Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS in 2022. Thoughts from a pro photographer after 15 years of assignments

In this video I talk about my experience of using the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS USM zoom lens in my life as a professional photographer. I show some samples of images taken with the lens over the years, review the good and bad parts of the lens, talk about using it on a Canon 5d IV and also with an RF adaptor on the Canon R5. I show some example of how this lens helped me capture an image in difficult conditions that was then published in the news.
Thanks for watching.
Roy
MPB is agreat place to buy used equipment and have lots of variety and great prices. Below is an affiliate link that will help support my channel if you make a purchase.
prf.hn/l/6b5RX8A

[@wanderpoltv4990]

Been dreaming to have a lens like this and finally in 2023, I got a hold of this magnificent piece of art. I got mine second hand for 220$ cad from a guy who lost enthusiasm in photography. Lucky me.

[@RoyRiley]

May all your photographs be beautiful. RR

[@bennettphotography08]

I just bought mine 2 days ago and it's coming Wednesday. I'm super excited about it and only had to pay $460 for it

[@FluidSurfing]

I just got one for surfing videography with my sigma 150-600 sport. I'm just so happy to have one. So proud. I bought a f4 in October and been stolen in my car in December. And this week I've been so lucky to find a superb one for 330€. It's like if God put it to me to compensate. And this is THE piece of art I needed. Gonna watch your video now!

[@unbroken1010]

​@@FluidSurfingnah, it got stolen because you all keep "voting blue no matter who" criminals and illegal migrants stealing everything.

[@luckystriker7489]

I work at a travel magazine (still in print after 20 years) that no longer has the huge budget it used to have, so I still use my gear from the early days: a 5D body (mark 1, of course, because it's a tank), the lens you reviewed in this video, a 24-105mm f4 IS (good for daylight walkabouts) and a friendly little 35mm f1.8 to snap portraits of the people I interview. The old stuff still deliver the goods.

[@MartinWolfenden]

I stumbled upon your channel the other day. Am pretty glad I did. It’s a joy to find somebody with so much experience as a photographer sharing their expertise with the world. There are so many amateur photographers on KZbin giving terrible advice. Lots of videos telling people to never make a mistake or experiment. So your channel is a joy. Many thanks for the videos.

[@RoyRiley]

Thank you so much Martin! Really pleased you are enjoying my videos. Loads more in the pipeline! Very best wishes. RR

[@StreetGrain]

I bought mine used from a Boston photojournalist that shot a lot of really great stories from 2003-2013. I can't give it up now.

[@RoyRiley]

It’s great to have a piece of kit that has some heritage. It’s a keeper!

[@Desparter94]

I find you are giving the most authentic content and I always enjoy watching you talk it down in one take! I am grateful a veteran like you is sharing his knowledge here. Thanks!

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers JE! Much appreciated. RR

[@Clam_TV]

In a world of photography where people are swapping out gear every few months, it's refreshing to see someone like yourself who keeps a single lens for 15 years at a time, especially as I've just invested into a Pansonic S Pro 70-200 f2.8, making me confident in how long it's going to last me.

[@RoyRiley]

Nice choice Liam! The Panasonic gear is amazing. I have an old 12-35 for my GH4 and it just keeps on getting the job done! I have an old canon 300mm that I bought in 1995 so approaching 30 years old.. still going strong despite getting dragged a couple of times around the globe and every hardship a lens could endure! It’s got a chunk missing from the front element and has never been well looked after but it still turns in decent and sharp pictures when required.. I think the key is to invest in good glass that covers classical ranges and you will get many years good use and then still have financial value in the lens that f you wish to sell!

[@Clam_TV]

@@RoyRiley Lovely take on it! Hopefully one day I can say the same comment to someone else about this lens! It's nice to know you get what you pay for :)

[@Casualfulltime]

Absolutely iconic and brilliant lens. Been using mine professionally since about 2010 and it's still going. Used on a regular basis too with my 2 x 5D mark 3's. No complaints from clients. I shoot most at 2.8 and it hits focus 99% of time. I use al servo exclusively and results are super sharp at 2.8. This is a work horse.

