Canon's Latest 70-200mm f2.8 IS II (and Which to Choose!)

Most Canon shooters know that a version 2 of the 70-200mm 2.8 IS lens was released earlier this year, and we also know that Canon shot the price up several hundred bucks. One of the big questions is if it's worth it. I took the plunge two weeks ago, sold my non-IS 2.8 (to a fellow NPN'er) and got the new IS version II. Bottom line: the improvements are worth every dollar, to my surprise and delight.

I'll give some details as to WHY it's worth it, but there is one con that nature photogs need to know up front if you hike a lot: the thing weighs nearly as much as a John Deere tractor with a six-foot ripper attached to the rear. Walking around for an hour with it even mounted on my lighter-weight 5D MKII gets old kinda quick. Seriously, the build is amazing, if I dropped this lens and it got run over by a Ford F150, that Ford owner would be footing the bill for front-end work. This lens is a tank. So hiker/shooters probably want to stay with the light f4 versions which are also extremely good image quality. And at f14 on a tripod on the north face of Mt. Jefferson, the heavy 2.8 adds no advantage.

OK, some details: My main focus is about image quality, and to be honest I was hesitant at first to get this lens. My 2.8 non-IS was a RAZOR with my 5D Mark II, superb image quality. Plus, the original IS version allegedly doesn't quite have the image quality when used with a 21mp sensor which is often the topic of many forums (don't shoot the messenger!). BUT, based on reviews of the new model, I decided to give Version II a go. BOTTOM LINE: Not only did Canon get this II version up to par in sharpness and contrast, they EXCEEDED it. This lens is from another planet, the quality is amazing. The focus is FAST and dead on, no microadjustment needed. The IS truly is greatly improved over version I, it really does give a 4-stop advantage. When you open images in PS or LR shot with this new lens, there's quite a good "Whoa" factor. What's really impressive is the IQ when shooting wide open, you'd never know this was a zoom lens. The bokeh at 2.8 is addicting.

The lens hood has even been improved, it locks in place with a button release. The switches on the lens body are also better, can't be easily bumped.

The $64K question: should you upgrade? Answer is, depends. If you are shooting stills and no video at all (amazing how that is a standard subject these days) and you are not shooting hand-held in low light such as a wedding with no flash, then you probably don't need the IS version. In fact, if you are shooting on a tripod mainly, then defintely spend only half the money and get the non-IS 2.8, because that lens has amazing image quality (I used it for 3 years). But if you do a lot of hand-held work, the improved IS is really good... I'm talking usable images shot at 1/30 of a second at 200mm! (of course, there's no advantage if your subject is moving fast). If you are also shooting video, you have no choice, you want the new IS version. What blew me away was being able to shoot video, hand-held, at 200mm. You want to use 1/50 shutter speed when shooting 24fps video, and while that shutter speed is slow for 200mm focal length, the new version can do it sharply! That's seriously good IS!

Summary: Both the non-IS and the new IS v2 NOW have equally good sharpness, color and contrast, there's no more gap. It all comes down to IS. So:

* If you need that Swiss Army Knife workhorse for all kinds of shooting environments, then save for the new v2 and grit teeth and get the big purchase over with, and from that point you will be one happy shooter because this lens won't disappoint. You might even gain some impressive biceps after the first month of use.

* If you're 95% on a tripod and shoot no handheld video, get or stick with the non-IS. Plus in daylight you have such fast shutter speeds, IS isn't necessary there either.

* If you hike and live in the Cascades 200 days a year, the lighter f4 is a killer lens. Skip the 2.8, I'm convinced it's made of lead with a cement inner core.

If you're shopping for that 70-200mm workhorse, I hope this review helps the decision-making process go a bit easier. I know the new version is expensive (I'm still eating Ramen Noodles for lunch), but rest assured you're going to have one of the best 70-200's made to date. And don't forget that the $200 rebate expires 1/8/2011... got mine at B&H, free shipping, and they pack their boxes very well unlike Amazon's Nevada warehouse where most photo equipment ships from.

Paul, I couldn't agree more with your review which is real good. One thing to add to it is the new IS is near silent!

You're absolutely right, forgot all about that! The classic Whirr & Klunk are no more.

So - you will be getting us each a copy to verify your review.



Right?



Right?

I wish I could, lol! Everybody needs one of these... I tell ya, if I had an unknown uncle that passed on and left me a few billion, there certainly would be B&H gift cards going out to all members, in a New York minute!

Thanks for the review. I am planing an early January purchase. This helps me justify it.

Sorry for the double post, but I just looked up the weight of the new lens. 3.5 lbs is about the same as the 100-400 I have been using for years. Seriously, once you get used to it the weight is not a big deal. I am 63 years old and routinely carry my 500 f4 on my 1D4 with a tripod. One of the prices we pay for good glass is size and weight -- oh -- and spending more $$ as well

I recently sold my old 70 - 200mm f4.0 non IS lens and upgraded to this new lens which I lusted after for years and years. The price definitely steep, but I would agree with everyone else - it is SO worth it. I love this lens, despite the weight. However, I'm used to carrying around my 100 - 400 so it's was pretty easy for me to get used to. The image quality is so sweet! If you were like me, wanting it for many years, I would say, "GO FOR IT"!! You won't be disappointed.

Your wait was worth it Audrey, these optics in version 2 are super, aren't they?

Take some winners!