Yes, it comes with a tripod collar as all other 70-200 f/2.8's.
All reviews says it is a fantastic lens. The only I have seen is a slight reservation about the bokeh at f/2.8. I don't have the lens so I don't speak from my own experience. So far I still like the old Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS.
Hi David, I've been shooting the MK II version for 5-6 mos now and have to say that it is a bit sharper than the Mk I version. I can tell particularly in my portrait work. It seems to focus quicker as well. The IS is dead silent! No more clunking and whirring! None! Been using it on a 1Ds 3 and a 7D.
Ditto. I got the version 2 lens in November and the optical quality is stunning, equal to that of the 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS which has always been the sharpest of the bunch ( I used to own that one too ). The IS is much improved too, I can handhold and shoot video on my 5D2 at 200mm! I wrote up a review and comparison a couple months back if you feel like actually reading all my jibberish. It'll be obvious in the article that I'm a big fan of the 2.8 IS II, but if your plans are to shoot landscapes at f/14 on a tripod, get the f/4 for $750 and pick up a collar cheap on eBay. The image quality of the F4 line is excellent, some argue it's better than the f2.8 series. Bottom line is, it's that close.
Note to Steve Foss: If your V1 lens is as sharp as the new version, hold on to that puppy, you got yourself one stellar copy!
I shot the f2.8 II (rented) and the f4 IS USM side by side a couple of weeks ago. My experience is that the sharpness difference between them, from a practical standoint, is negligable. I couldnt tell a difference. That said, I did not shoot any brick walls .
The 2.8 aquires focus quicker than the f4 (of course). Both track AF similarly. The f4 is A LOT lighter and at the end of a week of comparison I preferred using my f4 ( thank goodness, now I dont feel compelled to buy an f2.8).
Definitely rent one and try it out before shelling out the $2500!
I do not have experience with previous versions of the 2.8.
Dave, I've had the non-IS and now the IS versions of the mark 1. For me the big difference is that because it's such a heavy lens, handholding is a challenge. With the IS version, I take quite a few more shots handheld now than I did before my non-IS version went for a swim. So for me the extra money for the IS version means quit a bit more use.
Dave,
I own the version 2 of this lens. Never owned previous versions or the f4. I am in love with it.
It is worth the extra $$ over the f4, if you plan to do portrait work. The IS is quiet and well worth it.
I read the reviews saying how heavy this is. When you see the results, you will never question the weight, period.
Quality lenses are heavier than kit lenses. It does come with a collar (although I hand hold mine), and lens hood.
Thanks for the replies, I ordered the canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS II, it is scheduled be delivered ths Tuesday, weight will not bother me, I have carried around the 100-400 for a few years now. I carry 2 cameras around most of the time anyway, I do some portrait some and I need a lens that will be better in low light...so, I bit the dust and bought it!
Dave,
I also own the 100-400 which is great in ideal lighting conditions.
The 70-200 just has a different use and priority in your camera bag.
I carry 3 camera bodies. Once I mounted the 70-200, it is my go to rig.
You will thank yourself. I remember the anticipation.........Congratulations!
Got the 70-200 2.8L IS II, it is great. It is difficult to discribe the difference the picture quality is when mounted on the Canon 7D. I guess I am pretty much set for most shooting conditions from wildlife. landscape and portraits. This gives me the following set up..
Canon 7D
Canon 40D
24-105L IS
70-200L IS II
100-400L IS
2x converter, and of course a tripod.
One day I hope to move up to one of the Canons Pro Camera's, but what I have gets the job done.
Again, thanks for the input!
Discussion
10 replies1. Does it come with a tripod collar?
2. For those who own it, what are your thoughts? How does it compare to the other canon 70-200 2.8s and 70-200 f4s?
I am wanting to get this lense, but is it worth the price over the cheaper versions?
Dave
All reviews says it is a fantastic lens. The only I have seen is a slight reservation about the bokeh at f/2.8. I don't have the lens so I don't speak from my own experience. So far I still like the old Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS.
Note to Steve Foss: If your V1 lens is as sharp as the new version, hold on to that puppy, you got yourself one stellar copy!
I shot the f2.8 II (rented) and the f4 IS USM side by side a couple of weeks ago. My experience is that the sharpness difference between them, from a practical standoint, is negligable. I couldnt tell a difference. That said, I did not shoot any brick walls
The 2.8 aquires focus quicker than the f4 (of course). Both track AF similarly. The f4 is A LOT lighter and at the end of a week of comparison I preferred using my f4 ( thank goodness, now I dont feel compelled to buy an f2.8).
Definitely rent one and try it out before shelling out the $2500!
I do not have experience with previous versions of the 2.8.
Mark
I own the version 2 of this lens. Never owned previous versions or the f4. I am in love with it.
It is worth the extra $$ over the f4, if you plan to do portrait work. The IS is quiet and well worth it.
I read the reviews saying how heavy this is. When you see the results, you will never question the weight, period.
Quality lenses are heavier than kit lenses. It does come with a collar (although I hand hold mine), and lens hood.
Dave
I also own the 100-400 which is great in ideal lighting conditions.
The 70-200 just has a different use and priority in your camera bag.
I carry 3 camera bodies. Once I mounted the 70-200, it is my go to rig.
You will thank yourself. I remember the anticipation.........Congratulations!
Steve
Canon 7D
Canon 40D
24-105L IS
70-200L IS II
100-400L IS
2x converter, and of course a tripod.
One day I hope to move up to one of the Canons Pro Camera's, but what I have gets the job done.
Again, thanks for the input!