Trying to find a zoom that can handle both portraits and action.

[photoflyer]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 and it was absolutely worth it. I also got the 2x teleconverter and while there are compromises when using a teleconverter it was also worth it when considering the alternatives. In fact when I compare these two together, they were about $2500, I see this combo as the best value in Canon white glass for a very broad mission profile.

Of course it really depends on your mission but mine is so varied that if I take this setup along with my 24-105 f4 I'm ready for a wide diversity of situations.

I shoot with a 6D Mark II. I will get the 7D Mark III when it becomes available. I hear really good reports about the 80D and would expect the 70-200 f2.8 and 2x teleconverter combo to work well on it. I really like the 6D Mii for its high ISO performance: think indoor sports.

I can't image anyone has ever regretted getting the 70-200 f2.8.

 

[beagle100]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 and it was absolutely worth it. I also got the 2x teleconverter and while there are compromises when using a teleconverter it was also worth it when considering the alternatives. In fact when I compare these two together, they were about $2500, I see this combo as the best value in Canon white glass for a very broad mission profile.

Of course it really depends on your mission but mine is so varied that if I take this setup along with my 24-105 f4 I'm ready for a wide diversity of situations.

I shoot with a 6D Mark II. I will get the 7D Mark III when it becomes available. I hear really good reports about the 80D and would expect the 70-200 f2.8 and 2x teleconverter combo to work well on it. I really like the 6D Mii for its high ISO performance: think indoor sports.

I can't image anyone has ever regretted getting the 70-200 f2.8.

probably not, the 70-200 2.8 is good for many things, including portraits and action
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[davidharmier60]

sorta rich for my blood. 70 on a crop sensor is too long for indoors. I have a Sigma 28-105 left over from film shooting. It's a 4 - 5.6 so not great but a pretty useful focal length. Something around 24-135 at 2.8 would be the cats meow!

 

[davidharmier60]

I have an FD 1.8 50mm that I am concerned about focusing with no prism but of course that has no bearing on THIS discussion.

 

[ac12]

I can't image anyone has ever regretted getting the 70-200 f2.8.

I got the f/4 version of the Nikon 70-200.
The f/4 lens is half the weight of the f/2.8 lens.
I would have loved the faster f/2.8 lens, but it is too heavy for this old man to handle for a long shoot.

Having now shot with the f/4 lens, I really do not want the weight of the f/2.8 lens, except on a monopod.

Except for certain static shooting where I can use a monopod, I prefer to be more mobile with my gear. I find it easier to pan with the action, like shooting a shotgun, rather than pivoting around a monopod.

 

[ac12]

Something around 24-135 at 2.8 would be the cats meow!

Agree. It would be a great DX/crop lens for field sports (football, soccer and lacrosse), shooting on the sidelines. But it would be too short for shooting from the bleachers.
For gym sports (basketball and volleyball), it should do just fine on the floor or the bleachers.

But it is going to be a big heavy lens.
The closest comparable lens is the Nikon 24-120 f/4. So think of this lens, even bigger in diameter and heavier.

 

[photoflyer]

Having now shot with the f/4 lens, I really do not want the weight of the f/2.8 lens, except on a monopod.

Weight and size are certainly important considerations. I normally do not travel by air with the 2.8 70-200 because of this and the risk of theft and damage to an expensive lens. I have an EF 70-300 f 4-5.6 for travel for many of the reasons you pointed out and it is 1/4 the cost.