Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS thoughts...

[JimmyO]

Unfourtunatly you will almost always get what you pay for. I shot with the older sigma 70-200 and it turned out to be garbage. The image quality is good sometimes, but for me if a lens isnt gonna last theres no point in spending money on it. Now a days the only off brand company i use is tokina.

 

[Overread]

Sigma are quite capable of making pro grade glass (their 180mm macro lens is far more popular than the canon 180mm L macro lens) so I have no problems considering their products as viable options.

The big difference in the 70-200mm from sigma and canon is that the f2.8 IS L from canon is fully weather sealed whilst sigma cannot give that feature (because they don't have the exact lens mount specs, just reversed designed ones from existing canon models - which is all any 3rd party lens makers have these days). For me that is a consideration (even if my current camera is lacking in proper weather sealing).

For others it might not be a worry at all and it would have to wait for the sigma lens to be on the market to see how it performs - remember many consider the sigma 50mm f1.4 to be better than can canon 50mm f1.4.

 

[Derrel]

The 70-200 2.8 IS-USM loses some sharpness at the longer end, particularly when shot on an APS-C Canon body...it's an old enough design that it's really "best" on FF. That's why Canon is re-designing the lens--the newer f/4 IS design optically is a bit better than the older 2.8 IS model. It's not like it's a pig or anything, the 2.8 IS USM--it's a very solid lens, especially on FF. But it does taper off in sharpness beyond about 140mm. However, around the 135mm mark at f/6.3 or so, it's simply amazing...

If I were going to buy a lens for use on a really,really high-density,smaller sensor like the 7D, I'd go for the newest lens that delivers the absolute highest MTF--and right now, that's the f/4 IS-USM version...and probably the "new" Mark II f/2.8 model. I have not seen the new 70-200 2.8 Mark II's MTF charts or any samples from it.

The new Sigma "could be" a great lens; it uses Sigma's newly developed Fluorite-Like Dispersion glass, which could resolve chromatic aberration issues at wide apertures like the all-important f/2.8 to f/4.5 zone where older, less-ambitious lenses like the Sigma 70-200's have not been as good as Canon or Nikon high-grade $1699-$2400 lens designs. Sigma has not yet announced the price of their new 70-200 2.8 OS lens; it might be higher, like $1699, and it "might be" kick-ass, like their 150mm macro.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I like mine. I use it in the studio and like the images I get. It's heavy, but I'm strong, on my 1Ds body it feels proportional. If I carry it around I can always use it as a defensive weapon :thumbup:

 

[icassell]

Unfourtunatly you will almost always get what you pay for. I shot with the older sigma 70-200 and it turned out to be garbage. The image quality is good sometimes, but for me if a lens isnt gonna last theres no point in spending money on it. Now a days the only off brand company i use is tokina.

If you look at my signature, I have several "off-brand" lenses including both Sigma and Tamron. I have been happy with all of them. Would I like some "L" glass in my collection? Yes, I would. Do I consider off-brand lenses to be "garbage"? Absolutely not in my experience. Have people ever had individual issues with either Canon "L" glass or Nikon glass? Yes.

 

[tjones8611]

One of the largest factors for my selection of the 2.8 versus the 4.0 was the larger ap for lower light, but given the sharpness of the 4 stated by several on here and the realaiztion that this lens would probably serve little purpose indoors anyways, perhaps the 4 is the more logical choice.

 

[Montana]

The 70-200 2.8 IS-USM loses some sharpness at the longer end, particularly when shot on an APS-C Canon body...it's an old enough design that it's really "best" on FF. That's why Canon is re-designing the lens--the newer f/4 IS design optically is a bit better than the older 2.8 IS model. It's not like it's a pig or anything, the 2.8 IS USM--it's a very solid lens, especially on FF. But it does taper off in sharpness beyond about 140mm. However, around the 135mm mark at f/6.3 or so, it's simply amazing...

If I were going to buy a lens for use on a really,really high-density,smaller sensor like the 7D, I'd go for the newest lens that delivers the absolute highest MTF--and right now, that's the f/4 IS-USM version...and probably the "new" Mark II f/2.8 model. I have not seen the new 70-200 2.8 Mark II's MTF charts or any samples from it.

The new Sigma "could be" a great lens; it uses Sigma's newly developed Fluorite-Like Dispersion glass, which could resolve chromatic aberration issues at wide apertures like the all-important f/2.8 to f/4.5 zone where older, less-ambitious lenses like the Sigma 70-200's have not been as good as Canon or Nikon high-grade $1699-$2400 lens designs. Sigma has not yet announced the price of their new 70-200 2.8 OS lens; it might be higher, like $1699, and it "might be" kick-ass, like their 150mm macro.

I agree that the Canon gets softer on the long end. I shoot at about 135 on the long end. But the lens is great from 2.8 on. No need to stop down to 6.3 with my copy.

 

[sinjans]

love it. no regrets yet.

 

[tjones8611]

Assuming I proceed with this lens,the 4.0L what are some good options for a prime lens for portraits that can deliver better results than the 70-200mm at either 85mm or 100mm? From the charts and comparisons I have seen, the 70-200mm L is just as good as the primes witinin the range of the 70-200m L.

 

[chammer]

i love mine the more and more the more i shoot with it. i use it on a 50d, and initially bought it just as a tele to shoot outside sports with as i needed to replace my cheapy 75-300 tamron, but lately i've been using it more and more indoors with my strobes for puppy portraits. when there's space i much prefer it over my 50mm 1.8.

i had heard the same thing about the f4 non-IS being even sharper, but i need the 2.8 for indoor events and IS at these focal lengths with the slower shutter speeds is a great benefit. i dont regret in the least the possibility of having a slightly less sharp lens over the benefits mentioned (if thats even the case as i take those things with a grain of salt).

 

[Derrel]

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM L IS - Review / Test Report - Analysis

This is an easy location to see a graphical representation of how this lens performs. At wide-open at the long end, the lens is around 1550 line widths per picture height, center and corner. At f/5.6, those figures go up to almost 1850 center, and a little bit less at the edge. At f/8, the lens peaks, breaking 1850 both center AND edge... hence, at f/6.3 the lens is "amazing", whereas at f/2.8 it's merely "very good".

At 135mm, the lens is considerably better at f/2.8 or at f/4 than it is at 200mm. Used samples of this lens are going for around $1200 at some stores in the second hand or consignment areas. It's a LOT of lens for that kind of money!

 

[Big Mike]

Assuming I proceed with this lens,the 4.0L what are some good options for a prime lens for portraits that can deliver better results than the 70-200mm at either 85mm or 100mm?

The EF 85mm F1.8 is pretty good, and a great deal at around $300. I know a several photographers who love the EF 85mm F1.2 L.
There is a new 100mm L, I don't know much about it.
The 135mm F2 L is also a favorite of those who own it.