Lens advice - Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II??

[katezim]

Hi there,

I am looking to invest in a new lens for my Canon 7D. I have a 50mm 1.4 which I love using. I recently got the canon EF 17-55mm 2.8 which I also think is quite nice. And I have the kit lens that came with my camera (28-135mm) which I got a lot of use out of but now I rarely use because of the other two lenses that I have. Now I am looking for with a longer focal length and mainly used for portraits. And I would love to have an L glass lens. Everyone says how amazing the canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is but I am moving to Peru for 7 months and am worried that lens might cause a lot of attention. But I am worried I would be missing out if I didn't get it! I really like shooting with my prime that I already have so I was maybe thinking of the canon 135mm f/2L but might be a little tight on my crop body. I'm also thinking about the canon 85mm f/1.2L. I would love to hear your input! Thank you!!

www.katezimmermanphotography.com

[brannend]

I had the f4 and traded it in on the f2.8 version of the 70-200L IS. Both are remarkable lenses. I have carried the 2.8 all over Europe and never had any problems at all. Although that big white elephant in the room does garner some attention I have never regretted taking it along. I use a black rapid strap which keeps it nicely at my hip and I always have my hand on it. I was called a paparazzi a couple of times at the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul but no issues. If you have the coin to do it, get the lens. It spends more time mounted on my body than anything else.

[Colin Southern]

The EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II is a great lens - but bottom line is that it's going to be conspicuous. Only you can decide if that's an issue for you.

I've also go the EF135mm F2.0L USM - it's great for portraiture - BUT - it's never going to have the versatility of a zoom. On a crop-factor camera if you have the camera to subject distance then go for it, but that distance for anything more than head and shoulders is starting to get pretty big.

Optically, both are superb.

[Donald]

There is a similar thread, by the same member, running here in respect of the Canon 24- 105L. I suggest that the two can be 'paired' so that people do not have to write the same things twice.

[RustBeltRaw]

Suggest we continue the Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L II and Canon EF 24-105mm f4L discussions here for simplicity.

I suspect that Canon L lenses are big theft targets largely because of their highly conspicuous white bodies. It'd be interesting to compare Canon and Nikon theft rates for similar lenses. You could probably reduce your odds with a black LensCoat, which would cover up all those shiny white surfaces.

You're considering two lenses which have rather different purposes. Both are very good, but it might be best to get one at a time and learn them thoroughly before expanding your stable. First, what do you want to shoot? Does it need a telephoto or a wide-angle? If you got the 24-105mm f4L, do you think you'd miss the wider aperture of the 24-70mm f2.8L II? For environmental portraits and low light, the latter might be handy. All three are great lenses, but that doesn't mean you need all of them. Personally, I agree that the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM is a great mid-range lens, but I've moved past it as well, and I don't really use zooms any more, nor do I own any L glass. Mainly because I live between f2.0 and f4.0. This would drive me away from the 24-105mm f4L. Does your shooting have similar constraints?

[Glenn NK]

COPIED FROM OTHER THREAD

I have the 24-104 which I use mostly with my 5DII, but not so much with my older 30D. I usually pair the 30D and the 17-55.

The 24-105 is a very nice lens (it focuses quickly and the IS is very good), but since you already have the range covered to 135 (effectively 216 mm on the crop body), I would suggest the 70-200 Mark II. I have the previous version and it took me a while to become familiar with it, but I would not part with it now. In fact on a recent trip to Europe, I took the 70-200 and am glad I did (in spite of its weight).

While the 70-200 is a bit conspicuous, it has great "reach" making it useful for street shots (as long as you're careful and quick). A option with this lens is to put camouflage on it - the white is a bit bright.

Glenn

[katezim]

Thank you for all the helpful comments. I will take everything you said into consideration!

I am not particularly sure if I would need the extra reach for the 70-200mm. I like documentary style portraiture and not sure if that would really be the lens for me. However, I am going to rent this lens over the weekend and see how it goes.

Now, about the 85mm, i love how the smooth/buttery bokeh but I'm afraid the slow shutter might prove frustrating in those "i can't miss this" moments. Any other suggestions for lens best for photojournalistic photography?


