I'm considering 70-200 f2.8L IS, what else would you recommend?

[achee]

Hi all!

As the title says, I'm considering getting a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM MkII, but I'm looking for suggestions on other lenses to consider.

It's mainly for portraiture - posed and candid. I want it to be very sharp wide open at f2.8, with comparable IQ. IS is important, too! The USM isn't so critical, nor is the 200mm reach (although it would be much appreciated) - so I would consider shorter lenses if they meet all the other requirements.

(PS: I've read this thread, comparing the Canon with a similar non-IS Sigma: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...00-f2.8-EX-HSM)

[jgknight]

Hi achee
I love my 70-200L lens and apart from my macro lens, it it the most used in my collection. Absolutely extremely sharp, beautiful for portraiture and stunning bokehs. I highly recommend it. Fantastic lens.

[James Axford]

You really couldn't go wrong with the 70-200, I think a lot of pros use it for portrait work. I used to own the mk1 but sold it and bought the 85L and the 135L. I find the finer dof you can get with the primes gives you more options creatively.
Worth considering I think.

[MajickStudio]

Hi Achee,

I have the 70-200 IS USM II ~ you won't regret the purchase if you do decide to spend the $$
The 200mm reach is great for pulling the background into the shot - it compresses it to some extent making it look closer to your subject.
IMO ~ it is a very versatile lens & the sharpness & clarity are amazing
I haven't tried the sigma range so can't really comment ~ I've been told the main reasons for choosing a sigma is for price & the longer range lenses that Canon doesn't offer

I hope this helps - happy shopping

[Art Vandelay]

I have that as well. As long as your wallet is prepared for the hit, you wont be disapointed with the lens

[unistudent1962]

If your pockets aren't quite that deep, the image quality of the 70-200 f4L IS is just as good as the f2.8, and only a stop slower.
At f4, the bokeh is probably not quite as smooth as the f2.8.
If I had $3K to spend instead of $1500 I probably would have gone for the f2.8 instead.

[fairy bombs]

I have the Canon 70-200 L F 2.8 Non IS.It is amazing-the images are beautiful.great bokeh.
Yes the MK II IS version would be very good,but the non IS version,will still take 98% of the
99% of the images a IS version will take,worth considering the NON IS version,if funds a tight.

Good luck

[cam bicknell]

It took a looooong time to save for mine and it has exceeded all expectations.
You won't regret it if you choose to go that way.

[Kazren]

Thanks for asking the question Achee. Even though it was way back in October, you have helped me to bite the bullet and order my 70 - 200 f2.8 L series today.
I'm looking forward to experimenting with my new best friend.
Cheers,
Kazren

[achee]

Yes, that was a while ago, and... no, I haven't got it yet. I'm fairly content with a 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS for the moment.

[crafty1tutu]

I have the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L series but the first version and I am still learning, but I love the sharpness. I know people who have the Sigma version and have no trouble with them, but I had a bad experience with AF on one that I bought, although it wasn't the IS version and maybe improvements have been made with the new model.