Seems most people use primes on the mk II, I'm from the baby zoomer generation and just prefer the convenience of zooming. What are the hot picks? I hear the 70-200L f4 bantied about. B&H has a grey market version for $600. Canon | 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens | 2578A002 | B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183198-GREY/Canon_2578A002_70_200mm_f_4_0L_USM_Autofocus.html)

The 70-200L f/4.0 is a sharp lens, but don't you want image stabilization? The IS version makes hand-holding a lot easier.

But the main reason for the primes isn't generational, it's because they have the speed for depth of field control.

I haven't had stabilizers in years, I think my TRV900 had it. Is there something unique to huge cmos chips that make it necessary? This camera, in video mode, doesn't seem suited to hand held.

I think it helps. It hand holds pretty well for me with the 70-200L f/4.0 IS.

Not saying you can't make it work with a smooth steady tripod. Without a doubt, you can. I've had the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/4.0 as well, and it was excellent optically. But with IS, you do open up some hand held possibilities, that's all.

Brian,

Just wanted to second what Tom said, the 70-200 f4L IS is a gem and the image stabilisation really works well. I've had both versions too and I'd recommend the IS one if you can run to it.

Dan

I started straight with the 70-200 f4 IS and it is the sharpest of all my lens. Beats my 24-105 4L out right. Get this lens, its a very good lens.

Do I have the math right? IS on the 70-200mm doubles the price from about $600 to $1200?

I have the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and used it to shoot a wedding on the beach yesterday. I'm on vacation, but couldn't pass it up. Turns out that the couple work where where I live, but they live in my hometown. Small world.
Anyway, this was the first video I've really shot with the Tamron and it was a little shaky. My friend has the Canon version and I plan on borrowing it soon. I didn't know if the vibration reduction only worked with photo or both. I'll give my review after I use it.

Brian,

The price is double for the IS lens but they improved it a lot from the non-IS version. I now prefer to use the 70-200 f4L IS to the bigger f2.8 Canon zooms for sharpness and lightness, the IS really makes an f4 lens usable for stills. For video the IS does help a lot if you plan to handhold or shoulder mount a lot, for tripod only I doubt you would see any difference between IS and non IS. The new IS lens also has weather sealing on the lens mount.

Dan

I have just gotten a 17-35L 2.8 I can verify that it makes a big difference over the 50mm 1.4 that I was using. I shot the whole reception with it, and it kicked much arse. The distortion at 17 is very pronounced, but still a very cool lens.
Bill

I went straight for the 70-200/2.8 IS. Sure it's a massive price jump, but gives me versatility. I can handhold in movie mode indoors near a window with no probs. Also gives me great options for stills. All depends on what type of shooting you're doing.
cheers

+1 for the 70-200 F/2.8 IS. GREAT lens and my copy is very sharp even wide open. My 135 F/2.0 just sits since I got the zoom. :-(

I also have the 16-35 F/2.8 which I am very happy with as well.