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers Paul! Nice going.. 99% hit rate at 2.8 is very very good 👍🏻

[@Kn2ght]

i have mk III, but my viewfinder AF dsnt work, so all the time i use contrast detection AF/Live View mode, so will it work fast in LV mode too? should i get one ? and if u can give me some tips and tricks for live view focusing i would be very greatful. thanks

[@tonyburford421]

I have the mk1, used on 5D3, 5D4 and now on an R8. I see no reason to replace it, it’s fabulous!

[@mvp_kryptonite]

Thank you for the extremely detailed commentary on this lens. I’m no pro but a serious hobbyist and agree with you view on size, weight and versatility. I have the ef70-200 f2.8 II and am interested in the ef70-300 lens for those reasons. I found in my experience too that I use the efs17-55 f2.8 in times where light and results are called for. Otherwise I prefer the efs15-85 variable aperture. Your published storm shot is stunning, along too with the intro shots!

[@fmarinosfromafar9512]

I love that you've used that lens for so long and resisted the temptation to upgrade. Being a very amateur amateur I've only rented this lens (in the MkII IS form) a few times over several years and I loved the results I got from it. For mine it's so versatile - if I could only have one lens this would be it. Great review (and the one on the 5DMk2, by the way).

[@RoyRiley]

Thank you. Glad you are enjoying the content.. good luck with your photography. All the best. RR

[@AnandaGarden]

Thank you very much, Roy. I'm very grateful that you invested the time and effort to share your real-world experience with the 70-200 2.8 IS v1. I'm age 80, photographer for 56 years, and love light-weight, excellent, practical but "unimportant"-feeling gear. For these reasons, my first choice for low-light stage and other events would be the 135/2 (I've owned several copies.) But I also need the versatility of the Big White Whale, and your lovely photos are persuasive and helpful. BTW, I shot sports in the early 70s. I worked for the company that published Runner's World and shot running, swimming, gymnastics, cycling, and martial arts. I now shoot events for a school, community, and sangha.

[@RoyRiley]

Thank you Ananda. Sounds like you have had a wonderful photography career. What a blessing for us to have photography as a profession and hobby! The 135mm F2! What a lens that is! Awesome. Thanks for your time watching and for your interesting comment. Roy

[@LunkerFishing]

I am an amateur photographer. I enjoy family photos, wildlife, and landscape. I have been looking to pick up this lens in the 2.8 and Model II for a while but recently I was able to buy one at a great price. You are right, this is a tank of a lens and likely more than I need most of the time, but I want to have the ability to do everything this lens will do. I have it paired to my 5D MarkIV. Thanks for the in depth review.

[@Photoshopuzr]

Respect to you man, I see your still holding strong with that lens. What allot people may not know is the the F4 non IS is the king of sharpness at the cheapest cost, I traveled with that lens for 1 year first before I sold it to get the v2 IS which is the same lens on the v3 body same sharpness people say its a sharper lens, but no all canon did with the v3 lens is they fixed the lens flare issue. I love lens flares besides I never hand issues with flares since I know what im doing. That lens you got is also sharp as well and it should be lighter than v2 and 3.

[@Historical-Perspective]

Thanks for a good, honest and well descriptiv video about this great Lens. I am a new user of it and I just can "realize" that this Lens is good to many ambitions of other users with middle experiences and bigger enthousiams like myself😊

[@RoyRiley]

Glad you Enjoyed it! Good luck with your photography. RR

[@michaelmcdonald3345]

Nice review. I shoot with the R6 and have thought about moving up to the RF version. Other than the lighter weight, can't justify the extra $$$. I also love the internal zoom. And, yes. It is a tank!

[@Cue1477]

I've had this lens 9 yrs now and paid £800 for it second hand! Absolutely love it on my 5DMKIV & 5DSR. Still to this day it looks brand new not a mark on it. Great review and thank you for this video.

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers Robert. That was a good buy!

[@CineMaddox]

Great video Roy!

[@hansfijlstra5932]

Interesting view from a professional on how this lens is used and how it performs in a harsh environment. My version was also razor sharp. But in the end the f/2.8 was a little bit too heavy. The f/4.0 version I have now is also razor sharp and a lot lighter. But still, the f/2.8 is a great lens.

[@psy-tek204]

yesterday a bought an EOS 1Ds mark III after lots of reading, but also after watching your video. i was already looking forward using it with 70-200... perfect timing. thank you for everything you do.