** also, apologize for the same thread twice. I did not mean to do that!

[RustBeltRaw]

To me, "photojournalistic" implies a certain focal length. 28-50mm or so. Wide end for environmental portraits, tight end for relatively clean headshots. Note that 50mm is rather short for fine portrait work, since it will distort features somewhat. The 85mm f1.2L is freaking beautiful, but it's huge, heavy, fairly slow to focus, and highly specialized. I think you'll get a lot more mileage out of the 70-200mm f2.8L II. That thing focuses like it's on amphetamines.

[Colin Southern]

Now, about the 85mm, i love how the smooth/buttery bokeh but I'm afraid the slow shutter might prove frustrating in those "i can't miss this" moments. Any other suggestions for lens best for photojournalistic photography?

If you're meaning the Canon EF85mm F1.2L USM II then it's not "slow shutter" - I'm guessing you mean "slow AF"?

I don't find it too bad, but you probably need to try it for yourself. The reality is that at F1.2 the focusing has to be incredibly precise, and I suspect that Canon have geared the motor down somewhat to achieve that (judging by how little the fous shifts when one uses the FTM) (Full Time Manual focus).

It's a specialty lens though - once I got my EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II lens the 85/1.2L hardly ever saw the light of day; You can't use it at that aperture during the day because you won't be able to get the shutterspeed below 1/8000th. It's better at night / low light photography, but the DoF is razor thin and with modern cameras it's usually preferable to just use something like the 70-200/2.8 @ a higher ISO and also get the benefit of IS.

[inkista]

If you're worried about being conspicuous while street shooting, I wouldn't go for the Canonball (EF 85mm f/1.2L USM). It's a monster. And if you're scared that the 135L is too long, then I think the perfect compromise, with much lower cost, and much faster AF than the 85/1.2L would be the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. Its size and looks are modest, its sharpness is impeccable, and while it's a bit less contrasty than L glass would be, it more than makes up for it with a zippy enough AF performance to be used for basketball by the budget-conscious on dpreview.

I use the 135L on a crop body for event shooting (mostly booksignings and sf conventions), and it's served me well, and sometimes hasn't been long enough. 135mm is the center of the 70-200 range, if you stop to think about it, so it's not a terrible sub for one, but obviously, the longer a lens gets, the less versatile it becomes for framing, and the more running around you have to do. OTOH, the 135L is smaller, and it's ninja black instead of white.

Whether the 135L on crop will work for you does depend a lot on your working distances. I use it for torso shots at booksignings in a relatively small bookstore, where I shoot from the back of the crowd:


Canon XT. EF 135mm f/2L USM. iso 1600, f/2, 1/200s.
Christopher Moore's Fool signing at Mysterious Galaxy.

But it is also long enough on crop to be one of my favorite zoo lenses.


Canon XT. EF 135mm f/2L USM. iso 400, f/2, 1/250s.

[Colin Southern]

I use the 135L on a crop body for event shooting (mostly booksignings and sf conventions), and it's served me well, and sometimes hasn't been long enough.

I know you know this Kathy, but just for the benefit of others - the EF 135MM F2.0L USM is compatible with Canon's 1.4x and 2.0x tele-extenders, if more reach is needed.

[Colin Southern]

If you're worried about being conspicuous while street shooting, I wouldn't go for the Canonball (EF 85mm f/1.2L USM). It's a monster.

PS: You can laugh at it, but rumour has it that our multi-gold winning world shot-put champion Valerie Adams trains with one of those, and look where it's got her!

[rpcrowe]

I carry the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and a 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on a pair of 7D cameras just about anywhere I go. The f/4L IS lens is far lighter in weight and smaller in size than the 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) lenses. I can carry the f/4L IS and the second camera at not much more weight that the f/2.8L IS II lens alone.

As far as being conspicuous, the f/4L (series) lenses wearing a generic round lens hood is even less conspicuous than the f/4 wearing the generic Canon OEM hood. If the white lens bothers you, neoprene Lens Coat covers are available in black and camouflage.



