cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Canon EF 70mm-200mm is ll USM Lens

Mallard
Contributor

Using T2i body, hand hold @ night lit sports Soccer. I had allot of blurring (Goalie standing still) last season in the later part of the matches.  I was using a EFS-55-250 1:4-5.6 is ll.  Used Sports mode AV, and M. Blurring remained a problem at still shots or actions shots.  I figure I need the f/2.8 to gather enough light to accomplish the results wanted.    I would like some info on lens above, both pros and cons although it proably doesn't have any cons.  I am not a pro or anywhere close.  Started shooting when I got my first Canon AE-1.  I will be mostly using @ 200mm with f/2.8 in the applications above.  Will this lens get the job done?   I have read that @ 200mm the outer edges of the images are white or a lot lighter than the inner poritions.  Is there any truth to this?  If so, can it be handled in a photo program if I shoot in RAW?   Any guidence would be greatly appreciated!

35 REPLIES 35

The fact of life is, Canon likes to use the same sensor in several different models. Most of the Rebels use the same 17.9mp sensor.  Yes, you do get some juiced up electronics but the same sensor.  From aT2i to aT5i is not going to shake up the world.  TheT6i did get a newer sensor.  The70D sensor if I am remembering correctly and of course some better processing.

Even the 7D had the same 17.9mp sensor.  The 7D Mk II gets the new one and better processing.

 

Of course comparing the f4 vs f2.8 zoom is not a huge step.  But either of these lenses are not even in the same zip code as the 55-250mm.  It is 'almost' a given that glass trumps anything else you can do the improve your photos.  And the bottom line is the 70-200mm f2.8L USM IS II is the best lens of its kind made by any company.  Bar none.

 

IMHO, go for the lens first.  If it still doesn't do what you want get the T6i or 7D Mk II.

 

You guys that complain about the weight need to spend some quality time in the gym!  The 70-200mm f2.8 is not even a heavy lens.  I carry it and two 1 series all the time.  Put the big Siggy on a 1 series and you have 13 pounds.

 



EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

"You guys that complain about the weight need to spend some quality time in the gym!  The 70-200mm f2.8 is not even a heavy lens."  

 

For me, at least, the problem isn't holding the lens to take shots.  It's knowing how to carry the rig for an hour or two.  I invested in a good camera holster.  I don't trust the "6D" camera strap that came with the camera, mainly because the weight of the lens wasn't supported.

 

Overcast day, 200mm, f/2.8, 1/1250, ISO-100.....focus was in the center, which was not a high contrast spot.

 

IMG_4203.web.jpg

 

But, it finally warmed up a bit, and I managed to get outside take some photos with the EF-70-200mm f/2.8 IS II USM lens, mounted on my 6D.  It is most definitely a sharp lens.

 

IMG_4221.web.jpg

 

This lens reminds me of the first pair of high quality stereo speakers I bought.  Those speakers were merciless in the sound quality they reproduced.  You could hear the difference between good and bad recordings. Similarly, I can see all of the flaws and imperfections in the subjects that I shoot.

 

I'm still learning this lens, of course, but I can tell that I am going to get some fantastic looking shots from it.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

"I'm still learning this lens, of course, but I can tell that I am going to get some fantastic looking shots from it."

 

I am sure you will  But now it is time to spend some quality time learning PS, or one of its rivals.  Where the true magic happens!

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

"I am sure you will  But now it is time to spend some quality time learning PS, or one of its rivals.  Where the true magic happens!"

 

The landing sea gull needs a background sky.  A layer mask can fix that.  But, I really love the shot of the cannon.  The lens is a pixel peeper's delight!  I can zoom in on the barrel and see the brush strokes from the paint job.

 

IMG_4221.cropped.web.jpg

 

WOW!

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

It (ef 70-200mm f2.8 L II) and its little brother the 24-70mm f2.8L II are the best there is.  Of that there is no doubt.  I see where brand_N tried again to best the ef 24-70mm and fell short ... again.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

"The landing sea gull needs a background sky."

 

For starters!  But who am I to say, if you are pleased, so am I.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"The landing sea gull needs a background sky."

 

For starters!  But who am I to say, if you are pleased, so am I.


I have some nice shots of clouds that I could mask in place around the bird.  For the severity of the overcast, I think the bird shot came out fairly well.  The lens wasn't having any trouble focusing on the bird.  I had the wind at my back, so the birds were taking off and landing into the wind, which was towards me.

 

The shots of the gull and the cannon taught me a lot about the depth of field at f/2.8.  In fact, I'm still learning the nuances of DoF, in general.  I have been getting a feel for how "deep" the DoF is when focusing on subjects are varying distances and zoom settings.  However, the bird and the cannon were shot at nearly similar distances, about 10 yards.  It is not a coincidence that both shots were taken at about a 45 degree angle relative to the front of the subject.  I was trying to get a feel for how "deep" the DoF actually was.

 

The gull was shot at 200mm.   The bird has a wingspan of a good three feet, or more, maybe four feet.  The focus point was on the bird's lower right portion of its' belly, where there is a slight contrasting area.  That is also where the image is the sharpest.  I was aiming for the head, but wound up with the belly on this shot.  The head is closer to the camera than the belly, so it appears slightly out of focus.  Likewise, the wingtips are behind and in front of the DoF.

 

The cannon was shot at 70mm.   It is roughly 20 feet long, maybe just over.  This time the focus point was in the center of the image, on the teeth of a gear below the barrel, which had good contrast.  This time the DoF seems to be "deeper", because the entire length of the cannon is in sharp focus, unlike the bird's wingtips and head.

 

Like I said, I am getting a feel for the lens.  The bird shots that I took at f/5.6 captured the entire wingspan of the birds in sharp focus.  It seems that I'm getting a focus point that is not in the middle of the DoF, but slightly away from center towards the front edge of it.  Most all of the lenses behave that way in AF mode, but the size of the field seems to vary from one lens to the next, even at similar focal lengths.

 

Last comment..  My first lens had somewhat of a loose fit.  This one seems to be stuck on the camera.Man LOL

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

"... the size of the field seems to vary from one lens to the next, even at similar focal lengths."

 

You know this is impossible?   DOF is a constant.  It matters not what lens it is if the focal length, aperture and distance from subject is the same DOF is the same.

There is, IMHO, one adjustment that must be applied to each photo.  That is Lens Correction.  I do this to every one as a preset in LR.  But that is just my preference.

I won't say what I would do to yours as that is up to you but lens correction would be first. 

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

"You know this is impossible?   DOF is a constant.  It matters not what lens it is if the focal length, aperture and distance from subject is the same DOF is the same." 

 

That is what I would have expected.  Maybe my distance guess-stimates are way off.   Maybe it is my imagination, but I have one lens with a MFD of 14 inches, and another with an MFD of 40 inches.  If I zoom both of them to 50mm, focus on something that is about 8-10 feet away, the lens with the MFD seems to have more stuff in focus.  I've assumed it was a difference in DoF.  Okay, I'm imagining things.

 

Oh, yeah.  I use the lens correction settings in Lightroom for every lens I own, except for one, a Rokinon 85mm T1.5 cinema lens, which has no profile.  That's supposed to be one of my winter projects, creating a profile for it.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

"That's supposed to be one of my winter projects, creating a profile for it."

 

Go fo it !  But you better hurry as winter is almost gone.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!
Avatar
click here to view the gallery
Announcements