[@RoyRiley]

It’s a pleasure! Thanks for watching and for your feedback and support! Much appreciated. Good luck with the kit. R

[@jamielee7244]

I just got the 1D mk3 and looking to get this? How’s it going together?

[@csb65536]

Thank you for this video. I currently have that same lens, I originally used it on my EOS-1N (film) then later on my 5D MK-III, and my 5DSR. After watching some others comparing it to the newer versions, I was convinced I needed to step up to the second or third version. However, after watching this video the first time, I took my lens out and started shooting with it focusing on subject that had a lot of detail so I could re-inspect the sharpness (as well as contrast, and color saturation) and see if I really needed to upgrade. But overall, I was very pleased with the results I got from this version. I have no doubt the second and third versions may be a bit sharper, with less lens flare (a weak point with mine) but I find that I am happy with the results I am getting. I have a tendency to jump on the latest and greatest thinking it will make my images better. But this video helped me to decide on just using this one.

[@RoyRiley]

My advice for anyone..and for my myself for that matter (although it can be hard to stick to!) is to stick with what you already have and just learn to use it better or point your cameras at more interesting stuff! There are always exceptions and for example when working professionally you need to have the absolute best you can afford ( or often cannot afford!) to ensure the absolute best images for clients. That said, I cannot imagine many end users of photography looking at any decent picture taken on a 70-200 2.8 and saying to themselves “ that would have been better if it was on the mk3 version of that lens” if they did say that they would most likely be the most boring person on earth and not many people would be listening so basically.. it’s a win win for you! Keep your old lens and spend your money on something that makes you smile 😊

[@TsvetanVR]

Ah, I remember how far out of my reach this lens was when I was starting out as a teenager some 16 years ago. I was forced to get the cheap Sigma 70-300 APO DG back then. Shot for a few years then took roughly a decade-long break from photography. Fast-forward to this spring and me finding my inspiration once again after a serious motorcycle accident, I started upgrading my old stuff which ended in moving from the 60D, to a 7D II to a Sony A7 IV...and realizing that the price of a new 70-200 2.8 is absolutely mental! I was lucky to find an EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mark 1 in absolutely mint condition and snatched that for the Sony through the Sigma MC-11 adapter. A dream come true. I already have some nice photos and I don't find it that big and heavy as I'm used to lugging the 150-600 Sigma throughout hills and valleys while looking for birds. I attend weekly indoor concerts and 2.8 is the slowest I'd comfortably go as I'm already pushing 5000 ISO to properly expose some shots. An F4 lens just wouldn't cut it. It's either this or 3 primes that would both cost more and make me miss opportunities. I'm thinking of upgrading to a modern 35-150 f2-2.8 but I'm not sure yet. I also feel this lens is starting to have historical value just like classic cars and I'm not really keen on parting with it.

[@zcad123]

i am glade i came across this video as i have been looking to try and find a lens that had a larger fstop than what i have been using which is a sigma 150-600 f5-6.4 on a 5d mk 3 as most of what i do with that lens is a lot of sports for a local high school and the light conditions can change drastically week to week. and i had run into a lot of issues having to drop my shutter speed and push the iso up as high as i dared and was still running into issues with noise. when i came across your video it helped me solidify my choice to get this lens instead of one of the newer mk versions. thank you for the informative video as i had not found any other that did not just nit pick and recommend the high mk versions.

[@johnfarrands1258]

Hi there I shoot showjumping 99% of the time as we breed and train horses and riders I use the 90d with a canon 28-300 l bought second hand love it I bought the 70-200 2.8 is mk1 was told on canon sites wasn’t to good for 90d and found it a bit soft but had a full service and clean and now it’s spot on another one bought second hand

[@silverfishla]

I used this lens for concert photos on B&W film. So tough but the only lens that would work. Great lens.

[@Twobarpsi]

Love this lens!

[@conradgreer1306]

Hi Roy, I see you are wearing your “new” vest 😁 Great info on a classic lens. I think still one of the best lenses ever made. I have a version II IS version of the lens an am totally satisfied with it. Very rarely go down to 2.8 so depth of field and sharpness is always great. I am rather old school so quite like the size and weight of it, mated to a 1DS mkiii and it is a hefty bit of kit, which is a workout on its own to lug it around. However the quality of the photographs is worth the effort. Also I have piece of mind that it will never let me down and be as reliable as a zippo lighter.