I will carry both cameras either on an OPTECH Dual Harness or I will carry the camera with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on a strap around my neck and carry the camera with the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens wearing the round hood in a holster case. The round lens hood makes it easy to draw and replace the camera and lens into my holster case.

Both the f/4L IS and the f/2.8L IS lens produce excellent imagery and both are very good portrait lenses. Of course, if you absolutely need the f/2.8 aperture, the f/4L lens will not provide that. However, I have not found that I needed the extra stop on most occasions.

I have been carrying my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses on two 1.6x cameras for years and have traveled throughout China as well as Italy, Greece and Turkey.

If the price of a second 7D would be too high, a Canon 50D or even a 40D would make a very good second camera. In fact, I shot China using a 30D and a 40D.

[William W]

. . . Any other suggestions for lens best for photojournalistic photography?

For use on your 7D and as pair of lenses for your EF50 F/1.4: - the EF 24 F/1.4L MkII USM and the EF 85F/1.8 USM.

For use on a 5D / 6D Series Camera and as two additional lenses for your EF50 F/1.4: - the EF35F/1.4 USM and the EF85 F1.8 USM

The EF135 F/2 would be an handsome addition to either kit and the EF24 F/1.4L MkII USM would be useful in a 5D Series Kit, though probably less often used than the other lenses.

***

On 5D / 6D Series (or 1Ds / 1Dx Series) Camera arguably the "best" solution is the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L MkII USM.

A (Maximum Aperture / DoF / Focal Length compass) "equivalent" of the 24 to 70/2.8 used on these cameras, is impossible to attain with any lens in the APS-C Camera Series of cameras.

This is one reason why many (most?) Portrait Photographers choose use these cameras and have that zoom lens as a major part of their kit, (or a similar F/2.8 zoom lens, such as the previous Canon model or one of the Tamron - i.e. their 24 to 70/2.8 or 28 to 75/2.8 . . . etc.)


WW

[RustBeltRaw]

I...I think the perfect compromise, with much lower cost, and much faster AF than the 85/1.2L would be the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. Its size and looks are modest, its sharpness is impeccable, and while it's a bit less contrasty than L glass would be, it more than makes up for it with a zippy enough AF performance to be used for basketball by the budget-conscious on dpreview.

Seconded. The 85mm f1.8 USM is the slightly shorter brother of the 100mm f2.0 USM I use like crazy for roller derby and portraits. Sharp and fast, both in terms of aperture and focus speed. They're so similar that I spent a donkey's age agonizing over which to pick. Ultimately, 100 was a nice, round number. Apart from a really iffy lens hood mount (duct tape to the rescue!), it's still my favorite bit of glass.

[rpcrowe]

Lex, you mentioned "duct tape to the rescue!" I don't use duct tape on my equipment because of the residue it can leave (although I just noticed a Scotch Non-Residue Duct Tape at Home Depot).

I use Gaffer's Tape when I need to tape any of my equipment. It holds quite well and leaves no residue. It is, however, fairly expensive. I just purchased my last 60 yard x 2 inch roll for close to twenty U.S. Dollars.

If I did not have the recently purchased roll, I would take a chance on the residue free Scotch Duct Tape which is about seven U.S. Dollars per roll.

[RustBeltRaw]

Lex, you mentioned "duct tape to the rescue!" I don't use duct tape on my equipment because of the residue it can leave (although I just noticed a Scotch Non-Residue Duct Tape at Home Depot).

That's exactly what I use. $4.50/roll. It does leave a little residue if it's repeatedly applied and removed. I'm using it to lock down my lens hoods, so I do get some residue. If it was on an optical element, I'd care, but little tacky spots on the lens barrels don't bother me.

[rpcrowe]

Thanks for letting me know about the no/low residue duct tape. I will expect that my roll of duct tape will last me a long while. Using it for jobs like securing lens hods (good idea - I lost a 17-55mm f/2.8 OEM hood while boarding a Venetian Vaporetto by side swiping a stanchion) doesn't take a lot of tape. What used a great deal of tape was taping electrical cables to the floor when shooting on location.