Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review

[Bryan Carnathan]

Discuss the <span class="PageTitle"]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens Review ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx) - Tell us what you think of the <span class="PageTitle"]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens.

[Brendan7]

$2500? really? I think it's a great lens and yes, Bryan, we should "get the II" but I don't think it's worth $700 more than the Mark I version. Big improvements were made but I'll find better things to do with my $700.

[neuroanatomist]

Looking at the ISO 12233 chart comparison ("http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLIComp=0&amp; APIComp=0&amp;LensComp=111&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0 &amp;FLI=4&amp;API=0)of the70-200mm MkII with 1.4x (280mm f/4)with the 300mm f/4L prime is very interesting - the 70-200mm zoom has virtually no loss in IQ compared to the prime! Trading 20mm for the flexibility of a zoom and a significantly improved IS system? Sure - I'll be'getting the II'!


Then, the choice going out will be 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L or 70-200mm f/2.8 MkII with 1.4x TC. Bright days, 100-400mm. Dim days,70-200mm f/2.8 MkII (with 1.4x TC). As an added benefit, the latter combination gives a ~100-300mm f/4 zoom that with my 7D will provide a weather-sealed option.

[Brendan7]

However, the 300 doesn't have the distortions of the 70-200 and costs less than half as much and is lighter.

[Colin]

If I had the money to spend, and nothing else that was competing for that money (arrow shafts, bow strings and new limbs, electricity, tires, car payments, rent), sure, i'd go for the II version.


But, I'm happy with the original, and for what it cost me, it was a relative bargain.


If I fell into a bunch of money, I would certainly look at a II, but it would be after buying some other lenses (the super macro, a 50mm 1.4 (or if they made a 50mm f/1.2L that didn't have a focus problem), maybe a newer body, a few trips to places I'd like to go, etc...


But, it's definitely cool that they'd make a telephoto zoom that good. I can't say there isn't some lust for it. But I lust over a lot of things! :P

[wickerprints]

However, the 300 doesn't have the distortions of the 70-200 and costs less than half as much and is lighter.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





And let's not forget that AF is faster with the native lens than a lens with an extender attached. Also, I use the 1.4x II on the EF 300/4L IS and once you correct for the CA in post, it is really quite excellent. The 2x II + 70-200/2.8L IS II does not outperform the 1.4x II + 300/4L.

[Jon Ruyle]

Thank you Bryan, for your hard work. As I'm sure you know, your reviews are extremely useful to many of us. I tried comparing my 70-200 Mk II to the Mk I in controlled tests (I wanted to verify that I had something like copy 1 or 3, not copy 2... my results were not totally conclusive) and got some idea just how difficult and time consuming it is.



Looking at the ISO 12233 chart comparison ("http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&amp;Camera=453&amp;Sample=0&amp;FLIComp=0&amp; APIComp=0&amp;LensComp=111&amp;CameraComp=453&amp;SampleComp=0 &amp;FLI=4&amp;API=0)of the70-200mm MkII with 1.4x (280mm f/4)with the 300mm f/4L prime is very interesting - the 70-200mm zoom has virtually no loss in IQ compared to the prime!


As impressed as I am with the MkII, I have to disagree with you on this one. I think the 300 prime holds a clear advantage (as it had better). But I will say it is closer than I would have thought: comparing a zoom + TC to a prime is craziness.


On the other hand, it looks to me like the Mk II actually outperforms the 200mm f/2.8 prime. (Samples 1 and 3 anyway... sample 2 actually does not look as good in
the corners @ 200mm f 2.8 as the mark 1.) Now that is amazing. Yes, the prime is way less expensive, but primes are always less expensive and until now I can think of no case where any zoom outperforms a high quality prime.

[Jeff]

Yes, $2500... really!


I received my Mk II a day before Bryan (*snickers*) and let me tell you as well... it is so worth the extra money. I know we'll each decide what we do with our money - and if you're happy with the results you get now with what you have, then so be it. I was too, but I am all about providing the best image quality I can to my clients. This new Mk II has so many improvements, it's already paid for itself.


The first thing I thought when I upgraded from the 70-200 f/4 to the 2.8 IS Mark 1 was, "Now this is a lens!." I then repeated myself with the reception of this Mark II... it is a beauty. Solid as a rock, no image jitter from the IS kicking in, and virtually no audible noise from the IS motor. Sharp sharp sharp at 2.8 - and the improved IS capabilities are also pleasantly welcomed and very much appreciated.


I did sell my Mk I to fund the Mk II, but I have absolutely no regrets whatsoever. I'll be posting sample images in the near future. This lens is right up there with my 85L IMO... Yes, I love it that much. My 5D2 + 85L combo are probably never going to be topped and that is fine, but as long as lenses like the 70-200 Mk II rate right up there, I'm happy :o)

[Jeff]

However, the 300 doesn't have the distortions of the 70-200 and costs less than half as much and is lighter.
<p style="CLEAR: both"]


Not too relavent in comparison, IMO.