[@RoyRiley]

Nice set up Conrad! The two go very well together. Yes! Trying the vest out slowly.. unsure of the “look” but LOVE the utility and warmth. It could become quite addictive!

[@scrivphoto]

The old 80 - 200 2.8 the magic drain pipe, great lens, I bought that and the 28 - 80 F4 / 2.8 along with two eos 1's when I switched from Nikon. Great to see the "W" jacket getting some use !

[@RoyRiley]

"magic drain pipe" not hear that one before! Nice! I was still stuck on old manual focus lenses during that time. Trying this jacket out slowly Tim, This kind of style takes time to evolve. I bet you've got one somewhere, shoved in an old Billingham in the cupboard of lost camera bags..

[@TAKEONEURBANPRODUCTION]

My favorite lens

[@abhishekshah11]

I just bought the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I intend to use it for quite a while :) As others have mentioned it's refreshing to see an old lens get some love.

[@RoyRiley]

Good for the next two decades!

[@horacioevelazquez3250]

I love this lens. Is just amazing.

[@RoyRiley]

Good to hear the love is strong for this beast. When I think of all my years in photography. The 70-200 2.8 has been the lens I have used the most without doubt!

[@MichaelWebMason]

I have the 2.8 70-200mm (v3) mounted on an R6 with adapter and it's permanently attached. I used to rarely change lenses but now as I need to do other work (like using the Ronin S gimbal) I'm using other lenses more. I'd agree with everything you say from the attention grabbing to the aperture but not so much on focus. I tend to get pretty all my my shots in focus unless they're fast moving subject. Thanks for the video, very informative.

[@briant.3001]

This review gave you a new subscriber. I JUST bout this lens, kind of mad I thought I was purchasing the Version II but bought the I. Still excited to use it. Used the II on several occasions so I know what it can do, not sure what the I does. We'll find out in 2 weeks when I go to this event I'm shooting.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for the subscription! really appreciate it. I wonder how you are getting on the the new lens?? interested to hear your thoughts. All the best. RR

[@JasperBunschoten]

I recently bought the 80-200 L version. And it is amazing! There are amazing deals to be had nowadays!

[@RoyRiley]

Ahhh The Magic Drain Pipe!

[@FluidSurfing]

Amazing photographies ✨😎

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers! Hope you are getting some ocean time!

[@mickchristo6383]

Great review mate :)

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers bucko

[@dps6198]

When I became interested in photography I began my journey with a Minolta, then a P&S canon. Then I advanced to the A2E from there to the 10D onwards and upwards. Once I began using the 10D I kept hearing about two lenses, EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II L and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 II L. If I wanted a little further reach I'd pop on the 2x converter to get out to 400mm albeit stopped down to 5.6. Those two lenses can satisfies nearly all of what a photographer wants/needs to do. The EF to RF adapter breathes additional life in those two legacy lenses. I have two primes when I want to travel light; EF/RF 50mm f/1.8 and EF 35mm f/2 IS USM and the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro. I honestly don't need anything more in the way of lenes. Now the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L II in amazing lens that does it all or nearly all. I use it for landscape, portrait, street scenes when I like some compression and my wife uses it for capturing the full moon among other heavenly bodies. if you don't have one. Rent one for a week or two. Afterwards I am sure the rental will have you buying a barely used one from KEH or MPB or maybe from eBay.

[@traumhaftealpenweltmirkowe5619]

I' m using the EF 70 - 200 2,8 Ill USM with the 5 D MARK IV since september 2018 . It really works perfect . I love taking photos from singers and musicians at concerts and sometimes the lighting conditions on the stage are very difficult and weak with changing intensity, but with the Canon EF 70 - 200 2,8 III USM it is no problem to get a clear and sharp picture quality with shining images. I hope to use this lense the next 15 years . With best wishes from Berlin in Germany.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for this! For sure the 70-200 is a great problem solving lens.. it just gets the job done! All the best. RR

[@jasonmays1844]

I’m about to upgrade my mark 3 for the mark 4. This lens gave me amazing results with my mark 3

[@Hubieee]

@@jasonmays1844 interesting, why going for the mk 4 and not e.g. for the r6, although slightly lower resolution? Habit, optical viewfinder? No offense, the mk 4 is a great camera and became more and more affordable over time. However, mirrorless has great eye af and especially the r6 a very capable sensor for the same money :). The ef lens, 70-200, is a great option for mirrorless, too. Although the weight is much greater, internal zoom and handling is a plus in my eyes.

