Canon's New Flagship Lens: The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

[sirtechy]

Has any1 mounted this lens (Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens) to a Panasonic Lumix GH2?

[onlineahmeds]

Thanx i just join to your channel i hope you will accept me as new member in your group

[remy3315]

For $800 more is it worth getting the is

[starfedrogue]

@remy3315 Well... the IS Mk II is at least $800 better than the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM even if you completely ignore the IS, so look at it as a free extra.

[TheConnyB]

@starfedrogue but you said in the video there isn´t really much difference between the two (except for the size and weight".

[starfedrogue]

@TheConnyB Between the two f/2.8 IS Mk I and Mk II versions, not between the f/2.8 non-IS and the f/2.8 IS Mk II. Sorry it gets a bit confusing when you have five lenses in the range!

Anyway, in the 7 months between the video being made and remy3315 asking that question, the optical image quality turned out to be actually quite a lot better. Better than people were expecting when the press release hit.

[TheConnyB]

@starfedrogue So, you´re saying there is substantially better image quality on the new 70-200 f2.8 IS mk II, compared to the prior 70-200 f2.8 IS mk I ?

I have the IS mk I but haven´t tried the IS mk II.

[starfedrogue]

@TheConnyB Yeah, apparently it really IS that good, which I have to admit did surprise me. The professional photogs I keep an eye on have all raved about it.

[supersabre69]

i have a 550d, will this body work well with this subject?

[starfedrogue]

@supersabre69 Yes, that lens will work very well with any EF mount camera.

[starfedrogue]

@stephen102201 I have never used the 50D, but judging by the performance of the 40D it should be spectacular.

[Morningsidenursery]

I want one!

[dns4808]

got this lens.. :) really help out..!

[HelloNewYorkCity]

i bought a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (the original) and after like 3 weeks, the II appeared in the catalogue. FUUUUUU... well i'm going to sell it and get the II version, i heard it has very good flare control and sharper quality at f/4 and f/2.8

[PumaM90]

@HelloNewYorkCity that kind of shit happened to me when i bought an ipod. i buy it then in about a week later the next model comes out!

[RavenRof]

I was just testing my brothers 70-200mm 2.8 USM IS. Its a seriously expensive, professional, top noch lens and i still have some dificulty liking the photos i take with it. Its obviously me and my newbie skills but i really wish i could understand what im doing wrong. Here's some sample from tonights flash testings: Critics are welcome

[RavenRof]

ugh, wouldnt let me post a url: tinyurl (dot com) /y7o49r7

[starfedrogue]

@RavenRof Without more information about the scene, your camera body, and exposure settings it's impossible to tell you anything.

[RavenRof]

Yeah i understand. Im surfing around a few foruns asking around.

Trying to understand if i can improve my experience with the lens

[vnaumoff]

Based on the guess and it's a lot different from Mark I. Greatest glass I ever had.

[alexosh1234]

Mine is coming on Monday! SOO Excited!

[starfedrogue]

Words cannot adequately express how jealous I am right now! ^_^

[TheWaksfly]

@alexosh1234

70-200mm 2.8 mark II?

[dollaboi954]

please do a review when you get it. with comparisons and image samples

[TheWaksfly]

i'm thinking of buying 70-200mm...i just completed my fund for the orig version then suddenly markII made my decision in doubt whether to get the original version or wait for the markII next month. any advice?

[starfedrogue]

The new one is on shelves at the end of March, and all the pre-order prices I've seen are £2700 (which is $4200, but Canon will likely price it at $2700 in the States. They love screwing the UK).

My advice would be to wait and watch the Mark I prices like a hawk. I expect them to remain steady, then dip gently in April, and bottom out about August.

[TheWaksfly]

anyway i'm currently using a 500D body and i'm thinking of upgrading it to 50D/7D or get a new lens.i only got 70-200 F4 IS and 50mm F1.8. maybe a 10-22mm or 17-55mm 2.8 0r 24-70mm 2.8L. Body or Lens?

[starfedrogue]

If you aren't planning on going full frame, then lens lens lens! I use the Sigma 10-20mm for wide angle and it's a great piece of glass.

[TheWaksfly]

@starfedrogue which one to upgrade first in your opinion? body 500D -> 5d mark II

or

lens 70-200mm f4 IS -> 70-200mm f2.8 IS II

i can only choose one..since they are at the same price range i m really confused which one to go first.

thanks!

[starfedrogue]

@TheWaksfly

Difficult choice! Going from the 500D to the 5D2 will be a more fundamental change than the 70-200mm f/4 -> f/2.8 II. Also the 5D2 has dropped in price but the 70-200 II is still at its RRP. I would be tempted to upgrade the camera. However, there is meant to be a 5D3 on the way to balance the 7D.

[vh280495]

@starfedrogue You can preorder it at Adorama for 2499 USD (of cause in USA).

[BullzOnParade17]

Useless if you're shooting sports. I'll stick with my non-IS 70-200mm.

[starfedrogue]

OK, I'm curious. How is a non-stabilised version better?

[BullzOnParade17]

For this lens, if you're shooting at a high frame rate, say on a 1D Mk II, the IS will actually slow the AF down and I think the frame rate as well. Assuming you're shooting sports that have a lot of movement (IE American football, soccer, etc) you won't need IS because the subject is always in motion. IS is practical for something like landscapes, wildlife, portraits, etc.

[starfedrogue]

Yes, but for those kind of shots you can turn the IS off. But it's still there when you DO need it, with its lovely four stop equivalence. I wouldn't call that 'useless', I'd call it versatile.

It would however be really interesting to compare the AF performance across the 70-200mm lenses on the various 1D models.

[BullzOnParade17]

If you're using it primarily as a sports lens, I don't see the reason to spend the extra money for the IS, if you're not going to use it much. It's a great portrait lens, but with those, you'll have decent lighting, so you don't even need it then. I can understand having IS if you're doing low light shooting, but if the lighting is decent enough, you're going to get sharp photos with a 70-200L regardless.

[N6600]

sir, any news about the rumored 24-70 f2.8 IS?

[starfedrogue]

Not yet. I suspect a Mark II is on the way though. I'll be surprised if it has IS, but if it does it will certainly be welcome and might make me upgrade.

[Keippernicus]

Considering paying for a 2800 DOLLAR lens is outrageous but POUNDS!? That's friggin' retarded.

Too much money.

[starfedrogue]

You think that's outrageous? What do you think of this then... a used 1200mm f/5.6L will set you back $120,000.

[starfedrogue]

That is of course assuming you can find one for sale, and are insane enough in the first place to want a lens with a minimum focusing distance of 14m.

[thisithis]

Canon always make good Cameras. Far better the Sony's Cameras. Or at least that's what I think.

[Nolisch]

somehow with a name like "Canon 70-200mm 2.7L" the last thing I think about is a camera

(The first thing, obviously, a ridiculously large cannon)

[CiphersSon]

Do you use chdk open source firmware?

[starfedrogue]

Nope. I don't own any compatible point-and-shoot cameras.

[CiphersSon]

If every thing gos accordingly i will be using it very soon as part of a little science project that im attempting. hope it works because it all is going to cost about 400.00 and i never used it before. But if it works it will be epic. :-)