Canon 70-200 2.8 II in stock at B&H

Jon Fairhurst · March 11th, 2010, 09:00 PM

I'm not surprised. Just as the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are like siblings, the 135/2L and 200/2.8L share the same DNA. I own the 200L and it's wonderful. If the 135L is better, it must be freaking amazing.

Erik Andersen · March 11th, 2010, 11:09 PM

The 70-200 f/2.8 I is gorgeous but a tad soft wide open (not as sharp as the f/4.0 at equal apertures). Apparently this is one of the things addressed in the Mark II, according to a Canon rep Kevin Shahinian spoke to. That's exciting. Up against primes even the best zooms look soft.

Anyone expect the price to drop a couple hundred in the coming months?

Denise Wall · March 12th, 2010, 06:57 AM

"Up against primes even the best zooms look soft."

Not this zoom according to this review. Check it out:

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

Wayne Avanson · March 12th, 2010, 08:51 AM

I concur with Erik. I have the 70-200 2.8 L IS and my mate has the 70-200 4.0 We've shot the same stuff together with both 5D2s set up identically, and his footage is definitely sharper.

I was surprised at this at first, but have seen it mentioned here a couple of times before.

Maybe the new 2.8 is actually sharper but at that price, I still wouldn't bother to trade 'up'.

Incidentally, while we're talking favourite lenses, I am blown away every time by my 85mm 1.8. Can't put my finger on it, but there's just something about it… luvverlee…

Avey

Brant Gajda · March 12th, 2010, 09:04 AM

Yes the 85mm 1.8 is a awesome bargain for the price. The image quality it takes is phenomenal.

@ 1.8

Denise Wall · March 12th, 2010, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Avanson

I concur with Erik. I have the 70-200 2.8 L IS and my mate has the 70-200 4.0 We've shot the same stuff together with both 5D2s set up identically, and his footage is definitely sharper.

Is it the new IS version of the 70-200mm f4? I'm considering that lens for video on the 7D. I'd like something lighter than the 2.8.

Maybe you don't have a good copy of the 70-200 2.8IS?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Avanson

Incidentally, while we're talking favourite lenses, I am blown away every time by my 85mm 1.8. Can't put my finger on it, but there's just something about it… luvverlee…

Avey

I have an 85mm 1.8 too and I really like it but mine is not a good copy. It's never been quite right on any DSLR I've owned, including the 1DMII.

Erik Andersen · March 12th, 2010, 02:16 PM

Just on the topic of "bad copies," this is a very interesting read. It's usually not the glass itself but rather other aspects of manufacture that causes flaws in lenses. Sometimes it's the camera.

LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other FACTS

Denise Wall · March 12th, 2010, 02:45 PM

It was an interesting read. This statement sums it up for me:

From:

LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other FACTS

"I believe we now have camera sensors and optical designs that are simply too good for the current standards of mass-production."

Tim Polster · March 12th, 2010, 04:27 PM

With all of the pixel peeping, there is not much room for error.

If I am buying a lens, I will pay more to go to a local shop with my camera and a laptop to find a good copy (or at least that goes well with my camera(s)).

The micro adjustment feature helps compared to past models.

Been reading posts about the 70-200 II. It is supposed to be better wide open but $2,500 is a fair amount to pay.

This level of image quality is kind of on the cusp of "normal" people ever even noticing compared to the 70-200 I.

March 11th, 2010, 09:00 PM	#16
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	I'm not surprised. Just as the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are like siblings, the 135/2L and 200/2.8L share the same DNA. I own the 200L and it's wonderful. If the 135L is better, it must be freaking amazing. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

March 11th, 2010, 11:09 PM	#17
Erik Andersen Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 218	The 70-200 f/2.8 I is gorgeous but a tad soft wide open (not as sharp as the f/4.0 at equal apertures). Apparently this is one of the things addressed in the Mark II, according to a Canon rep Kevin Shahinian spoke to. That's exciting. Up against primes even the best zooms look soft. Anyone expect the price to drop a couple hundred in the coming months? __________________ Canon 5D Mark II \|\| L-Series Lenses \|\| Steadicam Pilot \|\| Final Cut Studio www.lovestorymedia.com

March 12th, 2010, 02:16 PM	#22
Erik Andersen Major Player Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Vancouver Canada Posts: 218	Just on the topic of "bad copies," this is a very interesting read. It's usually not the glass itself but rather other aspects of manufacture that causes flaws in lenses. Sometimes it's the camera. LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other FACTS __________________ Canon 5D Mark II \|\| L-Series Lenses \|\| Steadicam Pilot \|\| Final Cut Studio www.lovestorymedia.com

March 12th, 2010, 06:57 AM	#18
Denise Wall Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Advance, NC Posts: 153	"Up against primes even the best zooms look soft." Not this zoom according to this review. Check it out: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS Lens Review

March 12th, 2010, 08:51 AM	#19
Wayne Avanson Major Player Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Lancashire UK Posts: 496	I concur with Erik. I have the 70-200 2.8 L IS and my mate has the 70-200 4.0 We've shot the same stuff together with both 5D2s set up identically, and his footage is definitely sharper. I was surprised at this at first, but have seen it mentioned here a couple of times before. Maybe the new 2.8 is actually sharper but at that price, I still wouldn't bother to trade 'up'. Incidentally, while we're talking favourite lenses, I am blown away every time by my 85mm 1.8. Can't put my finger on it, but there's just something about it… luvverlee… Avey

March 12th, 2010, 09:04 AM	#20
Brant Gajda Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 113	Yes the 85mm 1.8 is a awesome bargain for the price. The image quality it takes is phenomenal. @ 1.8

March 12th, 2010, 02:45 PM	#23
Denise Wall Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Advance, NC Posts: 153	It was an interesting read. This statement sums it up for me: From: LensRentals.com - "This lens is soft" and other FACTS "I believe we now have camera sensors and optical designs that are simply too good for the current standards of mass-production."

March 12th, 2010, 04:27 PM	#24
Tim Polster Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 2,231	With all of the pixel peeping, there is not much room for error. If I am buying a lens, I will pay more to go to a local shop with my camera and a laptop to find a good copy (or at least that goes well with my camera(s)). The micro adjustment feature helps compared to past models. Been reading posts about the 70-200 II. It is supposed to be better wide open but $2,500 is a fair amount to pay. This level of image quality is kind of on the cusp of "normal" people ever even noticing compared to the 70-200 I.