[@alloaphotographers6513]

Managed to get this lens yesterday in mint condition at awesome prices with a 2yr warranty. Big difference in weight campaired to my f/4 version

[@RoyRiley]

Nice! Yes it’s a big lump to carry around but hopefully you find it’s worth the effort

[@joel.rundle]

Bought my 70-200 2.8 (the non-IS version) 10 years ago when I first took the plunge into pursuing photography professionally and it completely transformed my approach and mindset to taking pictures for clients. If you want to start making money from photography, just buy one, don't even think about it. Took me a year to pay mine off but was worth every penny and has since paid for itself many times over.

[@jeremiahyoung5931]

I'm using the mk3 on a full frame. I find this lens compliments my 100-400mm 4.5-5.0 perfectly. The extra shutter at f/2.8 is what I need sometimes when I shoot bigger objects in motion if you are trying to freeze them that is. I've also used it in the kitchen dinning room in low light to capture wifes cooking and baking. For me it's the f/2.8-3.2 at 200mm that makes this one a must have. Portraits are just beautiful melting away the background. I totally agree with you when you say it's not a discreet lens lol, I'm just doing this as a hobby and it will intimidate people and then they expect you will take professional pics with every shot. Rules of light still apply, it's just the f/2.8 and the IS is a huge advantage.

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for this Jeremiah. Interesting to hear your thoughts. Ever used the 135mm F2?

[@jeremiahyoung5931]

@@RoyRiley hey no I haven't. the only primes I have are the f/1.2 50mm and the cheaper f/1.8 85mm Wow after a few videos and reviews I am tempted to buy though.

[@trevor9934]

ALWAYS enjoy your videos Roy! {:-) I got the MkII f/2.8 IS version back in about 2010 and must admit I have shot with it barely a dozen times: so it is, to all intents and purposes, brand-new. Like you, while I love the many facets you have lauded, I find the reach too short relative to the weight for the kinds of images I shoot - which are mostly of wildlife. I gravitated to the much lighter and longer reach 70-300 series, but in fact my lenses of choice are the 100-400MkII and Sigma's 160-600c and 60-600s series on the EF mount. I actually got a 70-200 f/4 MkII during the relatively brief period it was in production and the massive reduction in weight, combined with great optics is, for me a better solution. There is one advantage of these lenses that do not extend during zoom on the RF mount. Thus, they don't have any potential for bellows effect, so with the MILCs they are a great way to avoid dust in camera if one is in a particularly hostile environment. I have a Fuji X-T4, another MILC, but without the protection of a shutter and the f/4 MkII is light enough to balance well on that body (even with the adapter) and with an equivalent FoV of 105-450mm it offers a useful range.

[@RoyRiley]

Great info Trevor! Thank you. Agree with all your points here. It was interesting to me to log onto a photographers forum recently and see how many people have these 2.8 70-200 zooms but don’t seem to truly understand what the nature of the lens is.. like you say there are much more flexible options out there for most people. Loads of people really rate the 70- 200 F4

[@gundegatirzite3377]

Thanks for the video and valuable comments. I have the EOS RP and wanted to purchase used good quality zoom that would also serve as portrait lens and perform well in poor light. This was the only video I found mentioning the mark I version in nowadays. I had the impression that no one uses this anymore, especially with RF. The only thing I'm worried about is the sharpness of the subject especially of group photos that you mentioned and of course the weight of the lens.🙈 Thanks a lot.

[@RoyRiley]

Good luck whichever way you go! All the best. RR

[@wisuraweerathunga2188]

Hi Gundega, I’m having an rp as well. Have you purchased the 70-200 2.8 IS mark i. ? If yes can you share your experience about this combo ?

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks for watching! Let me know your thoughts about telephoto lens choice.. Always keen to hear what others are using. RR

[@rickavery4808]

I am an advanced amateur most days but there are times when that’s pushing it. I have the IS II version that I use with my 5D4 for landscapes. I also use it for portraiture whenever family members force me to submit myself to such torture.

[@RoyRiley]

I totally get the family portrait thing … get them to do it themselves on an iPhone!

