Old 01-05-2010, 01:53 PM   #1
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II

Canon announces an update to this lens. An expensive lens, to be sure.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10...n70200isii.asp

I mention it in part because there are rumors about concerning other lens updates and new lenses from Canon so I can also provide this link:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/01/p...part-2-lenses/

Everything on the high end, although I must say, the low end seems pretty well covered, there is no gap in the low-end product range that comes to mind.

Elsewhere on that site there are predictions for DSLR bodies and for P/S.

J
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 02:47 PM   #2
LSRC Railfan
Senior Member
 
LSRC Railfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 274
Default

Well I know what I'm buying this summer.
LSRC Railfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 04:13 PM   #3
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

This lens is big, Way big. If a guy needs F 2.8 and is going to a lot if low light it may be worth getting. I had one a mk1 this would be the mk3 or 2 one with IS. I have a F 4 and am happy as hell I don't have the F 2.8 hanging from my neck now days.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 05:19 PM   #4
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milwman View Post
This lens is big, Way big. If a guy needs F 2.8 and is going to a lot if low light it may be worth getting. I had one a mk1 this would be the mk3 or 2 one with IS. I have a F 4 and am happy as hell I don't have the F 2.8 hanging from my neck now days.
I can't imagine it's much bigger than the 100-400, which is very easy to lug around, IMO.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 05:23 PM   #5
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

What sort of impact will this have on the pricing of the original 70-200 f/2.8 IS, or even the 70-200 F/4? I suspect it's good news for anyone with Canon equipment, even if they're not in the market for this specific model.
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 06:00 PM   #6
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Damnation, I was going to order the old version the moment I got back to work! Now I have to wait for this thing to come out instead...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
I can't imagine it's much bigger than the 100-400, which is very easy to lug around, IMO.
It's very comparable, but the 70-200 is nicer to use due to the ring zoom instead of push-pull. (I find push-pull to be nice on smaller lenses, but not that one)
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 06:37 PM   #7
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,023
Send a message via AIM to Walter S
Default

The most interesting new feature on the 70-200L to me is the updated lens hood. Looking forward to seeing how the lens performs, I love my version I.
__________________
Walter Scriptunas II
Scriptunasimages.com
Walter S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 06:54 PM   #8
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
I can't imagine it's much bigger than the 100-400, which is very easy to lug around, IMO.
I did too back when I was 30, after I turned 45 years old I dumped it along with all my fast glass, My bag dropped by 10#. Hell I never need F2.8 so i got all F4 lenses.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 08:25 PM   #9
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milwman View Post
I did too back when I was 30, after I turned 45 years old I dumped it along with all my fast glass, My bag dropped by 10#.
Good...I've still got three years ago.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 08:55 PM   #10
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

How often do you shoot @ or below f6.3??

Never while taking rail pics I bet, get the 70-200/f4 IS and save $$$
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 09:08 PM   #11
cblaz
Senior Member
 
cblaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
How often do you shoot @ or below f6.3??

Never while taking rail pics I bet, get the 70-200/f4 IS and save $$$
If a person shoots in any lighting conditions other than midday, sun at my back, eventually they'll have to go below f/6.3.

- Chris
/Even the 50mm f/1.8 in my bag gets a workout a few times a year.
__________________
- Christopher Blaszczyk
My shots on RP: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=284
cblaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 09:09 PM   #12
ottergoose
American Gunzel
 
ottergoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,626
Send a message via AIM to ottergoose Send a message via Yahoo to ottergoose
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
How often do you shoot @ or below f6.3??

Never while taking rail pics I bet, get the 70-200/f4 IS and save $$$
Unless, of course, you go outside when the sun's setting... or want shallow DoF... or...

I agree... the F/4 is a good buy, I have one myself, but I wouldn't get it on the basis that you'll never shoot below f/6.
__________________
Nick Benson | Pictures | Website | Flickr | Profile | JetPhotos | Twitter
ottergoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 09:10 PM   #13
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
How often do you shoot @ or below f6.3??

Never while taking rail pics I bet, get the 70-200/f4 IS and save $$$
f5.6 most of the time with my 100-400, and f4 quite a bit with my 24-105.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 09:14 PM   #14
jnohallman
Senior Member
 
jnohallman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottergoose View Post
Unless, of course, you go outside when the sun's setting...
That's what tripods are for!!!

Jon
__________________
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." - Mark Twain

Click here to see my photos on RP.net!

Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, click here. Don't even think about it. I'm warning you!
jnohallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 09:57 PM   #15
Walter S
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 1,023
Send a message via AIM to Walter S
Default

The 70-200F2.8 IS is my workhorse when shooting sports, especially at night when f2.8 or lower is a MUST.

