70-200 2.8 II

"Victorious Secret" (victorioussecret)
06/24/2014 at 09:14 • Filed to: None

Best lens ever. By far.

DISCUSSION (38)

Baber K. Khan > Victorious Secret
06/24/2014 at 09:24

This and the 10-22mm are the best combo you need on any trip.

Stupidru > Victorious Secret
06/24/2014 at 09:25

I'm selling my 70-200 f\4L just because I rarely use it. I have a feeling when I have kids I'll pick this behemoth up to take photos of them playing sports. For the time being my 24-135 f\4L is a great walk-around lens

trmoore09 > Victorious Secret
06/24/2014 at 09:52

:drool:

Victorious Secret > Stupidru
06/24/2014 at 11:12

It was probably my favourite carry lens from the weekend. I rarely took it off, even though its one heavy sucker that does cause some soreness after a few hours.

Stupidru > Victorious Secret
06/24/2014 at 11:34

What were you shooting this weekend?

That's another reason I'm selling it. I was at the Grand Canyon and all around Arizona last week, and carrying 2 big lenses, another 50mm prime, a flash, about 3 batteries, and a body got tiring after a while. Let me tell you, hiking up the Grand Canyon where it's about 100° with 30lbs on your back is not the most pleasant thing in the world. Once the 70-200 sells, I'm getting a G16 as my hiking camera to save some weight

Victorious Secret > Stupidru
06/24/2014 at 11:47

Track day

Kinja'd!!!

Stupidru > Victorious Secret
06/24/2014 at 11:55

Excellent! Which track?

ttyymmnn > Victorious Secret
06/25/2014 at 10:49

I've been shooting with a Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC since Christmas (best Christmas gift ever). It's excellent, and $1000 less than the Canon. It's an wonderful lens, and a very good option if you don't have the coin for the Canon. But I've always wanted one of those. Great for sports, air shows, and shooting across dim rooms at school assemblies, etc. What body are you using?

ttyymmnn > Victorious Secret
06/25/2014 at 10:52

Check out the Black Rapid over-the-shoulder strap. It connects securely to the tripod screw, and the camera hangs at your side. I carried my Tamron 70-200 and another camera with a 17-50 all over DC recently and had no problems.

Stephen the Canuck > ttyymmnn
06/25/2014 at 13:08

I've used a Sigma 7-200 f/2.8 non-IS, and I really liked it. I would love you pick one up. Used, I can probably get one for around $500. The Canon seems like it would be amazing, but the price is way overkill for what I would do with it.

Stephen the Canuck > Victorious Secret
06/25/2014 at 13:08

ttyymmnn > Stephen the Canuck
06/25/2014 at 13:12

My brother owns that exact lens, and he loaned it to me for a time when I was trying to decide between it and the Tamron. Generally, I liked it very much, but I found myself needing the IS, particularly with the indoor shooting I do at my boys' school (I'm the PTA Historian). I did find, though, that the Sigma was a bit soft for my liking when wide open, and I think the Tamron is better there. Though it really shines when stopped down to f/4-5. As does the Sigma.

Stephen the Canuck > ttyymmnn
06/26/2014 at 13:18

Hmmm. I've never tried the Tamron. It's probably worth a shot though.

ttyymmnn > Stephen the Canuck
06/26/2014 at 13:47

For the price, I think it's an exceptional lens. Here are a couple of shots I took with it, using a Canon 40D.

Kinja'd!!!

Stephen the Canuck > ttyymmnn
06/26/2014 at 18:19

Those look pretty darn good. I think the value for the price is far better than the Canon.

ttyymmnn > Stephen the Canuck
06/26/2014 at 18:40

The reviews for this lens have been very positive. Not as quite as high ranked as the Canon, but that's no surprise. Tamron has been making great strides in the area of affordable, quality lenses. I have their 17-50 f/2.8, and it's excellent. As for the 70-200, AF is quick and accurate. In fact, I don't shoot in AI Servo at all, only One Shot. The lens misses occasionally, but it's rare. While it does shoot at 2.8, stopping it down can make a significant difference. I usually shoot at about f/5.0. But when you need the speed indoors, it delivers. And no, I don't work for Tamron. I'm just high on their quality for value.

Here's another shot from the same air show, this time of something going by at speed.

Kinja'd!!!