[@matthewoakesphotography]

I use this lens as my go to and love it, I did drop it on a trip in Newfoundland and managed to slit it (this tank was hit in the WORST spot, ha) but got it serviced right away by my local camera shop (Canon wont even look at this due to its age). For a super versatile lens and something that's still pin sharp I rate it a 10/10, plus used market you can find them almost all the time for a good price but as always check, meet in a busy place, test, and ask a lot of questions.

[@RoyRiley]

Good info. Thanks for that and sorry to hear of the damage. I guess all lenses have their weak spots

[@Atlancticocean12]

Love newfoundland ❤

[@skyscraperfan]

I bought that lens in 2005 and can't believe that it already serves me for 17 years. So far I do not see any need to replace it with a newer version, as the greater sharpness of the Mark III version would not be visible on my 18 megapixel camera. Recently I bought the EF 100-400 Mark II, which replace that lens on many occasions with enough light, but I will still take the 70-200 with me on all journeys. In my experience that lens often makes people assume that you are a press photographer without having to show a press pass. So police will let you cross for example, where they would not let you cross with a smaller lens. I remember a helicopter flight over the Hudson River, where I got the best seat next to the pilot just because they saw my big camera and lens. That was a little unfair, because the others had paid the same price, but of course I did not complain. I still like that it is zooming internally unlike the RF 70-200 lenses which also do not accept extenders. That is an important point tom consider when choosing a 70-200 lens for an RF camera. Adapting the EF version still allows you to use extenders, which give you a much longer reach.

[@RoyRiley]

I agree with everything you say here.. The 100-400 mk 2.. what a lens.. I do not know why I do not own one. Wish to have had it at the Queens funeral on Monday..

[@golferpro1241]

I have the 70-200 IS III. LOVE THIS LENS!

[@RoyRiley]

Think you have the pick of the litter. It’s a keeper

[@brandonj8018]

This isn’t version 3…

[@RoyRiley]

@@brandonj8018 I know. He knows. You know. I think everyone knows.

[@ricr.4669]

I have this lens mk3 with Canon R and 90D and I don't give a rip about the RF version. This is damn much better, tank built quality, internal zoom no pumping dust

[@Fatboy53]

Got mine on eBay $684 + 40 S&H and US taxes. Son football Friday nights. . Use it on a 7D Mk 1 I got for $150 USD. Used stuff is fantastic. It’s not like I’m a pro. Great video

[@RoyRiley]

Nice set up! Wishing you every success with your photography and also your sons Friday night football!

[@garethdwatkins]

Rockin' the Domke vest... Cooool !! We had the 80-200 (the black one) from the start of our Canon usage around 1990. This was upgraded to the white 70-200 2.8 in around 1995 I think... I still have and use that lens. It's a great lens... but I get what you mean about portraits at 2.8.. Did some of my Mum & Dad a while back and my Dad was out of focus... I misjudged the DoF totally. It is a heavy old beast though...my back doesn't like the weight of the 5D iii and grip with 3 or 4 zooms in the Domke bag... really heavy... I much prefer a couple of Xpro2 bodies and primes in a small messenger bag.. weighs less than my Canon with a lens for the whole bag with all my daily carry crap in it...

[@RoyRiley]

Cheers Gareth! Still unsure about unleashing it on the general public! We will see! I have been very interested in the Xpro 2 cameras for ages. I really like the way Fuji does things and the lightweight nature is a real draw. Also all of the Fuji lenses I have ever tried are all superb. Great system!

[@tylercordry1485]

Would this lens be good for duck hunting photography? Im always out in the rain and snow on the water or in the marsh. I was wondering what body you think i should pair this with being in those conditions?

[@HelloMyNameIsCody]

2024 a cannon eos D5 with this add on what’s the value around typically ?

[@kyleclarke395]

Would you recommend this for motorsports photography or are there other options?

[@richardtierney7724]

I could not afford the 2.8 at the time bought the F4. I love it! Got lots of super portraits with it and with a x2 extender I can use it for airshows etc. I always have it in my backpack...

[@RoyRiley]

My back was always tempted by the F4 version! Everyone I have ever talked to who has it seems to love that lens.

[@richardtierney7724]

@@RoyRiley I dont use it in low light like you had to.. At F4 wide open I get tack sharp images. Have some gorgeous images of my granddaughters with it. Like I say it is light enough to carry eveywhere. Thanks for the vid, love your channel.

