Which Zoom/Telephoto Lens for 5D Mk II

UniPol · #1 29-07-2012, 07:23 PM

I am undecided on which lens to buy up to 200mm FL for my 5D MK II. I have a 17-40mmL, 50mm/1.8 II & 28-135mm IS USM at the moment, the latter lens I would like to replace (It really suits my 450D though). There doesn't seem to be a lens from 40-200mm in an "L" quality (I know Canon have 70-200mm L but which one?), perhaps some of you fellow IISpacer's may be able to recommend one, not necessarily a Canon. I just love the 17-40mm, it does everything I want to. Cheers.

iceman (Mike) · #2 29-07-2012, 08:41 PM

The 70-200 IS seems to be the pick doesn't it?

I bought a 200mm L without IS and I love it. Only $600 or so, so good value too.

RB (Andrew) · #3 29-07-2012, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iceman

The 70-200 IS seems to be the pick doesn't it?

I bought a 200mm L without IS and I love it. Only $600 or so, so good value too.

+1

70-200mm f4 L with or without IS, very sharp.
I prefered the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS because I also wanted to use it for astro.
Love it !

But it depends on your budget Steve.

Dennis · #4 29-07-2012, 08:57 PM

I have the 70-200 F4 L IS and it is as close to perfection as I could imagine in terms of its image quality, size, weight and IS capabilities.

Cheers

Dennis

naskies (Dave) · #5 29-07-2012, 09:48 PM

Canon does make a 28-300 mm f/3.5-5.6 "L" lens, but you have to sacrifice image quality and aperture.

The 70-200 mm f/4L IS or f/2.8L IS II (note the mark II) would be my pick. They're the sharpest of the 70-200s and IS works very, very well - e.g. I can take reasonably sharp photos at 1/8 sec, 200 mm.

I've owned/used the 85L, 100L macro, 135L, and 200 f/2L lenses extensively, and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II compares favourably to all of them at f/4 or smaller. The zoom is very good at f/2.8 too, but the vignetting is somewhat intense (a bit like the 17-40 at f/4).

leon · #6 29-07-2012, 10:23 PM

I too have a 70-200mm L F/2'8. and it is magic, and performs beautifully, a little hefty in price, but it will be with you a long time one would expect.

Leon

mbaddah (Mo) · #7 30-07-2012, 04:30 PM

70-200mm f4 (non-IS) for the price. Amazing IQ at a cheap (for L lens) price!

Octane (Humayun) · #8 30-07-2012, 05:02 PM

Any of the current 70-200mm lenses would be ideal.

The 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM is incredible -- have a look at its MTF chart. I'm going to get one, I think.

Anyone want to buy a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non-IS) in pristine condition, with case and box that it came in?

H

UniPol · #9 31-07-2012, 04:17 PM

Thanks for your input guys, I've decided to go with the 70-200mm/F4L mainly to try it out and it is much cheaper than the IS versions. I might look at the F2.8 IS down the track.

Octane (Humayun) · #10 31-07-2012, 06:42 PM

Good choice, Steve. The f/4 versions are insanely sharp.

H

CapturingTheNight (Greg) · #11 31-07-2012, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octane

Anyone want to buy a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (non-IS) in pristine condition, with case and box that it came in?

Been thinking about getting something like this for a while. Out of curiousity- how much would you be wanting for it H?

Octane (Humayun) · #12 31-07-2012, 08:02 PM

Greg,

$1,020 + registered shipping.

I paid close to $1,700 for it a couple of years back.

H

adman (Adam) · #13 31-07-2012, 09:22 PM

+1 for the 70-200 f2.8L. I have the non-IS version and every time I use it it blows me away. I would love to get the IS version - but $$$ prevents.

Adam

bert (Brett) · #14 31-07-2012, 10:34 PM

I have the 70-200 f2.8is, I love it to bits. I did found sometimes I need some 'reach'. So I bought a 2x teleconverter, so I now have a 400 f5.6 as well when it's needed. It comes in very handy.

I don't think the teleconverter will work well with the f4 model.

Brett