to its brightest in hands that haven't deserved to hold it yet.

Customer Service

Excellent, they even asked if I wanted a bow

Just kidding, but Tom Gibsen is one of their best assistants

Similar Products Used:

canon eos 50D
24-105 f4 L
17-40 f4 L
135 2.0 L
35 1.4 L
50 1.4
100 2.8 macro

70-200 2.8 VR nikkor
70-300 nikon
300-800 APO sigma 5.6 on d300

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.

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.

Customer Service

Canon quality has always been satistactory and substantial.

Similar Products Used:

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

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.

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...

Customer Service

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

Similar Products Used:

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

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!

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.

Customer Service

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

Similar Products Used:

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

Sharp and fast

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

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.

Customer Service

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

Similar Products Used:

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

. 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!

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).

Similar Products Used:

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.

Extremely SHARP Very FAST Excellent build quality.

Obvious really - Price.

My first Canon L series lens. Been using a couple of Sigma lenses (still have them)- sold a canon 75-300mm f4-5.6 to go towards this lens. My first thoughts - WOW. The file size on my 10D was about 1.8mb in jpeg, but I tried this lens out and the file size jumped up to 2.9mb. The lens is resolving an extra 1mb of extra data - pretty amazing - it is just so much sharper and crisper than anything else I have ever used. I was contemplating upgrading my 10D to a 20D, but I thought "hang on, there will be another upgraded camera in another 18 months that will offer more features and a better sensor, with more pixels, but lens prices don't seem to drop," so I decided to invest in better lenses until then. And I'm not disappointed one bit. It's made such a difference it's like having a new camera! And it is so fast - my first ever F2.8 lens. I used this in the park on the afternoon and I was shooting at 1/1500th sec - maybe this is also why the images look so sharp? Anyway, took it to the market and tried some shots under canvas covers - still shooting at 1/250 - 1/350th sec. Just reviewed the pictures and they are amazing - every stitch on the clothing is easily visible. I can't recommend this lens highly enough. It is amazing. It is extremely fast and is incredibly sharp. I've always found Sigma lenses offer a good return for their price. I still have the 50-500mm zoom. But to be honest after seeing the image quality of the Canon L series lenses I now realise how much of a compromise the Sigma lenses are. I'd love a 500mm I/S Canon lens, but I can't afford it, or the divorce it would cause, so I'll continue with my Sigma. But it will always be second best. I know a direct comparison between these two lenses is unfair, but what I am trying to say is if you can afford the Canon L series lenses, and are considering a Sigma equivalent, then don't. The Sigma lenses are great if you can't afford the Canon L ones, and offer far better value for money, but if you want quality buy a Canon L series. If you settle for a compromise it will niggle you for ages. BTW – I did try the Sigma 70-200mm EX DG before deciding on the Canon lens. Also my Sigma zoom has dust on the inside, only a few months after buying it new.

Similar Products Used:

Tried the Sigma and Canon versions before buying.

Tack sharp. Fast. Quick-focussing. Good color and contrast.

Heavy.

A great lens all around. Takes incredible pictures even in low light and is perfect for sports photography. No distortion at either end, no chromatic abberations and wonderful contrast and colors.

Customer Service

NA

Similar Products Used:

Canon 70-200 f4L

Incredibly sharp for a zoom, incredibly fast and spot on AF with the EOS-1v. Beautiful color and contrast. Very well weather sealed (much better than similar Nikon lenses) everywhere but the lens mount (see weaknesses). Coupled with the EOS-1v and TC 1.4x II (which is gasketed on both sides) and you can't buy a more weather resistant combination in 35mm. Mechanically less complex than IS version so less $$$s and less to go wrong some day. IS doesn't do anything to stop action, only handhold at lower shutter speeds. Comes with lens hood and carrying case (one event I photographed banned backpacks for security reasons but they had no problem with the lens case hanging from a strap).

A bit pricy and a tad heavy but these are the prices of admission when competing with pros. Wish Canon would provide a gasket for the lens mount like they do on the new 24-70 f/2.8L, 300 mm f/2.8 IS L, TC 1.4x II (this is gasketed on both sides), etc. I would pay to have Canon retrofit such a gasket if they made it available.

Up till purchasing this lens and an EOS-1v I was using consumer grade Nikon equipment. The largest photo I published with the 70-300 f/4-5.6 ED Nikkor and pro transparency film in a national magazine was 5 x 7; with this pro lens and pro transparency film I went to a 10 x 13 image (size of one page) and the image was cropped. Not bad for a 35mm zoom! Needless to say it was worth the price of admission. Coupled with the 45 zone AF on the EOS-1v the AF is lightning fast and spot on. The entire lens, including zoom and focusing rings have a nice metallic feel to them. A tad heavy, sure, but the base of the tripod collar helps hold it while zooming. While other reviewers have noted the Canon 70-200 f/4L is also a very sharp lens, the advantage of this lens is that max sharpness is always one or two clicks down from max aperature (around f/4 on this one vs. f/5.6 on it's little brother), plus you also gain the ability to further blur out the background at 200mm and f/2.8. Still, I may also purchase the 70-200 f/4L for backpacking when weight is more important than a wide aperature.

Customer Service

Ok but not as good as I had hoped for pro equipment. Sent it in to have the lens mount tightened (there was a bit too much play from the factory when mounted on the 1v) and it came back with less but still notable play (my 24-70 f/2.8L mounts snug). Also when contemplating switching from Nikon to Canon the Nikon reps seemed more knoweldgeable (Canon folks seemed liked they were reading from the manual when I'd call). But it's hard to argue with Canon products.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 70-200 f/4L

Great image quality, still not up to a prime, but very good. Very fast AF, impressive to say the least.

About $500 dollars overpriced, basically double the Sigma which is just as good minus the slower AF. Because of that, I give it 4 stars.

This lens is good, very good, as is the Sigma which I also have. The question is, which is better?? In terms of image quality, neither, in terms of functionality, the Canon is better. It's hard to beat Canon's AF, and the Sigma certainly isn't one to do it. Especially because I have the Sigma attached to my Pentax body which has the motor in Camera. Image wise, they're capable of delivering the exact same shot. The Sigma is a little warm, but both lenses have images that come across as slightly flat, but with very well resolved details... 5min in Photoshop and the warmth can be done away with leaving you with images that are pretty much identical. People seem to think this lens is clearly better than the Sigma, I've done side by side tests that say it isn't. However, the Canon clearly has the superior AF, it's rather impressive indeed. If you can live with out the fast USM I would get the Sigma. Those of you who need fast AF, this lens is going to be a dream come true.

Customer Service

Haven't used it.

Similar Products Used:

77mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm Pentax Primes.