[@RoyRiley]

@@richardtierney7724 thanks Richard. Appreciate the support. RR

[@rumtreibbaer]

I own a 70-200 f4 non IS for 10 years now but got an IS version last year too. On the 2.8 side I got a Tamron 70-200 G2 which is rarely used, too heavy but affordable.

[@RoyRiley]

Lots of people really rate the F4 lenses. For size, value and quality they are pretty unbeatable. I am interested in the G2 range. Would love to get my hands on a few to try out. I have the Tamron 90mm macro and its incredibly sharp

[@patrickdolan.]

My local pawn shop has this for 500 dollars. I'm thinking of grabbing it

[@TeddyCavachon]

Reviews of the then new 70-200mm f/2.8 are what convinced me to switch from Nikon to Canon for digital in 2004 and I still use it on my R6mkII with the VND EF-RF adapter for shooting video. The RF 100 - 500mm has replaced it for shooting stills.

[@RoyRiley]

I’m interested in that 100-500 but never seem to have the money!

[@harmonyharmony7930]

Hi Roy. Great video! Quick question which would you choose the 70-200 2.8 version 1 with IS or the 135 mm 2.0 EF. Thanks in advance for your reply. Keep up the great work!!

[@RoyRiley]

Good question! No wrong or right here.. comes down to intended use. 70-200 is highly flexible but heavy. 135 is wonderful but might be limiting for some

[@csongorawot6428]

I have the 80-200 prehistoric version. It is really interesting, because despite being 30+ years old it still delivers. Of course it has all kinds of problems, but I can live with those, especially as I'm not a professional.

[@RoyRiley]

That is very cool! Love hearing stuff like this. Nice one. RR

[@bngr_bngr]

I had a black one back in the day.

[@RoyRiley]

@@bngr_bngr nice! I was still stuck with old manual focus lenses way back then!

[@donswitzer54]

Greetings I’m a late for my comment. But I’ve been using this with my 5D Mark iv…,At the time of my purchase, I chose to have a higher end dslr then a mid level mirroless. I pair this lens with a few sigma primes art series. EF still takes beautiful photos…,

[@alexandreprevost4192]

Thanks for your videos, you have an impressive collection of lenses ! Can you make a list and a video for each of them about your personnal opinion ? Thanks a lot Ps: sorry if my english is not so good I'm french 🙏

[@RoyRiley]

Merci Je ferai de mon mieux pour réaliser ton souhait. RR

[@AndySnap]

A super lens, sharp after f3.5 (a touch of softness/spherical aberration if you're just a touch out of focus at f2.8), and a real tank as you say. I much preferred it to the RF version I now use because that one trombones on zooming ('hey you zooming in on me buddy?!') and doesn't feel as well built, which apparently is proving to be the case, anecdotally. It's a lens that gives you confidence, an intangible quality, but very reassuring. Great vest, btw. I live in mine now, since I saw one pop up on a video somewhere.... ;-)

[@RoyRiley]

Always great comments! Thanks Andrew. Bang on all the way. I have not tried the new RF 2.8 version but I bet it’s sharp as a needle? Yup.. these vests man… could get addictive

[@AndySnap]

@@RoyRiley Yes the RF lens is super sharp, but definitely doesn't feel as solid as the EF. Fits into a Domke vest pocket though...!

[@twrea]

I do a wide range of photography, from sports cricket to wildlife, I have been using the Sigma Sport 150-600 which is also a beast and of well designed build. But I will also say that now that I have this same lens, I can now get in closer for more candid shots like never before. The images I have taken on it are amazing out of the gate. I mention the sigma for this reason, its huge - yet it doesn't draw the attention that this lens does. I can be in a park or shooting on the road or in a downtown. The sigma really doesn't draw notice, however I can be walking and get stopped if I have the canon lens on.. Maybe it's iconic and SO wildly known, but if your wanting to stay lo-key you might want to think about a cover because this lens, well it's like pulling a McLaren racer into a walmart parking lot. Also, in terms of the background blur ~ The only way to completely understand that look it gives is "Flawless" next to say a old prime Nikor 50mm f1.4 ` your just not going to have such an amazing diffusion with color tone.. I really enjoy it, is a true all-rounder and I agree for what it is, the price is to much. But as a statement, I guess one can say it holds value far better then newer offerings. Great video, Cheers

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks T Rea..May all your Sundays be golden!

