What are the advantages vs the disadvantages of a 70-200 f2.8 IS II for my 60D?

[PhotosbyMJ]

Now that I have my 60D its time to set my goal for better glass. I hear rave reviews of the 70-200 f2.8 IS II lens. "No photographer should be without one" etc... My 60D is a 1.6 crop sensor - what are the pluses vs the minuses going for this lens - or is there an alternative suggestion? (Especially since I'm not planing to upgrade to full frame any time soon.)

[jrhoffman75]

If the majority of your shooting will be f/4 or greater you can save a lot of money by getting the 70-200 f/4 IS. It is lighter, less expensive and also a very sharp lens.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@PhotosbyMJ wrote:

Now that I have my 60D its time to set my goal for better glass. I hear rave reviews of the 70-200 f2.8 IS II lens. "No photographer should be without one" etc... My 60D is a 1.6 crop sensor - what are the pluses vs the minuses going for this lens - or is there an alternative suggestion? (Especially since I'm not planing to upgrade to full frame any time soon.)

---

Advantages: It's an extremely sharp lens that gives good results even wide open. The f/2.8 aperture makes it a good choice for indoor event photography. And the fact that it's a top-of-the-line "L" lens means that it probably won't require autofocus microadjustment, an important feature that Canon unaccountably left off of the 60D.

Disadvantages: It's very expensive (which is why my employer, not I, owns the one I use). It's very big and heavy, so it can be tiring to use in a long shoot. This is less of a problem indoors, where you're usually not moving around much and can occasionally set it down. That said, I have used mine outdoors, notably climbing around on the rocks at Acadia National Park, and it wasn't all that bad. Finally, the 70-200 range isn't ideal for a crop-frame camera. In particular, it doesn't match well with the traditional 18-55mm walking-around lens. Frankly, that's what eventually persuaded me to buy a 5D3.

Alternatives: The obvious one is the highly regarded latest version of the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, if you can find one. Sigma has a curious habit of discontinuing its most successful lenses long before their successors, if any, are ready for release, and the 50-150 is no exception. Unfortunately, Canon makes no lens with that zoom range, which matches very well with the crop-camera walkers. One drawback of the Sigma is that it's almost as big and heavy as the Canon 70-200; maybe if they ever do make a successor, they can shrink it a bit..

[ebiggs1]

If you want and have to have the best lens on the planet, than the 70-200mm f2.8 L II is for you.  I used one one a Rebel before and if it is an advantage to get the extra reach, so much the better.

The 24-70mm f2.8 L II and the 70-200mm f2.8 L II are "The Dream Team" of lenses.  It don't get any better than this pair.

The disadvantage, I don't condsider it a disadvantage, is both are heavy.  But to me that just helps settle the lens in my  hands.  When it is on a tripod/monopod who cares?

They do cost about as much as your mortage!  But this kind of performance is never cheap.

I probably use this combo 90% of my shooting time on my 1D Mk IV.  Which, I might add is a "crop" camera.  So forget that nonsense of what it does to a crop body.  If what you see in your view finder is what you want, the rest is just numbers.

The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 is a fine lens and my second choice.  Way, way cheaper.  The Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 is the same lens, just made to optimize the focal length to a crop body at 75-225mm equivalent.  It may be difficult to find in Canon mount.

I have/had both and used them extensively (no longer have a corp body so I sold the 50-150mm).  They are great performers.

Highly recommend.

My last choice is the Tamron and Tokina versions.  Both good. not great and iffy.  If you get a good one, OK.  Probably choose the Tamron over the Tokina.

All other version are not worth the time or money, don't get any of them. 

[cale_kat]

---

@PhotosbyMJ wrote:

Now that I have my 60D its time to set my goal for better glass. I hear rave reviews of the 70-200 f2.8 IS II lens. "No photographer should be without one" etc... My 60D is a 1.6 crop sensor - what are the pluses vs the minuses going for this lens - or is there an alternative suggestion? (Especially since I'm not planing to upgrade to full frame any time soon.)

---

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is possibly the worst choice you could make for the 60D.*

* You haven't posted anything to suggest what you photograph. What do you do with your photography? Why is it "time to set (your) goal for better glass"? What has been the motivator behind your interest?

You see, without knowing how you use your camera, no "expert" can recommend a good lens. Follow your head, not your heart. How would you choose a school for your child? Would you go to the "experts" asking about the most expensive schools or would you ask for directions to find the best school for your child?

[RobertTheFat]

---

@cale_kat wrote:

---

@PhotosbyMJ wrote:

Now that I have my 60D its time to set my goal for better glass. I hear rave reviews of the 70-200 f2.8 IS II lens. "No photographer should be without one" etc... My 60D is a 1.6 crop sensor - what are the pluses vs the minuses going for this lens - or is there an alternative suggestion? (Especially since I'm not planing to upgrade to full frame any time soon.)

