I bought this as a backup to my 70-200 2.8 III lens and it is a disappointment. Does not hold up to the performance of the 70-200 AT ALL. Maybe I got a bad copy, but mine is not god enough to be worth shooting. I keep it around for my daughter (she's 14 and has a rebel) to shoot. Not recommended...
April 17, 2014
another sleeper lens
I bought this one pretty recently but I have to say it's gotten a lot of use.
I'm not a big fan of zooms, but I have a few. I was looking at the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. Very pricey, and it would probably spend most of its time at 200mm. So for 1/3 of the price I get this 200mm f.2.8L II. I think it's actually sharper, and I don't miss the IS much because honestly below 1/200 of a second your subject motion comes into play. Also this lens is quite sharp wide open.
It's heavy-ish but certanly not in its focal length range and certainly lighter than the 70-200s are.
If you don't mind changing lenses to get the job done, get this lens. Between this and the 135 f/2L I find the short telephoto range is covered.
September 24, 2013
I was carrying a 70-200, but realised I was permanently jammed out at 200 for wildlife/sports, and the results were not quite what I had hoped for. I tried this because it is 2.8L, compatible with the extenders, nice price, and I was betting on gaining prime sharpness over my zoom. It delivers, and it keeps surprising me. It's lightweight. It's black, so it doesn't scream for attention. I don't use the tripod mount often but I was a little annoyed that it wasn't included, had to pick one up separately.
February 24, 2013
This is an excellent prime lens that has great bokeh. A great addition to Amy photographers bag. It is super sharp with a fast auto focus. It can be used hand held but best used when mounted to a tripod or monopod. Great in low light.
January 2, 2013