Canon Telephoto Zoom EF IS USM Lens

Amazing Lens

Posted Aug 25, 2005 - Expensive but worth every penny. I also own a 70-200mm F4. After using that lens for about a year, that became my most favoriate lens, but sometime that lens is just not fast enough in indoor/low light situations. Finally I broke down and bought this 70-200mm F2.8 IS and never regret. With IS turned on, I can hand hold this lens at 200mm end using 1/50 second shutter speed and still get a sharp image. I can only get a sharp image at 1/250 without IS. Combined with a faster F2.8 and a little help from higher ISO settings (ISO400/800), I can take pictures of the baby in the house with normal lighting! Very nice color and beautiful boken. Fast and quiet autofocus. If you are looking for a good quality telephoto lens, this is the one.

100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

I have been reading reviews and seeing performance ...

Posted Jun 23, 2005 - I have been reading reviews and seeing performance ratings on this lens for a long time. I finally decided to make the purchase and am very pleased. The weight is not too bad and it feels good in hand.

100% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

The adage is true: you get what you pay for. The ...

Posted Apr 12, 2005 - The adage is true: you get what you pay for. The lens is quick, agile and durable. It's performance in low(er) light situations is superb, even in situations demanding faster shutter speeds (e.g., indoor sports photography). The 70-200 range makes the lens very versatile. Pay the extra for the IS (vis a vis the standard F2.8 model).

97% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

I 100% recommend this len to anyone!!! it's worth ...

Posted Dec 29, 2004 - I 100% recommend this len to anyone!!! it's worth every single penny you pay for it. If your goal is the top of the line picture quality, this len is your answer. I know the price of 1600 is not nice, but with the rebate upto $150, it is even worth it!!! and you get what you pay for. With the IS, you can even take sharper picture than the one without IS. Both lens are good, but if you take a lot of picture without tripod, you should go with this one. Does the IS worth it? Oh yes.

95% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

Expensive as hell but worth it!

Posted Aug 30, 2005 - If you are debating whether to buy this lens, and/or if the image stabilizer is worth the extra cost, worry no more! It produces super sharp images handheld and with no effort on the part of the shooter. You can just point and shoot! You don't have to play around with settings. It's that easy to get "keepers". The truth is I don't use this lens a lot but when I do, I am always confident of getting the shot I want. Let's face it. Not every picture that one takes is "perfect". Many times, you're rushed and/or the subject might be moving. So I was shocked when I took my first few shots with this lens and they all came out picture perfect sharp! This is where the image stabilizer comes into play! I am not a professional photographer but one big advantage of carrying this lens around is the access it affords me. I've jumped into parades and gotten to the front of public events simply because everyone (including security, officials, police) thought I was there doing my job! The main disadvantage besides the price (I paid $1565 USD) is the weight. It's not hard to carry around all day but if you use this lens a lot, it will seem very heavy! That's because you have to lug around this lens while it's attached to your camera body. You also have to balance the camera and frame the shot. If this lens was sitting in your backpack while you walked around all day, this lens is not heavy! You don't need to be a bodybuilder or in shape to carry and use this lens. Do professional photographers look like athletes? No! The other drawback is the attention (both positive and negative) that you receive when people see a big white lens! I've been called names. I've been stopped by police (understandable considering 9/11). On a funny note, whenever I wear my sunglasses, people don't bother me as much! For the amateur and/or hobbyist considering whether to buy this lens... Do you need this lens? No! Could you do without it? Yes! Should you buy it? No? But if you can afford it, the "results" do speak for themselves! If you're going to spend this much money for something you may not use often, you expect results, perfect results! On this note, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens delivers!

93% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

The image quality is amazing!

Posted Jul 7, 2005 - Wow! It might not be the most graceful lens to use during public occasions (I used during my friend's wedding), but it gives amazing resolution, color quality and reliability given the Image Stabilization. I was able to get shots picking up pimples on peoples face (not intentionally) :) IS makes you feel like you are really in control of the scene, tripod optional for few situations. I have used Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, which I love very much; in contrast, Canon 20-700mm 2.8 L IS tops it on the far end of the zoom in almost every respect. Some of the shots near 70mm range tend to be a bit 'soft' for my taste, but a 2-3mm change usually fixes that. Portraits come out 'lick-your-fingers' crisp. I am yet to check it out for sporting events. I believe that this lens is a serious investment in terms of bulid, image quality for any serious photographer. I highly recommend it.

92% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

one of the best lenses I have bought, very good fo ...

Posted Dec 17, 2004 - one of the best lenses I have bought, very good for portrait, sports and wildlife, I haven´t seen any distortion, vigneting or other flaws in pictures taken with this lens. it´s one of the best lenses from Canon, I also have the 17-40L f4 and the EF 50mm f1.4 but the 70-200L IS 2.8 is by far the best !

82% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

review for 70-200mm IS lens

Posted Aug 15, 2005 - Lots of things have been written about this lens. I’ve had mine for 9 month2 now and can confirm that it is all true. Heavy? Yes. Costly? Yes. Inconspicuous? No. You instantly forget all three as soon as you drool over your first set of images. Razor sharp, creamy bokeh, great IS. Simply awesome

80% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

Want a lens that will last?