Canon 40D, 200mm, f/9.0 (Av), ISO 200, 1/500 sec.

Stephen the Canuck > ttyymmnn
06/26/2014 at 21:25

That's pretty impressive that you can just shoot in One Shot. The guy that has the Sigma 70-200mm I've used has the Sigma 17-55mm f/2.8 too. I've gotten to use that a bit too. It's pretty nice too.

You may not work for Tamron, but they should be paying you. You're very positive about them. It's really good to hear that third party lenses can do so well. From what I have been reading/seeing, Sigma has been making huge strides lately too with their Art series. Tamron definitely seems to be a valid choice too. I'm pretty much going to be spoiled for options when I get the proper budget levels.

ttyymmnn > Stephen the Canuck
06/26/2014 at 22:14

By brother is very high on the Sigma lenses, even though he's the one who turned me on to Tamron. He's shooting a Sigma f/1.4 (not sure of the mm) and speaks very highly of it. I think both manufacturers are pretty neck and neck in their market. I think you'd do well in either camp.

Stephen the Canuck > ttyymmnn
06/27/2014 at 05:38

That's what I'm thinking too. Either way, $1500 is easier to stomach than $2500. It's nice to see other companies producing excellent products too.

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Victorious Secret
07/02/2014 at 13:59

New Challenger:

85mm f/1.2L II

Kinja'd!!!

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Stephen the Canuck
07/03/2014 at 14:53

There's always the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS), but if you need that extra stop of light, then yeah, better off with the sigma. Unless you prefer primes, then you could try and find a used 200mm f/2.8L for a decent price! :)

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Baber K. Khan
07/03/2014 at 14:55

I realize now that you are talking about the EF-S lens, but at first I was like "telephoto and almost circular fisheye to not quite fisheye zoom? What?". I don't have much experience with EF-S lenses, so I'll leave it at that.

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Stephen the Canuck
07/03/2014 at 15:19

In reference to my other comment about if you prefer primes, finding a 200mm f/2.8L for cheap...

Kinja'd!!!

Here you go . $484; EX condition.

Baber K. Khan > iforgotmyburnerkeyonce
07/03/2014 at 17:33

10-22 EF-S is a great lens for landscape and cars photography. You don't need to move further back to get everything. Great lens. We have had problems when shooting while moving in cars that our shadows was in the frame as well, but nothing we couldn't manage. Try it out for once. You'll like it. Then you have the 70-200 for shots that are further out while you're moving in the car. I don't personally like fish eye.

Link

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Baber K. Khan
07/03/2014 at 18:36

I can't really justify dropping the coin into an EF-S lens right now, seeing as only one of my bodies is EF-S... BUT. Doing the math, 10-22 is about 16-35mm on a 35mm and I have had the opportunity to briefly own a 17-40mm f/4L and borrow a 16-35mm f/2.8L, I do enjoy the wide angles, but the part that gets me most about those lenses is the amount of distortion at the wider angles. Personally, it's not my taste. However, the 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye is one of my favorite lenses to borrow from TheGirlfriend, especially since going FF, as it's wide, and yes, there's distortion, but that's the point.

Different strokes, I suppose.

Either way, you're right, wide angle lenses are great for car shows and landscapes, but if you're talking about a doing a feature shoot with one car... well, that's a different story.

Baber K. Khan > iforgotmyburnerkeyonce
07/03/2014 at 18:54

Yeah. Even though I don't get in the technical aspects because I am not pro, just do it for the hobby and especially, to try and catch everything in its glory. I borrow even the body for a friend. My whole Karakoram trip was taken through a broken body (no a/f) and a kit lens. It more depends on your imagination, patience and framing for a shot than any equipment you know. But yeah, you're right. Cheers!

Stephen the Canuck > iforgotmyburnerkeyonce
07/03/2014 at 21:24

I'm not a huge prime fan, though I do like my 50mm f/1.8. I do like the sound of the 70-200 f4L, except I don't particularly care for the white colour. I know it's Canon's signature, but I'd prefer black with the red ring.

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Stephen the Canuck
07/07/2014 at 09:45

Black, red ring, and telephoto zoom?

I have just what you need to look for.

Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L (AKA the "Magic Drainpipe")

Black? Check

Red Ring? Check

Telephoto Zoom? Check

USM motor? No check. That's the only thing that stops me from picking one up every time I see it pop up.

