| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/06/2004 10:39:14 PM · #1 |
Can any owners of the Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS share any NEGATIVE aspects of the lens that they've personally encountered?
Thanks in advance!:) |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 10:43:08 PM · #2 |
Well, it`s heavy, it`s expensive, it`s heavy...BUT it`s a fantastically sharp lens even wide open at f/2.8, my favourite lens to use.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2004 11:18:25 PM · #3 |
While I have the f4 version, I can say a few things as they both fall into the 'big white lens' category to the casual observer.
1. Expect to be conspicuous. With it and the hood on (and even moreso if you have an extender on) and inevitably the battery grip and flash etc...well you get the idea. It's big, it attracts attention and people will comment. It can be good or bad depending on the situation. When my girlfriend was rowing at the world champs in Spain this summer, I didn't have my press pass the first day but still walked onto the dock with the attitude that I was supposed to be there, held the camera in front of me and no questions were asked.
2. People are scared. Normal people aren't used to having a cannon (like, something that looks like a cross between dentistry equipment and a rocket launcher) pointed at them. It's no good explaining that they're not as sharp as the stubby little 50mm. Just get used to a reaction that isn't conducive to ease and relaxation in 90% of your subjects.
They're great lenses but best used for sports, wildlife and for taking pictures of kids and other people who aren't terribly self-conscious.
Message edited by author 2004-10-06 23:22:07. |
|
|
|
10/06/2004 11:59:28 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Jelloeye:
Can any owners of the Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS share any NEGATIVE aspects of the lens that they've personally encountered?
Thanks in advance!:) |
Personally, no. (I use the 70-200mm f/2.8 w/o IS).
Apparently, there is an error 1/99 issue which effects this lens and the EF 100-400 IS you may want to be informed about. You can search this site for the issue.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 12:04:55 AM · #5 |
What can I say, I love this lens. Yes, it's an attention-getter, but certainly not to the extent, of, say, a 400/2.8, LOL.
I don't find it too heavy to hand-hold. I used it all day at the zoo in August and didn't get tired of hand-holding it. same at Airventure in July.
I really can't think of a bad thing to say about this lens, other than it's not as sharp or as fast as a 200/1.8, but then again a 200/1.8 costs and weighs more, has no zoom, no IS, and is out of production to boot! |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 01:40:05 AM · #6 |
I can think of no drawbacks to the actual lens. Cost is the only prohibition in my mind as I don't mind carrying this around on the camera and shooting for hours on end. If I had to reach for one lens based on how much I like shooting with it; the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS would be the lens I'd pick. The 85 f/1.8 would come in a close second but the 70-200 has been my preferred lens since I got it.
The color rendition, the dof, sharpness and all with a zoom!
I'm satisfied with it in my bag. Ooooh. Wait a minute. That is one drawback; it takes a LOT of room in the bag. It's so tall that I really need another bag.
Kev
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 01:47:05 AM · #7 |
Yeah, I love that lens! Fantastic Bokeh, fantastic versatility, fast focusing, sharp even at f/2.8.
Examples wide open:
   
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 11:50:09 AM · #8 |
Thank you all for your valuable insights! I just wanted to make sure if the $800+- difference between the non-IS and IS is worth it and if there were any buggy negatives involved for paying the premium.
Oddly enough one of the main selling points for myself between the two lenses isn't necessarily the actual image-stablization aspect but i like the IS' different circular apperture than the non-IS which brings about the sweet bokeh that Dr. Nick mentioned (by the way great photos, thanks for sharing!).
Think I'll make the leap! Thanks guys!:)
Message edited by author 2004-10-07 11:59:19. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 12:34:33 PM · #9 |
IS comes in handy with digital..more so if you're wanting to make money, especially in low light conditions where digital is tricky.
I have the 75-300mm IS [not L] and it's got a lag on it that you have to get used to plus sloooow focus, I'm sure you wouldn't have that problem with the L glass, though. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 12:49:41 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
...I have the 75-300mm IS [not L] and it's got a lag on it that you have to get used to plus sloooow focus, I'm sure you wouldn't have that problem with the L glass, though. |
No lag and very fast focussing with the 70-200mm f/2.8L iS...