Posted Mar 14, 2006 - It uses Inner focusing and is able to zoom without any changing in the physical dimensions on the outside. The "full time manual" focus allows for a larger ring to hold because it doesn't move when auto focusing and it also allows you to tweak the focus. Like any other Canon lens with Ultrasonic motors, this lens is quick and quiet. The image stabilization works like a charm. You can put your ear up to the lens and hit the focus button on your camera and hear the stabilizer kick in, it sounds like a piece of metal hitting metal and then a soothing hum. There are two settings on the lens, the first is for general correction and the second is for panning. The Ultra-low dispersion glass leaves you with a lens that you can shoot wide open in any light condition without the worry of chromatic aberration. Despite the camera you use I can guarantee you won't be disappointed with this lens. It maybe a bit heavy for some people but then again maybe they are holding the weight from the camera and not the lens or are still using their stock camera strap. I purchased a camera strap with a wide elastic part for your shoulder. I can't even tell I have got it on sometimes. You get what you pay for and yes it may be heavy bit is an extremely durable lens despite the technology packed inside. Well you know I would like to see a 70-200 in a faster model... maybe 70-200 2.0 or maybe a model with diffractive optics that would shorten the length of the lens. Still, it inst a weakness. Ive used this lens with the 10D, 20D, 1D and 1ds in the last three years, using it in the rain dropping it and I can say there is not a lens out their that can compare. Some people say that there are after market parts for cameras that are just as good. I agree, its called a camera strap or a bag. Sigma makes a wonderful lens. I have used them before but I have also broke them before. If you are using your equipment in an active working environment banging around with a second camera on your shoulder but something that will last. Justin Sligh Daytona Beach, FL

75% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

We say that the lens is "a gift from GOD". Usua ...

Posted May 4, 2005 - We say that the lens is "a gift from GOD". Usually they say that the only two weaknesses are a price and a weight. But after I used it, I think it's not heavy as I thought before. I think the only deficiency is the price. It has given so many awesome pictures so far although the conditions where I took those pictures were severely bad. This lens gave my family good memories and at the same time it made me as a famous photographer it this town. I really recommend you to try this lens.

75% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

I used to own 70-200 F4, which is a smaller versio ...

Posted Feb 5, 2005 - I used to own 70-200 F4, which is a smaller version of this amazing Canon lense. 70-200 USM IS is quite heavier than F4, but this is well compensated with its image stabilizer. I get crispy sharp images at as slow a shutter speed as 1/2 s. Amazing piece of equipment!!

73% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS USM

Posted Jul 12, 2005 - This is simply one of the best lenses I've ever used. The autofocus speed and image stabilizer make it a perfect lens to shoot sports or fast moving objects like autorace. The images produced by this lens are extremely SHARP!

67% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

Not good for sports

Posted Jun 21, 2006 - This is an excellent lens. It is perfect for weddings, so you can be out of the way, and still get the shot. The IS works well. Color and contrast, both great. I will use the 70-200mm with my 30d for close range work for field sports only good for around 35 yards worth of coverage. This is a review, so i'm being honest in saying, don't buy this lens if you indent to use it mainy for sports. It is not intended for field sports, such as football or soccer. Those games require at least 300mm. Look into the canon 300mm f4, it will focus much faster. A lot of people think this lens focuses fast. And if they haven't used a 300 or 400mm lens, i can see how they would think that. This lens is of the hightest quality and performance, but no one uses this lens professionaly to get killer football photos, unless they are within 25 yards or so, on the eos 1d mark II, since that camera only has a 1.3x making it a 260mm. Every 100mm gives you about 10 yards of coverage on a 6 foot subject. So at 260mm would give you 26 yards of coverage, BUT... the enzone is 10 yards right there, so you really can't get close enough to your subject to really blur out the background to isolate your subject like you can with someone more powerful lenses. I'm not allowed to reccommend other lenses, (i'm not sure why, cause i could get you into something much better IF you are looking to shoot sports), so with that being said, this lens will be excellent for anything besides sports. Fantastic color and contrast, with pretty good sharpness. The IS version was noticably sharper with out the IS elements. I would be able to VERY easily see the outline of my girl friend's contact lenses with a 6.3 mega pixel camera. With this IS version, i can sometimes see the outline and that's with 8.2 mega pixel! But it's sharper than anything else besides the non IS lens out there. I will make a lot of money with this lens at weddings, and journalism subjects, because for those subjects there is nothing better.

62% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

A wonderfull telephoto lens

Posted Aug 17, 2005 - This is a wonderfull lens, which produces ultra sharp pictures. It works very well in low light conditions with the IS. I have been using it a lot for candid portraits in weddings and my clients have been always impressed by the images quality. It was a perfect addition to my 50mm 1.4 and 17-40mm L lens, and again the results are stunning with my Canon 20D. If only the lens was not so expensive and so heavy!

57% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?

Comment about this review

very schweet lens

Posted Sep 10, 2007 - I had this for a week to test on my 400D against a Sigma 18-200 F3.5-F6.3 that I was trying to decide whether I wanted to keep or not. The F2.8 was much better, not only did I have to shoot the Sigma at around F8 just to get a decent shot from it, the F2.8 was better in all respects, faster, better IS, better focus reliability, sharper, just a wonderful lens. It was like the difference between travelling around the country in a RX7 and travelling around the country in a minivan. The RX7 is a lot smaller and lighter and more nimble, but you're just not going to sleep comfortably in an RX7. The Canon 70-200 F2.8 was not perfect but it was a lot brighter, obviously a lot faster, and focused a lot more consistently than the Sigma 18-200. Now having said that the F2.8 lens was so heavy that a number of times I didn't feel like "dragging" it over to a different spot to shoot. It was literally like carrying a 10 pound weight around all the time. Might have been ok if I had a strap for it, but still. It was good for sitting in my bag and using for really long shots, though, but, of course, there would be the occasional short-range shot that would make me pull it off...it was nice to play with for a week. Still not really long enough and still didn't focus 100% accurately (don't try to focus on a boat unless it fills the frame). I'll have to post some shots from it later.

33% of readers found this review helpful. Did you find it helpful , unhelpful, or inappropriate?