Usually they pop up on KEH for $800-$900, but this weekend I saw not one, but THREE used on Amazon for around that price range.

It's funny, because I'm actually in the market for a full-frame telephoto right now, so I've been looking at so many different options it's not even funny. Other than the Magic Drainpipe and the 200mm f/2.8L, I'm pretty sure every telephoto that Canon makes/made over 135mm is off-white. Something about heat resistance or something. Personally, I'm having trouble deciding if I like the white or not. On one hand, I want something different, but the alpha male complex says I want people to know that it's a nice Canon. Decisions, decisions.

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Baber K. Khan
07/07/2014 at 09:53

Agreed, that it depends mostly on the photographer. I believe it was Chase (Nikon-loving) Jarvis that said "The best camera is the one that's with you".

I have a 6D, 1D Mark II N, and a T2i for digital, and an AE-1 and EOS 650 for film. The other day, I wanted to shoot telephoto, but the only lenses I have for telephoto are the EF-S 55-250mm f/4.5-5.6 IS II and the Vivitar FD 75-205mm f/3.5. I didn't want to shoot film, so I was stuck with the T2i. The thought of using such a low end body and lens relative to what I have was nausea inducing, especially when I thought about the lens (after using a couple L primes, I'm spoiled).

But, I took it out anyways, and I got some really cool shots. Even though I could see every imperfection with the lens, especially how sharpness was only acceptable at the center of the frame, I learned to work with it and got the shots that I wanted. It actually renewed my interest in using that body, though I still don't like the lens.

So the next day, I borrowed TheGirlfriend's 70-200 f/2.8L and slapped it on the 1D Mark II N. Even though the body is only 8 megapixels, it only taught me to frame the shot correctly the first time instead of relying on post-processing crops.

Sorry for ranting, but I guess the moral of my story is this: Using a bad camera only makes you a better photographer, especially if you work through the equipment's flaws. That's the reason I think that a lot of people, myself included, learn a lot from using a prime lens for the first time. Losing the ability to zoom forces you to get creative!

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Stephen the Canuck
07/07/2014 at 16:36

And now there's one less available on Amazon (WOOH! Waiting sucks!)

Stephen the Canuck > iforgotmyburnerkeyonce
07/07/2014 at 20:15

Sounds like a nice lens. Maybe I can find one next year after saving up a bit. You ordered one I take it. Gotta move fast eh?

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Stephen the Canuck
07/08/2014 at 08:29

Yeah, I actually thought they were pretty easy to come across, seeing as I've seen at least 3 that have popped up on KEH over the past year, and another 3 that were on Amazon this weekend, but after placing my order, I took another look...

There's none available on KEH

There's now only 1 on Amazon

And I wen't through 26 pages of the Fred Miranda buy/sell forum, finding absolutely no references to it. I know they're getting rarer, but I didn't know that they were becoming that rare.

After reading reviews about it, my doubts about it having an arc-drive motor have been put to rest, as they've been shown to focus only slightly slower than the new USM motors. Sure, they might be a bit noisier, but I can stand that (the only USM lens I have now is the 85/1.2L II).

One reviewer put it like this: (I'm paraphrasing): I can lock focus in AI Servo on birds in flight, cars on a track, and most moving objects, no problem. If it loses focus, it takes a second to regain it, but I'm using a 5D Mark II, which doesn't really have autofocus anyways.

All of the other reviews that I've read have said that it's:

1. Built like a tank

2. Heavy as a tank (Specs say it's only slightly heavier than the 70-200 f/2.8L (non-IS))

3. Extremely sharp
4. Amazing color reproduction; slightly warmer than most zooms

5. So sharp that the only current telephoto zoom that matches/slightly beats it is the current 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, which costs a while $2,000 more.

So I pulled the trigger on the Magic Drainpipe, as well as a 300mm f/4L IS USM, which I'll use for wildlife/longer reach.

I'm quite happy with my new kit, being a 6D, 1DIIN, T2i, and a:

35mm f/2

50mm f/1.8 (Metal mount) (I came very close to getting the 50/1.2L to match my 85)

85mm f/1.2L II USM

80-200mm f/2.8L

300mm f/4L IS USM

That setup should cover most of my shooting ranges, though I might pick up a 20/1.8 USM for a wider angled lens. Given that I shoot events/weddings professionally (now, I'm excited, as TheGirlfriend and I are finally getting our shit together on this photography thing)
Next lens I plan to purchase is the 200mm f/1.8L USM, if I can find one. Currently there's 2 on KEH going for... Wow, what a shock. KEH updated their website, and sold both of the 200/1.8L's since last night. They're rare to come by, but the fastest 200mm EF mount lens Canon ever made. Usually running about $4500.

