| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
|
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
  | sent on 06 Marzo 2026 Pros: Robust, OK filter diameter, TOP image quality Cons: Weight, but I knew it a priori Opinion: I got it used from a physical store in Italy. In very bad aesthetic condition at a very honest price. Well I must say that if you are lucky like me that the lens has been passed on the bench and calibrated as it should be, it is very sharp. (others assert the opposite based on the MKII that I have never tried). My copy will certainly have 20 years on its back, but it wears it great. USED with the 5dmkiii and the 7D mki is pure enjoyment. I like the blur, it is not "raw" or forced. Obviously at maximum aperture the PDC is very small and here are the pros and cons. For me it is a beautiful lens. Fast AF and tracking. The only "negative" thing is the noise of the stabilizer that is annoying at times. |
  | sent on 05 Gennaio 2025 Pros: Robust construction, tropicalization, internal zoom, 77mm filters, image quality, lightning-fast and precise auto focus, good focal range Cons: Weight compared to younger sisters (justified), price despite age (not senseless though) Opinion: Top of the range Canon lens as far as the medium length of the telephoto is concerned. The 2.8 aperture makes the lens ideal for any situation, very bright and fast like few others. even at TA at the 2 extremes of the focal lengths the photos do not come with too many distortions (chromatic aberration little and easily correctable in post, good sharpness and little loss of detail even at 200mm). The weight (compared to the other 70-200 that Canon produced) is quite a lot, but all justified by the presence of stabilization and the "crazy" aperture of 2.8. This leads to having to have the ring for the tripod so as not to strip the thread of the camera, thus adding more weight (which I honestly don't find too disabling). The robustness, materials and attention to detail that have been used to build this lens can be perceived, the tropicalization is the confirmation. If combined with a good camera body with a nice AF, the lens is lightning fast and precise even today. Too bad, however, for the price, which despite the 24 years it carries on its back, the project is still quite expensive (bought used with some small aesthetic defects for more than 600 euros). If this and the weight are not scary, well, in that case you have in front of you a lens with few errors, indeed none as far as I'm concerned! Recommended and in hindsight I would buy it again, even at the cost of spending a little more, because every time I shoot I can count every single penny spent. Absurd for a lens of this age, aged really well! |
 | sent on 21 Agosto 2024 Pros: Materials, image quality, internal zoom, handling. Still very good optics! Cons: For me no cons Opinion: I tried several 70 200 f2.8 also the RF series and I decided to buy the first stabilized series lens that has its years on its shoulders, so many told me that it was not the top that had gaps that the 2 series does not have etc etc ... The files are exceptional, faithful and bright colors, perfect sharpness, neither soft nor aggressive, very nice blur and an excellent three-dimensionality of the image! A perspective that can still be exploited to the great advantage today. |
 | sent on 04 Gennaio 2023 Pros: Professional optics, not a toy slide, that says it all. Cons: Hood clutch Opinion: Optics that still knows how to return a lot of satisfaction, my copy is about 20 years old and still works very well (of course, things must be maintained with care and "love" if we want to carry them forward over time). At an optical level it has no problem solving the 20 Mpix of the 1DX2 with which I shoot but I'm sure that putting on a denser sensor would still have character to sell (obviously, we are not talking about a 100 L 2.8 Macro). The stabilizer is heard on video, but with an external directional microphone also attached above the camera, it is no longer heard. Stabilizer that allows you to use this lens outside of sports situations, for example you can take a portrait, or try a landscape a little more closed freehand. We are still talking about an old instrument, but professional, and it makes me laugh when I hear criticism from people who shoot with standard kit optics with outputs like "and but that lens you have is unusable" then inevitably you meet in the field and the difference you see, and how. As mentioned before, old but professional, consequently it brings with it characteristics that most do not even know how to evaluate because, in fact, they do not even know what we are talking about. That said, the great CON that I move is the lens hood graft, dancer because of the "screw" graft that wears over the years, problem solved with version 2. |