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 12:59:46 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
1. Expect to be conspicuous. With it and the hood on (and even moreso if you have an extender on) and inevitably the battery grip and flash etc...well you get the idea. It's big, it attracts attention and people will comment. |
Why don't yopu hang a small piece of camouflage cloth over your big camera and white lens, then noone will see it! ;-)
I'm jealous. In Germany the Lotto jackpot is 16000000 Euro this weekend. I think I'll play. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 02:42:19 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
IS comes in handy with digital..more so if you're wanting to make money, especially in low light conditions where digital is tricky.
I have the 75-300mm IS [not L] and it's got a lag on it that you have to get used to plus sloooow focus, I'm sure you wouldn't have that problem with the L glass, though. |
The IS on the 70-200 is a newer version than on the 75-300. I have both lenses and believe me the IS doesn̢۪t compare. The 70-200 IS mechanism seems to be quicker to kick-in, also it is visibly a lot more effective when you look the viewfinder and it's quieter too.
For me the only real down side to the 70-200 is the drop off in quality and focusing speed when combined with the 1.4x TC. But then again I can’t afford a fixed 300mm (any more) soâ€Â¦
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:07:17 PM · #13 |
On the subject of IS...I`ve recently purchased the 17-85mm IS lens and being new to this technology expected to encounter problems.
However,I`ve found that the only difference I notice from using my previous camera (Fuji602z)is that I can get clear images handheld at 1/20.
Absolutely no noise or any other sign to make me aware that the IS is in operation.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:11:12 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by geewhy:
On the subject of IS...I`ve recently purchased the 17-85mm IS lens and being new to this technology expected to encounter problems.
However,I`ve found that the only difference I notice from using my previous camera (Fuji602z)is that I can get clear images handheld at 1/20.
Absolutely no noise or any other sign to make me aware that the IS is in operation. |
Just a little clarification, Noise has nothing to do with IS, noise is a function of the ISO and the duration of the exposure. What IS does is it allows you to handhold a long lens at much lower shutter speeds than would be possible without IS.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:19:57 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Just a little clarification, Noise has nothing to do with IS, noise is a function of the ISO and the duration of the exposure. |
I'm guessing that geewhy was referring to sound noise, not grain noise. |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:21:10 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by geewhy:
On the subject of IS...I`ve recently purchased the 17-85mm IS lens and being new to this technology expected to encounter problems.
However,I`ve found that the only difference I notice from using my previous camera (Fuji602z)is that I can get clear images handheld at 1/20.
Absolutely no noise or any other sign to make me aware that the IS is in operation. |
Just a little clarification, Noise has nothing to do with IS, noise is a function of the ISO and the duration of the exposure. What IS does is it allows you to handhold a long lens at much lower shutter speeds than would be possible without IS. |
I think Gordon meant mechanical noise from the system? |
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:23:58 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by doctornick:
Just a little clarification, Noise has nothing to do with IS, noise is a function of the ISO and the duration of the exposure. |
I'm guessing that geewhy was referring to sound noise, not grain noise. |
Oops my mistake!
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:39:51 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by doctornick:
Just a little clarification, Noise has nothing to do with IS, noise is a function of the ISO and the duration of the exposure. |
I'm guessing that geewhy was referring to sound noise, not grain noise. |
Oops my mistake! |
No problem Nick...yes, I was referring to mechanical noise that seems to have been apparent in some lenses with IS...judging by previous posts.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2004 03:57:44 PM · #19 |
I just Bought the 70-200L f2.8 IS USM...
this is probably the best lens I have ever seen, so sharp, it's almost scarry. the IS noise (audible noise) is not loud...but it is bizarre on the first few shots....
the one negative...is the weight... oh and the price.
Message edited by author 2004-10-07 16:02:42.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 07:31:43 PM EDT.
