Canon now have three 70-200s out in the market place at one time (in addition to an 80-200, 90-200, 55-200 and 75-300s).

However, I'm focusing (forgive the pun) on the three L series 70-200s. Which one is best, and why? Of course, they have different strengths (although the 70-200 F2.8L may loose out to the IS version on all counts).

What are people's opinions on the reports of the 70-200 F4L providing better image quality than the F2.8? And the first reports of the IS being sharper and contrastier than the non IS 2.8?

And how do people feel about what the lenses offer for their (street) prices? And their weight and size? What they are like to use? Are they so good that they bring a smile to your face when you use them?

I'll kick things off with my experiences with the Canon 70-200 F4L. I only recently bought this lens, and it replaces my old Sigma 70-300mm APO. The change is from economy class to first...The lens produces wonderful results, even with the 1.4X TC, and is wonderfully balanced in use, with very fast focusing. I really enjoy using this lens (and my 300 F4L IS as well...something about L series lenses I guess...:-)). I would not wish to carry the F2.8, nor pay for it, because F4 is enough for what I do mostly. Would be better if they'd included IS into this lens, but the lens is so good that it's forgivable.

I've not used the F2.8 versions, so any input on those is appreciated.

-- Isaac Sibson (Isibson@hotmail.com), September 18, 2001

Answers

Isaac: Just a few comments for you...I have the 70-200 2.8L, the 300 4L and the 100-400 4.5-5.6L. Out of these lenses, I find the 70-200 to produce images that are just as sharp as the 300, and much sharper than the 100-400 (and I love to shoot wide open). Similarly, the 70- 200 produces images that are of equal contrast to the 300, but have better contrast than the 100-400. The 70-200 autofocuses much faster than the other lenses. I too bought the 70-200 to replace a Sigma (70-200 2.8) and there was no looking back. I see no reason for me to sell the sell the 70-200 and replace it with the IS. The 70-200 is a little heavy to walk around with all day, but the results are just outstanding. I think you should rent one, the blurred backgrounds that you get at 2.8 make the lens. BTW..if you have any shooting to do at 200, and want to have some fun, rent the Canon 200 f1.8 lens. It blows em all away.

-- Arnie Milowsky (arniemly@earthlink.net), September 18, 2001.

Hello, Isaac: I've owned the 70-200/2.8L for about 4 years now, and it's a very fine lens indeed. I opted for this particular zoom lens partly because one of my ongoing interests is railroad and train photography, and in my experience, the 70-200/2.8L has repeatedly proven to be a real workhorse in this type of arena, as well as in many other applications. This zoom lens is sharp, fast, versatile, and wieldy. I also own the EOS 300/4L IS, but during those times when the action is fast-and-furious, and I need the convenience and versatility of a zoom lens but with more magnification, the 70-200/2.8L works quite well with the EOS 1.4x TC.

I'm 5'10" tall, and weigh 200 lbs; I'm reasonably strong, and I've never had any complaints about the weight of this lens, even when mated with the EOS 1V HS. On the other hand, my girlfriend is 5'2", slim, petite, and reasonably strong. She uses an EOS A2 with the EOS 28-105/3.5-4.5; 100-300/4.5-5.6; and 100/2.8 macro lenses, yet it doesn't take her long to begin really noticing the weight of her lighter gear; whenever she's used one of my L series lenses, she complains about the added weight in fairly short order, and she tends to quickly hand it back to me! So yes, some folks will not like the added weight of a heavier, bulky lens, especially if they have to lug it about for long periods.

If one doesn't really NEED an f2.8L zoom lens enough to justify and accept their added weight, bulk, and expense, then there's no sense in buying one. In fact, with films like Provia 100F, which pushes so amazingly well to 200 ISO, slower, lighter, and less costly lenses may be more attractive than ever. In my opinion, lens purchases should be rationally driven by a clear and persisting NEED, rather than by a mere desire to own the latest-and-greatest. I will most likely invest in the new EOS 70-200/2.8L IS in the future, because I know that I have a clear need for what this lens will offer me, i.e., the better ability to shoot 50-100 ISO slide film, hand-held, within certain limitations, when total reliance on a tripod is not always practical. But first, I have a much greater NEED for the up-coming EOS 400/4 IS DO lens, and while I'm waiting for my piggy bank to recover from that high-priority purchase, I'll continue to happily rely on my trusty 70-200/2.8L.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), September 18, 2001.

Indeed, weight affects people in different ways, according to the fraction of their weight, and what they are used to handling.

This is the problem I run into head-on. I weigh only 110lbs (5'8), and so a 5lb lens/camera combo is quite noticeable to me.

-- Isaac Sibson (Isibson@hotmail.com), September 19, 2001.

I have both the 70-200/4L and the 100-400L IS. The 70-200/4L is a valued companion an hikes and travels with a tripod because of it's light weight and excellent quality, but I don't care much for handholding it. It's only about an inch shorter than the f/2.8L but is over 500 grams lighter. The 4L's length in conjunction to it's lack of weight makes it a bit hard for me to hold still. Plus, I'm pretty anal about stability. Since I mainly use it on a tripod, it's not much of an issue. I would love it if Canon came out with a 70- 200/4L IS if it only adds ~70 to 100 grams to the overall weight. I believe the f/2.8L IS adds about 100 grams weight compared to the f/2.8L non-IS.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), September 22, 2001.