 | sent on 13 Novembre 2018 Pros: A lot Cons: Little Opinion: I don't understand the criticisms of this excellent lens. The smooth is not even remotely comparable, let alone in low light conditions. There are also those who prefer the version F/4 and the thing, weight apart, amazes me. The F/4 never achieves its result. Version II is higher for AF speed. On the central sharpness are practically identical, on the edges it maintains more the II but nothing dramatic. The colors are a bit warmer on the version I but more contraended on the II. Compare the images in post to believe. The real problem is that Canon does not provide assistance on products no longer in production for seven years. Which also does not concern only this optics and which is not from Canon. |
 | sent on 08 Novembre 2018 Pros: ---- Cons: It's not worth buying Opinion: The price difference between this lens and the next version is lowering terribly. There are 70-200 is II to €1000 in perfect condition. What is the point of spending €200 less, for a perspective that is largely demonstrating its age? It is sharp if you use 12mpx machines, if you climb you see its objective limits. He weighs like a kid, and the stabilizer makes a tremendous noise. By the way if they also make them pay used because they are rare to find, and therefore there is risk that you find them even at €900. Absolutely not recommended in my opinion the purchase. Much better than the smooth version, also because shooting at 1 \ \ 60 and the like with a 70-200 I find it a bit... useless? If you are doing sport at 1 \ \ 60 The images are moved to you because the object moves, if you are doing stationary portraits where you can use 1 \ \ 60... Do not use the 70-200. I do not know, I repeat how personally I find the difference in cost with version II widely justifiable, even in the perspective of future resalability. I have yet to understand this obsession with the stabilizer, it seems that people do not live without, when for me is really useless. More expense, more weight and less quality only for the stabilizer? |
 | sent on 07 Novembre 2018 Pros: Sharp, stabilized, robust, does not extend zooming, colors, AF Cons: Weight, kidney to be given away to have it Opinion: I had the smooth, excellent version, given away to some fixed including the 100l and went back to the 70-200 2.8... Is gentlemen this is the lens, the one you need to have in outfit without any doubt! I read that it is not as sharp as the smooth, but I find them really equivalent and both to the height of the 100 L macro is, which makes me suspect of variability of specimens, I want to point out that I bought them both in the center canon and both I did do AF calibration, to get snipers. Sharpness at the top apart from giving unique colors, warm, deep, vibrant, excellent out of the planes, fast AF, tropicalization, certainty of the result every time you shoot... Its qualitative stamp is always present, at all focal lengths, you will always take the shot at home. Only cons is the weight... 1.5 kg of glass are many, I decided that I prefer to bring those kg rather than lose a photo, the is on this lens is indispensable, I shoot at 1/60 freehand to 200, all clear without micro-blur, I would say evidence widely exceeded! Sooner or later I'll switch to the is II version, for simple upgrade, but this is already a really high level. |
|
| sent on 04 Agosto 2017 Pros: Tropicalization, quality, stabilizer, bright, blurred, robust Cons: Weight, not sharp (but nothing dramatic), old-fashioned stabilizer Opinion: It was the first "pro" optic of my dear friend, spending a fortune at the time when I used the rare occasions that lent him to me and my love was immediately; Subsequently also because of the many criticisms of the forums and with the release of the series II he sold it. After a few years I have just had the opportunity to buy it at a price drastically compared to the average value of the sales here on the forums (taken at the price of a stabilized whitewash used), which say to me like, handsome, very colors Thick cake, not the best of the sharpness that is, especially when compared to the new version but nothing catastrophic this I tend to say !. The stabilizer is not the maximum covers up to two maximum stops; It's heavy on the right, but at the end of the fair the files are beautiful.rn honest, if I did not find the opportunity at a higher price I would not have taken it, under the conditions for how I bought it I can say I'm very satisfied ! rn |