[elmo_2006]

It's detailed reviews like this that keep me coming back here often everyday, awesome review Bryan, simply awesome!


As for the MKII, as much as I long for this lens, it seems that I'll just have to live with the MKI version. I just cannot justify the price difference especially here in Canada. The MKII retails for 2600 add 13% for taxes and we are now into the low 3000's. That 85 1.2L is starting to look very good at this price point! Selling the MKI would mean an additional 1500 would need to be added, which I may end up using towards the 24-70 or a telephoto lens or even a 7D upgrade.


Unfortunately, my return on investment is a big fat 0 and as such, I'll continue to dream - maybe one day I'll win the lottery!


I sure do envy those that have this lens!

[Gian Luca]

I am convinced, I sell the 70-200 I, and I buy the 70-200II. As you said Bryan the version I is one of my favorite lens, and I was waiting for your review to decide. I tried to compare the 135 f2 on the ISO12233 Chart, both at f2.8, I have the impression that the new 70-200 is as sharp as the prime. Am I right?[:P]

[neuroanatomist]

I think the 300 prime holds a clear advantage (as it had better).


I suppose it depends on where you're looking and your intended use. The 70-200 MkII + 1.4x (samples 1 and 3, in any case) appears a bit shaper in the center, and a bit less sharp in mid-frame and the corners. So, to me, it sort of balances out - but, if the zoom+tc really is a bit sharper in the center, and you're shooting birds centered in the frame...



it looks to me like the Mk II actually outperforms the 200mm f/2.8 prime


Looks that way to me, as well. Since I have the EF 200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]L II USM, once I get my copy of the 70-200 MkII I'll be testing them 'real-world' against each other. As long as the difference isn't huge, I'll likely keep the prime for the significantly smaller size and lower weight - it's a very easy long-ish lens to pack when long shots are opportunistic and not the primary goal of the outing.



And let's not forget that AF is faster with the native lens than a lens with an extender attached.


Excellent point!



The 2x II + 70-200/2.8L IS II does not outperform the 1.4x II + 300/4L.


No surprise there - the 2x extender is pretty notorious for introducing aberrations. But as Bryan states, if the goal is 400mm, then neither a 70-200mm f/2.8 (any) + 2x extender nor a 300mm f/4 + 1.4x extender is the optimal choice to achieve 400mm f/5.6 - the optimal choice there is the 400mm f/5.6 prime or the 100-400mm zoom.



I tried to compare the 135 f2 on the ISO12233 Chart, both at f2.8, I have the impression that the new 70-200 is as sharp as the prime. Am I right?


No, I don't think you are. While I agree with Jon that the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II outperforms the EF 200mm f/2.8L II, comparing theEF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II to the EF 135mm f/2 at f/2.8, the prime is just slightly sharper than the zoom at the center, but the prime is noticeably sharper at mid-frame and the corners. The zoom is sharper across the frame at 135mm f/2.8 than the prime is at f/2 - but the prime is at f/2! So, if you need maximum sharpness at 135mm, or if you need f/2, the EF 135mm f/2L is still the best choice.



Tell us what you think of the<span class="PageTitle"]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens.


I think the lens is awesome, and your review is excellent, thorough (as usual!), and just adds the final point to my decision to purchase this lens!

[Pieter]

At cameranu.nl, a Dutch web-store, the 70-200 II costs nearly as much as a 5DII+24-105 combo. So if I would spend this amount on canon-gear, my choice(upgrading from a rebel), would be ofcourse the combo.


But nevertheless, if I would ever have luck in the lottery, I would at that time certainly buy the 70-200 III, imagine what the markIII version would look like;)

[abrama94]

Comparing the iso charts for the 100-400mm to the Mark II with the 2X extender, they seem to very similar at 400. Thoughts?


Also it seems to me that there is a decrease in sharpness when going from f/4 to f5.6 and beyond. Anyone else notice this.


Thanks

[neuroanatomist]

Also it seems to me that there is a decrease in sharpness when going from f/4 to f5.6 and beyond. Anyone else notice this.


No, I don't see this. It's remarkable that there's not an increase in sharpness as you stop down from f/2.8 to f/4-5.6 with this lens (but, for example, there is a slight increase in sharpness at 70mm (sample 1) in the mid-frame, with stopping down. It's a testament to the quality of the lens that's is as sharp wide open as stopped down 1-2 stops. At very small apertures (above f/11) diffraction is starting to have an effect with the 1Ds III sensor, so you'd expect increasing 'softness' there.






Comparing the iso charts for the 100-400mm to the Mark II with the 2X extender, they seem to very similar at 400. Thoughts?





To me, the 100-400mm at 400mm looks noticeably sharper at the center and mid-frame; corner sharpness is similar between the 100-400mm and the 70-200 II + 2x.