70-200 2.8 Canon Lens
- Started
- Last post
- 12 Responses
- capn_ron
Anyone have one? I really want one, but would like some feedback from those who have them.
- jaylarson0
Careful with this one buddy. There seems to be a trend that this lens takes several copies to get a good one. For your 40d it should be quite nice if you get a goody copy.
- capn_ron0
so what your saying is that only a few in the bunch are good?
- jermlab0
I have the IS version.
Worth every penny.
- capn_ron0
That's the one I was looking at. I'm running the 17-85 right now, but would like to start the 70-200 to the quiver of lenses.
- capn_ron0
$1700 at bhphoto.com
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/pr…
that's a big investment. but it's a 2.8, so it might make it worth it.
- Dr_Rand0
I have the nikon equivalent and love it
- rafalski0
I will be getting the f/4 IS version. 2.8 doesn't justify the size for me, I'd never have it handy. Doesn't justify price either, for that matter :)
There is an older 80-200 F/2.8 L version as well, available second-hand. Comes much cheaper, but doesn't have USM. It is black, if colour matters.
- Art Wolfe really likes that lens (f4). photozone.de documents that it is WICKED sharp too.jaylarson
- omgitsacamera0
I whole heartedly recommend the 2.8L IS and its nikon counterpart.
Combine it a 17-55 2.8 or a 28-70 and then you're nearly in heaven.
- oh just be prepared for the lens compliment and/or the stare.omgitsacamera
- That's what I;m thinking. I like the speed. i figured I would spend more on good fast lenses.capn_ron
- rafalski0
Why don't you throw in some savings and get the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can…
- cinder0
I have rented the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS a couple times.
It's a pretty rad lens - although, for me, it's usefulness is limited.I'd rather have the 85mm f/1.2 L
:)