 | sent on 25 Novembre 2016 Pros: tropicalization, quality ', stabilizer, bright, beautiful blurred, robust Cons: high price, heavy but the quality 'pay Opinion: I bought it around 2005, overused and I continue to use it professionally, from fashion to the outdoor theater where the stabilizer and 'fundamental, it has not disappointed me so much that I never even felt the need to try the series despite 2 all men speak well. rnHa "character", and on my own this and 'the most' important thing in a obiettivo.rnFa part of my basic kit and do not think to change it. rn |
 | sent on 18 Aprile 2015 Pros: Robust, impeccable construction, weather sealed, stabilizer great, bright. Cons: Weight, not very crisp compared to the first series and the series II. Opinion: I had it in the test and I used it on canon 5d mark II. For what it costs, unfortunately, is not as sharp as the other two before and after this. Mysteries of canon. Prefer the model without stabilized but with a high sharpness as the Series II. Too bad, however, because of high construction as ever for the series L. disfigures really than 2 brothers including the version f4 less bright. I am sorry but it is not bigotry. I would not even given. Regarding the sharpness is not only up to the other. Excuse me also Canon .... |
 | sent on 12 Marzo 2012 Pros: A tank L series, sealed, sufficiently crisp and clear aperture wide open, stabilization by 2 stops, as heavy as needed to balance a body 1D/1DS. Practically did not know what chromatic aberration and flare. AF fast and accurate. Cons: The cost, the model series II beats it on all fronts. Opinion: I bought this light back in 2004 (for 1820 € in that Garlasco) and I was almost disappointed because on paper it was the worst of the other 70-200. It seemed to throw away some money, but I took it anyway because it also promised top performance and I thought that I would have preferred a shot less sharp than a blurred picture (in those days was the maximum attainable 1600iso). I have never regretted the purchase and I never noticed some loss of quality, especially if diaphragmed a little. Honestly, I see the limits only now, after having sold in exchange for the Series II which is a bomb in every way. Another positive note is the low-down that allowed me to recover two-thirds of the total, in practice I have spent on this wonderful lens less than the cost of a simple coffee + brioche every Sunday morning for 8 years. And I assure you that the emotions have been many, but many more. |
 | sent on 06 Ottobre 2011 Pros: Robust built flawlessly, sealed, stabilized, bright. Cons: Pesantuccio some would say, slightly soft at room temperature. I would also add a little pricey at least when I bought it myself. Opinion: I bought this lens because I needed a stabilized optical bright and tropical needs to work otherwise I would have kept the younger brother f4 unregulated. What about a tank is indestructible, fast autofocus even if not as the f4 in my opinion, at room temperature is slightly soft in the corners (especially my left top corner but there is only scraps to 300%). E 'is heavy in the backpack when mounted in the car, not that you can use but not anywhere near the manegevollezza F4. On the whole, however, is a great lens with a fabulous bouquet excellent definition worthy of a L and the ability to give the shots where the f4 must stop. In conclusion, a lens that is worth the money it costs, but I would not recommend if you do not necessarily need a 2.8 stabilized. |
 | sent on 01 Ottobre 2011 Pros: Optical professional, robust, a real tank, tropical conditions and remarkable performance. Superlative image quality. Cons: Heavy and certainly not very affordable price. Opinion: It 'optics that solves most of the situations faced by a sports photographer but also of reportage. The AF is lightning-fast and precise, especially with performance machines is a real chip. The quality is excellent at room temperature, I would say better than closing 1 or 2 stops. Without testing (I do not like) the quality seemed a hair better (200 mm.) 200 2.8 even though I've owned. The colors are beautiful, chromatic aberration, even in strong backlight, is more than acceptable, as well as the vignetting disappears at room temperature and closes to 1.1 / 2 stop. The bokeh despite the optical design has many lenses are soft and comfortable. E 'was exceeded only by the MKII for sale although for many years, but its has a lower price which, although high, is affordable. In short, a perspective that gets hard to sell |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
