Canon's white 70-200mm 'L' lenses


If money isn't an objection, I'd still go with what I own, the 2.8IS mk1, and spend the rest on other things. Photog gear, if needed.
If money is no object, why not buy both, so you can comment with first-hand experience on the differences between the two models. ;-)

Or, i'd buy EF 200mm f/2L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. :-p~~
 

Last edited:
If money is no object, why not buy both, so you can comment with first-hand experience on the differences between the two models. ;-)

Or, i'd buy EF 200mm f/2L IS USM, EF 135mm f2 USM, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. :-p~~

:bsmilie::bsmilie:
 

Sorry guys, the question meant - Choose the one which you need, not want. Is it clearer now?

Canon has multiple 70-200mm lenses to choose from. We have the luxury to choose (but also have a higher tendency to have headaches) but which one do you really need? Quite a number of bros here gave very interesting and insightful comments :thumbsup:
 

If money is no object, why not buy both, so you can comment with first-hand experience on the differences between the two models. ;-)

Or, i'd buy EF 200mm f/2L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. :-p~~

200 f/2 too big to bring around, 85L II crazy back element flush with the mount - too scary to use in quick lens changes, 135L no IS for the times when I need ^^
 

for me, it is the f/2.8 IS anytime. How i landed this in my possession is still a blur to me (out to get the f/4 but ended up with the f/2.8).

yes, it is 2x the weight of f/4 IS, but have gotten used to it already. most importantly, really appreciate the fact that it is at f/2.8 where I have shot at extremely cloudy or dimly-lit conditions overseas.
 

ooh this is really interesting. The number of votes for F2.8 II jumped up by a lot
 

Maybe a lot of users "want" the 2.8 to the point where they convince themselves that it is now a "need"? Anyway, how one chooses to spend one's own money is one's own choice.

For me, it's the f/4 IS.
 

I didn't vote for this poll....

Currently I own a 70-200 F2.8 IS USM MK1... So far is servicing me well...
But if $$$ not a concern I'll get a MK2 and do a review of both lens.

Actually the weight is not really a concern for me..
been using monopod with my MK1.
and carry it is really not a problem for me....

I dont really understand why ppl keep saying is heavy and dont willing to carry or bring it out for shots.:dunno:
 

I don't know, i'm a small "boy" and i hand hold the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM all day and i can't figure out what's the big deal. It's not an EF 500mm f/4L. Sore maybe, but never felt outright exhausted.

Surely running around with FBO and M-16/SAR-21 would have been heavier....
 

I didn't vote for this poll....

Currently I own a 70-200 F2.8 IS USM MK1... So far is servicing me well...
But if $$$ not a concern I'll get a MK2 and do a review of both lens.

Actually the weight is not really a concern for me..
been using monopod with my MK1.
and carry it is really not a problem for me....

I dont really understand why ppl keep saying is heavy and dont willing to carry or bring it out for shots.:dunno:

For me, its not heavy per se, but if there is a lighter (and cheaper) lens that suits my needs, i go with the lighter one. :)
 

For landscape/hiking, the f4L IS is unsurpassed with it's image quality, size and weight. Only problem is that you have to spend more for a tripod mount.
For portraiture/wildlife/sports/photojournalism, the f2.8 IS would be my pick for the f2.8. Otherwise, the f4L IS is better in every other aspect.
 

If money is not an issue, then I'll go with the f/2.8 IS II.
 

Erm.. even if they were the same price I would go for the lighter F4. I'm a hobbyist out to enjoy his photography. Not a someone who enjoys showing off big ass lens, or like to carry heavy lens around.

I would have preferred the lens in black rather than the loud white.
 

Last edited:
Erm.. even if they were the same price I would go for the lighter F4. I'm a hobbyist out to enjoy his photography. Not a someone who enjoys showing off big ass lens, or like to carry heavy lens around.

I would have preferred the lens in black rather than the loud white.
im a hobbyist also. but my 2.8 IS is not for show off :nono:, its what i need.
 

im a hobbyist also. but my 2.8 IS is not for show off :nono:, its what i need.

:thumbsup: Second this. There are obvious reasons why the f/2.8 is bigger than its f/4 counterpart.
 

well u never know when that extra stop of light can come in handy as compared to the f/4L :)
 

How can buying a big lens be showing off? Lenses are bought to be used. I dont undertand the association other than the person being a sour grape.

If i want to show off, i might as well hold a wad of 10k notes and walk around rather than holding a heavy lens which no one would appreciate or ogle at, other than fellow photographers
 

Back
Top