70-200 L-series 2.8

[Dylan Couper]

Even on $8,000 Cartoni rig, medium gusting wind at the right angle is enough to jiggle at 200mm. Been there plenty of times. IS is worth every penny if you're an outdoor shooter. Rember as well that even if you have an $8,000 tripod, life occasionaly forces you to shoot on an $800 one.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Having recently received a 70-200L IS II at work, there are downsides: size, weight, and flashiness. For kicks, I put it on a handheld rig. I wouldn't want to shoot long with that. Add the hood, and it's comically long. It definitely belongs on a tripod or monopod. Even for photos, the lens is quite conspicuous. When testing it from an office cube looking out a window, a woman walked past the view of the lens and nearly screamed! (She probably thinks I'm a peeping tom now.) Out in public, people stare at the lens. I can only imagine the looks that a 400 or 600mm lens draws.

With the right support for video and at appropriate events, the lens is a gem. For a handheld or stealth shooter, it might not be the best choice.

[Dylan Couper]

The biggest annoyance with the 400mm and 600mm lenses are that everyone with a 70-200mm will come talk to you about it. :)

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

With the right support for video and at appropriate events, the lens is a gem. For a handheld or stealth shooter, it might not be the best choice.

I do wonder why all the long Canon lenses are light grey as they are far more conspicuous than if they were black. I used to own a thirty year old 'Magic Drainpipe' the Canon EF 80-200mm F/2.8L & that was black.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Black absorbs more heat in warm sunlight - so affecting the distances between lens elements as the body expands. The light colour is less absorbent. Simple physics, but I agree, they are more conspicuous and the expansion differences are probably marginal!

[Taky Cheung]

It could be just purely for marketing branding purpose. Anybody from a distance can tell those creamy red ring Canon lens are good stuff =)

[Sabyasachi Patra]

I agree that Canon long lenses attract people. Recently I was shooting in Sunderbans - worlds largest mangrove delta - and people gathered around me. I was using a Canon EF 400mm f2.8 L IS USM lens with a 2xII TC using a OConnor 1030 HDS head and tripod and people crowded around me. Not easy to focus especially my gear was lying all around me.

The Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM lens is great and the image stabilisation is very good. From a moving boat the footage was appearing sharper. Much better than the Canon EF 24-70 L USM lens footage at the same 70mm focal length. My review is here: Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM Review

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Having recently received a 70-200L IS II at work, there are downsides: size, weight, and flashiness. For kicks, I put it on a handheld rig. I wouldn't want to shoot long with that. Add the hood, and it's comically long. It definitely belongs on a tripod or monopod. Even for photos, the lens is quite conspicuous. When testing it from an office cube looking out a window, a woman walked past the view of the lens and nearly screamed! (She probably thinks I'm a peeping tom now.) Out in public, people stare at the lens. I can only imagine the looks that a 400 or 600mm lens draws.

With the right support for video and at appropriate events, the lens is a gem. For a handheld or stealth shooter, it might not be the best choice.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Great review - and wonderful photos!

Of course, when shooting wildlife, you have no choice but to use a large lens that can attract a crowd.

It's good to hear that you like it with the 2x Extender II. I used to own that extender with the 200/2.8L II. For photos the autofocus is slower and the lens loses some "pop", but it's a cost effective way to get good 400mm images.

The image quality of the 70-200/2.8L IS II is fantastic. Shooters who are used to smaller, lighter lenses and who shoot handheld should think twice before buying the lens. Shooters who use tripods, need moderate length, and who are prepared to use a larger lens shouldn't hesitate.

I now use the 70-200 at work for corporate speaking events. For my personal lens, I chose to get the 100/2.8L Macro. It has all the length I need for standard narrative work, has a great IS system, and is cheaper and more comfortable to use than the zoom. But for events or outdoor work, the 70-200 is the way to go.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Sabyasachi Patra

I agree that Canon long lenses attract people. Recently I was shooting in Sunderbans - worlds largest mangrove delta - and people gathered around me.

It would help if they weren't that grey colour that is so distinctive. All the big Nikon lenses are black & even large Canon lenses haven't always been grey as I used to own a lovely old 80-200mm F/2.8L (the so-called Magic Drainpipe) that was black.

[Sabyasachi Patra]

Hi John,
One thing I had missed in my review.

I use a 1D Mark IV with a LCDVF attached at the back and pressing the eyecup on my eye helps me handhold for normal photo clicking pose and that way the footage while clicking videos is very stable.

In wildlife, I can't carry stuff with rails and other accessories. I was seriously contemplating buying the C300. Now that the 1D C has come in, I have to evaluate it with my shooting style. So I am wondering how to use either of these two cameras handheld with a 70-200 IS II without the benefit of an additional contact point on the eye. Only if it is indispensable, then I will have to budget for a rails system with follow focus. I am planning a project where a lot of stuff will be handheld from a motor boat.

Sabyasachi

[Jon Fairhurst]

Most recently, I've purchased a monopod (Silk Pro Pod 600, solid, light, and affordable), and I use it in conjunction with a handheld rig. It really helps when shooting for long periods. I can tuck in in my belt to help deal with the forward weight, and I can extend it to the ground to take all the weight off my body. I should look into getting a "holster" like flag carriers use, which will ensure that it doesn't slip during use.

My tests with the 70-200 handheld were on a rig without the monopod (and sometimes with the 2x extender), and it was not comfortable for me - even when seated and using it for just a few minutes. With the monopod to assist with the weight, I might find it to be more useful.

I use the monopod in four modes:
* Tucked into the belt for the "human-tripod" thing.
* Lifted from the belt for more flexibility when tilting.
* Extended nearly to the ground for smooth walking and good weight balance above and below the hand.
* Extended to touch the ground for the best stability - especially if I can lean it against something solid.

I need to modify my backpack so I can attach the monopod to the outside. I can also use it as a walking stick, which makes it less obvious that I have photo gear.

I use a Manfrotto adapter and plate so I can mount the camera quickly. A ball head would also be useful. (I need a large to small thread adapter before I can try mine.)

Anyway, it might be helpful on your boat shoot. If nothing else, it lets you take the weight off your back between shots.