__________________
Walter Scriptunas II
Scriptunasimages.com
Walter S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 10:00 PM   #16
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ottergoose View Post
Unless, of course, you go outside when the sun's setting... or want shallow DoF... or...

I agree... the F/4 is a good buy, I have one myself, but I wouldn't get it on the basis that you'll never shoot below f/6.
The 70-200 F 4 is sharp at F 4 Never tried 24-105 at F 4 . If you have it focused that is and thats the drawback of shooting wide open. Zooms are a lot lighter then all my primes, 20 mm to 300.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 10:01 PM   #17
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
How often do you shoot @ or below f6.3??

Never while taking rail pics I bet, get the 70-200/f4 IS and save $$$
Some of us here take pictures of things other than trains
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 10:14 PM   #18
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milwman View Post
The 70-200 F 4 is sharp at F 4 Never tried 24-105 at F 4 . If you have it focused that is and thats the drawback of shooting wide open.
f4

Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 308724
Photograph © Jim Thias

Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 304359
Photograph © Jim Thias

Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 304267
Photograph © Jim Thias

Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 296039
Photograph © Jim Thias
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 11:07 PM   #19
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40 View Post
Some of us here take pictures of things other than trains
Thats something I need to expand on.
__________________
Peter Lewis | Portfolio | Profile | Flickr | Facebook

Canon EOS 40D
Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM


Quote:
Originally Posted by A Friend
everytime i see non-train photos of yours i think, "so much talent. wasted on trains."
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 11:12 PM   #20
PLEzero
Senior Member
 
PLEzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh,PA
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
How often do you shoot @ or below f6.3??

Never while taking rail pics I bet, get the 70-200/f4 IS and save $$$
I'd venture to guess more than 50% of my photo are shot below f/5.6. As Walter pointed out, it is a must for sports photography. Not as much for trains, but still more than you think.
__________________
Brad Morocco
Candyland, PA
My Flickr Photos
My RP.net Photos
PLEzero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 11:14 PM   #21
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

[quote=JimThias;106945]f4
Yea Its the what works for you works well, Me if I have light i want 5.6 or more. There is a lot of ways to get good photos and its mostly behind the eyes.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/

Last edited by milwman; 01-05-2010 at 11:25 PM.
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 02:00 AM   #22
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milwman View Post
Yea Its the what works for you works well, Me if I have light i want 5.6 or more. There is a lot of ways to get good photos and its mostly behind the eyes.
Well, the only reason why I was using f4 on those is because I was using a 2 stop CP filter. I needed the speed.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 04:01 AM   #23
LSRC Railfan
Senior Member
 
LSRC Railfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 274
Default

Quote:
Today 04:55 PM
troy12n How often do you shoot @ or below f6.3??

Never while taking rail pics I bet, get the 70-200/f4 IS and save $$$
All the time. I also shoot weddings, senior pictures, sports, etc. Then again, I do all of that to allow myself to buy good gear for railfanning.
LSRC Railfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 04:02 AM   #24
milwman
I shoot what I like
 
milwman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cedar Fall's, Iowa
Posts: 2,474
Send a message via Yahoo to milwman
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Well, the only reason why I was using f4 on those is because I was using a 2 stop CP filter. I needed the speed.
Yeah CP's suck up light. I had a EF L 200 2.8 1 Small and light but the head lights killed it and the 70-200 f L 4 is better than the prime as far as ghosting and maybe sharper to. The best wide I had was the EF 28-70 F 2.8 but 70 for the long end never worked for me.
__________________
Richard Scott Marsh I go by Scott long story

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22299476@N05/
milwman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2010, 04:07 AM   #25
Joey Bowman
Senior Member
 
Joey Bowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hudson, NC
Posts: 358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
How often do you shoot @ or below f6.3??

Never while taking rail pics I bet, get the 70-200/f4 IS and save $$$
Just for shits and giggles here are some train photos taken at f/2.8 or f/4. In my portrait and wedding work I rarely shoot with an aperture narrower than f/5.6 and long for the day when I can own some 1.2 and 1.4 glass.

This one is 5.6, but it was also at 600mm.. (or a 960mm FOV since it was with an aps-c camera)

Image © Joey Bowman
PhotoID: 218615
Photograph © Joey Bowman


2.8, shot on film

Image © Joey Bowman
PhotoID: 248169
Photograph © Joey Bowman


4

Image © Joey Bowman
PhotoID: 253687
Photograph © Joey Bowman


2.8 (sigma 70-200 2.8 ) Shot quite a few with a 50mm 1.8 as well on this day though I have never posted any.

Image © Joey Bowman
PhotoID: 306389
Photograph © Joey Bowman


4

Image © Joey Bowman
PhotoID: 200881
Photograph © Joey Bowman
Joey Bowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.