Why must photo gear be such a drain on my wallet?

quarterlifecrisis > Victorious Secret
07/08/2014 at 08:59

A little delayed in my response (like 2 or 3 weeks...meh). I love that lens. It's what I rent every time I go to the track (I have the same body you do it seems). For what I do, it's perfect. Maybe one of these days I'll try something a little longer too, but for motorsports, it + the 7D's killer AF are perfect (for me).

Stephen the Canuck > iforgotmyburnerkeyonce
07/08/2014 at 19:53

Because it's worth it for the quality? It's definitely been shocking to see the price of things since I got into photography, I never would have guessed.

It sounds like you have a pretty solid setup, and a love of prime lenses. Haha. Rare and expensive seem to characteristics of old quality, in almost every market for objects.

Congratulations on going pro. Good luck!

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Stephen the Canuck
07/09/2014 at 08:48

Ahh quality is worth the price. People who aren't into photography look at me funny when I say "oh, man, I should upgrade to a 50mm f/1.4 USM... They're only about $300 used!"

Or more so when I was looking at telephotos... Actual interaction between my grandma and me:

"Oh, I'm just looking at getting a telephoto lens..."

"Well, there's always Christmas!"

"I don't think I've been $1,500 good this year..."

"Holy— Honey, you've been that good, but that's way too much for any Christmas"

"Yeah, that's why I'm looking at them now."

And yes, I do love prime lenses! Fast apertures are awesome, but I can't deny the useability of a (70/80)-200 lens. Primes are awesome, but that zoom will probably be one of my main workhorses.

I started cringing when I started looking at tele-primes, and saw that the one's I could afford were somewhere between f/4 and f/5.6, and that the even cheaper option was a zoom with a f/4-5.6 or f/5.6-6.3 aperture. I'm still a little aprehensive of the 300mm f/4, seeing as it's 2 stops slower than my slowest prime, and 3 1/3 stops slower than my fastest...

Made me decide my next lens will be the 200mm f/1.8L USM. It's ONLY $4,500-$5,000

And thanks! It's not what I thought it'd be (I'm still sore after long shoots just because heavy camera and mental drain), but it's still better than what I do for my day job. By not what I thought it'd be, I mean it's like a second, part-time job. Work full-time Monday through Friday, then do photo work all weekend, be it shooting, editing, or working on setting up/updating our website. Very rarely do I get to shoot for pleasure anymore, but I've started getting to work earlier during the week so I can sneak out to the nature preserves while TheGirlfriend is at school at night :)

Stephen the Canuck > iforgotmyburnerkeyonce
07/09/2014 at 15:39

Yeah, that's basically what I hear when I start talking about photo gear to my girlfriend. Although she did gift me the photo backpack I have, and my 50mm f1.8. So she helps out.

I do love my 50mm f1.8. Very fast, and I can just move around to frame the photo how I want. It works for me, although I do enjoy my 70-300mm lens.

Yeah, that sounds about right from all I've been hearing and reading about having a photography business. From what I understand, it is very good and healthy to still make time for personal shoots/projects.

Does this mean we'll be getting photography business related posts from you?

iforgotmyburnerkeyonce > Stephen the Canuck
07/09/2014 at 16:06

Heh, I'm not sure if I want to write business related posts, given that the kinja was started as a sort of hobby, but I may include some tips in my posts, such as how to get more exposure (pardon the pun).

I like writing about the technical and intricate aspects of shooting, which can help people become better photographers. I guess it's up to the readers to apply the given information to go pro.

Even though I probably wont explicitly write about photography business, I will answer any questions :)

Stephen the Canuck > iforgotmyburnerkeyonce
07/09/2014 at 16:10

I like the pun. Keep that up and your posts may get some recommendations. Tips never hurt for people who want to learn.

If I come up with any questions I'll ask them. I'm not planning to make photography a job for me. My skill level is no where near as good as necessary as that. I'm still at the stage where I'm using luck to get good shots.