---

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is possibly the worst choice you could make for the 60D.*

* You haven't posted anything to suggest what you photograph. What do you do with your photography? Why is it "time to set (your) goal for better glass"? What has been the motivator behind your interest?

You see, without knowing how you use your camera, no "expert" can recommend a good lens. Follow your head, not your heart. How would you choose a school for your child? Would you go to the "experts" asking about the most expensive schools or would you ask for directions to find the best school for your child?

---

Frankly, I thought MJ's question was fairly straightforward and objective: What are the arguments for and against this lens? I don't see why we can't give an objective answer without psychoanalyzing his (her?) motivations. I think it's presumptuous of us to simply assume that MJ will be unable to process our answers in the context of his particular situation, the details of which are arguably none of our business.

[cale_kat]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@cale_kat wrote:

---

@PhotosbyMJ wrote:

Now that I have my 60D its time to set my goal for better glass. I hear rave reviews of the 70-200 f2.8 IS II lens. "No photographer should be without one" etc... My 60D is a 1.6 crop sensor - what are the pluses vs the minuses going for this lens - or is there an alternative suggestion? (Especially since I'm not planing to upgrade to full frame any time soon.)

---

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is possibly the worst choice you could make for the 60D.*

* You haven't posted anything to suggest what you photograph. What do you do with your photography? Why is it "time to set (your) goal for better glass"? What has been the motivator behind your interest?

You see, without knowing how you use your camera, no "expert" can recommend a good lens. Follow your head, not your heart. How would you choose a school for your child? Would you go to the "experts" asking about the most expensive schools or would you ask for directions to find the best school for your child?

---

Frankly, I thought MJ's question was fairly straightforward and objective: What are the arguments for and against this lens? I don't see why we can't give an objective answer without psychoanalyzing his (her?) motivations. I think it's presumptuous of us to simply assume that MJ will be unable to process our answers in the context of his particular situation, the details of which are arguably none of our business.

---

Arguably so, but the OP did come to a public place to have a discussion and I think what you photograph is a valid factor to be considered.

Nobody has to answer any questions... Consider them rhetorical. 😉

[TCampbell]

I own the original generation of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (not the "II") and absolutely love the lens.  It's on my camera body more than any of my other lenses.  

I prefer longer focal lengths (even for moderately close subjects) when I can use them because of the compression, depth of feild, and angle of view. 

Contrast and detail resolving capabilities are top rate and the II is even better.  

This is the type of lens you buy and never upgrade... you may upgrade your camera body a few times, but you'll likely never feel the urge to upgrade the lens.

The comments about it being big and heavy are spot on.   I use a "sling" type strap rather than the factory neck strap as this moves the weight from the neck to the shoulder and the camera rests at the opposite hip (from the shoulder) when not shooting.  I can wear the camera and lens all day long (and I do) using a sling type strap.

[cale_kat]

---

@TCampbell wrote:

I own the original generation of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (not the "II") and absolutely love the lens.  It's on my camera body more than any of my other lenses.  

I prefer longer focal lengths (even for moderately close subjects) when I can use them because of the compression, depth of feild, and angle of view. 

Contrast and detail resolving capabilities are top rate and the II is even better.  

This is the type of lens you buy and never upgrade... you may upgrade your camera body a few times, but you'll likely never feel the urge to upgrade the lens.

The comments about it being big and heavy are spot on.   I use a "sling" type strap rather than the factory neck strap as this moves the weight from the neck to the shoulder and the camera rests at the opposite hip (from the shoulder) when not shooting.  I can wear the camera and lens all day long (and I do) using a sling type strap.

---

But how often do you use it on your 60D?

[ScottyP]

I got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk.2 when I was shooting crop and I fell in love with it. The thing is incredibly sharp and renders beautiful colors and perfectly blurred backgrounds. I enjoyed the 1.6x boost when shooting soccer and the occasional groundhog, etc. It is great for portraits on a crop as long as you are outside or in a big room as you fall into the higher portion of the 85mm to 135mm portrait range. It put my perfectly good 17-55 to shame.

Having just said that, I must add that this one lens is what tipped me over the edge in deciding to go full frame. The images were so great I wanted to use it more often, but in some situations (mostly indoors) it just couldn't zoom out wide enough. On the crop. I now use it a lot more with my 6d.

Consider what and where you shoot, and whether you have a good bright lens for tighter indoor shooting (if you do that kind of shooting much) that could be used with the 70-200.

All that said, Frankly, I would buy it again for a crop if I had it all to do over again, as they say, but you will have to decide for yourself.