Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L is III USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

Comment

3 stars is for the weight and not superior image quality like people think. Ok so let me just say that I used this newer version III lens on my Mark 5d III and I am used to using my 100mm 2.8 IS L Macro fixed Prime Lens for pristine superior sharpness and quality images. I also use my L 24-105mm IS F4 as my zoom lens for everyday which also gives me pristine sharp quality images but my 100mm lens gives me more BANG since it’s a 2.8F and fixed Prime lens. My 100mm has superior image quality and sharpness in lower lighting without any noise and the lens has many F sweet spots to work with. Just about every image comes out perfect. I like to work with fast shutter speeds since I don’t use my tripod much anymore even in the dark. Now the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8LIII is VERY HEAVY AND VERY HUGE! Do we really need to carry 70-200 in weight of glass to be able to shoot 200mm distance and mid range zoom all in one package?. I don’t think so. I had trouble with it! I could not keep it still even with fast shutter speeds. My hands were shaking just trying to keep the camera and lens up and still. This lens needs a tripod for sure, I couldn’t even hold it up for long. I was compare shooting with both my 100mm and the 70-200mm at a stadium to see the difference. My 100mm WAY outperformed the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L III in many ways. I have been asking my self Is it really worth the extra 100mm more distance to get to the 200mm zoom? and I wasn’t even getting the same superior images compared to my 100mm, in my opinion NO it’s not worth it, I sent it back and was actually glad to get rid of it. I get excellent sharp high quality images from my 24-105mm IS F4L and superior images from my 100mm 2.8F IS L and these lens are manageable even if I take them both with me. if I want to get further out to 200mm or 400mm? I have decided to try an extender on my 100mm. I don’t know what that will get me or if it’s any good or not but I am looking into it and if that doesn’t get me where I want to be then I will look into a prime lens at 400mm. I hear the 100mm-400mm IS f/4.5-5.6L is suppose to be excellent but again I am sure not as good as a fixed Prime. I think if I get at least as good as my 24-105mm quality I will be very happy even though probably the 100mm-400mm is still heavy. so many decisions to make... anyways...I will be comparing those 3 options next just to know if one will suit my purpose and quality. Zoom lens will never give you the same superior images as a fixed lens. Sorry I am just spoiled and know the difference. Many casual photographers (who are the majority of reviewing) don’t know the difference or even know how to tell the difference in the quality of images to compare what’s best and what isn’t, but I do. I sell stock photos so it’s important I only get superior very best quality sharp images with not any noise or artifacts at higher speeds and ISO. Now I am not saying you can’t get super great images that are stock photo sellable with this lens I am just saying a fixed lens gives superior images over this zoom lens. I am just very picky about image quality and sharpness.

Show more

Comment

Together with the Canon 24-70 F2.8 MK II, the 70-200 F2.8L IS MK III is one of, or if not, the sharpest non-prime lens that I have ever had experience with. Very fast and accurate focusing. Highly recommended.

Show more

Comment

Nothing bad to say Are you kidding Only non prime WaF Imho. AWESOME AWESOME AWEDOME

Show more

Comment

I would love this lens ever to have.. cant afford it

Show more

Comment

This lens is an exquisite piece of art. Sharp, fast, clear, stable, durable, silent. Worths every penny.

Show more