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

[icelava]

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. ~~

 

[scubagolfer]

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. ~~

:bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[sensornoise]

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:

 

[Headshotzx]

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. ~~

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 ^^

 

[Bellaraphon]

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.

 

[Soundaholic]

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

 

[gregsz]

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

Then, I vote F4 IS. I can't carry the heavy stuff for few hours.:sweat:

 

[Sivakis]

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.

 

[Rubber_Duck]

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:

 

[icelava]

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

underdeveloped muscles.

 

[Soundaholic]

underdeveloped muscles.

True. I'm not a sports or active person so I would say I'm pretty skinny. And bringing the F2.8 around for a day would kill my arm

 

[icelava]

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....

 

[ahbian]

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.

 

[PrimePhotog]

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.

 

[cg171s]

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

 

[lincolngoh]

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.

 

[engrmariano]

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.

 

[Yoh]

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.

 

[Kenneth83]

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

 

[yc2005]

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