[@ratstrat1984]

Thinking of buying one of these. Found one locally at a good price. I have a 24-105 f4, and am trying to decide how much I'll actually use the 70-200. My kid is on the swim team, and lighting at an indoor pool is suspect at best. I like shooting wildlife, sports and landscapes.

[@RoyRiley]

Great for swimming. Heavy for landscape. Can be Frustrating for wildlife. (Not long enough)

[@tom_k_d]

Hi Roy, when I got the RF 70-200 2.8 last year, first thing I shot with it was a concert (mounted on the R6), expecting maybe 40% of the wide-open shots to be focussed precisely on the musicians eyes. At home I realized I did totally over-shoot: 95% of the pictures were tag sharp - something I was not used to from the old DSLR days...

[@RoyRiley]

Hi Tom! Yes the RF system is a beast for nailing focus for this kind of thing! Still blows me away. I have yet to try the RF 2.8 70-200 but hear it’s very sharp

[@tom_k_d]

@@RoyRiley It's tag sharp, with excellent, prime-like micro constrast (it rivals my RF50 1.2 on the 20MP R6 body). The overal image impression out of the box can appear slightly shallow at times, though: without adding some pop in post, images might look a little like shot with a very mild log profile - a thing I observed with RF L glass in general. But that's easily fixable in post. An overly contrasty image without fine details, as I observed with some cheaper EF glass in comparison, is much harder, or even impossible to fix.

[@messylaura]

its a lens i am looking at getting, i do have some nice primes for low light like the 105mm ƒ1.4 and the 135mm ƒ1.8 from sigma, i use thos for fux hunting at night, the 105mm is just a monster when it comes to turning night into day time, i'm looking at this lens for work in darker forests in the daytime and indoor zoo enclosures where lighting is low to dark the camera i use is the M50 which has no problem handling the sigma 100-400mm and 150-600mm great informative video thanks

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks. Great set of lenses you have - I would be at a loss to know which one to use first!

[@nick_cooper]

I've recently got in to photography, bought a used 5D mkII and primarily use that 75-300mm Canon kit lens. The image quality frustrates me and with F4-5.6 and no IS, anything less than bright daylight has a massive degradation in quality (might be the body not handling higher ISO). I'm looking to get the 70-200 mkII lens as a replacement, even as a hobbyist. They look to be under £800 used, and will be future proof if I change body, or go mirrorless and use an adapter. I fell like the mkII is a better option over a mkI when buying upfront, as it is a bit newer, supposedly has better sharpness and is more likely to be repairable. The mkI is still quite costly it seems, so that jump in price to the II is worth it if the budget allows.

[@RoyRiley]

Agree with everything you say here. Good luck with your photography journey. RR

[@Thedivinevision.19]

Hey I love your inputs, though i have a different doubt m not much big fan of mirrorless, so i got myself Canon 90D with 18-135mm and 50mm f1.8 as it was in my budget. As the market now a days m feeling did I make right choice getting this combo or not because i know it sometimes sucks in low light. Should i upgrade to mirrorless or should i get another sharper prime. Thanks in advance

[@RoyRiley]

Stick with what you have and make it sing!

[@henrydog9558]

Hi Roy...I seem to be years behind, I’ve just upgraded to a 5d mk ii with battery grip coupled to a canon 70-200 f4 L, hoping it’s the right way to go after my 400d and 50d with a mishmash of lenses. I seemed to be in awe of people at race tracks using cameras with white lenses 😀

[@RoyRiley]

Hi Peter! Well the 5D2 is a great camera and the 70-200 F4 is a cracking lens. Brilliant set up and I wish you every success with your gear. Being a few years behind is not anything to worry about. Me too in many ways!! but ultimately it’s the photographer that takes the picture. The camera and lens is just a box with a hole in it and a bunch of bits of glass stuck together. Use the Peter Woolley super vision and just create!

[@DavidBerglund]

I used to work in a camera shop (first in my dads shop/studio) and learned over the years that the 70-200 f/4 is amazing. Have fun with it!!

[@spirg]

I have the nikon iterration, vr2 , i sold one , regretted it , and now i have one again, , for good. I cant put it down, my favorite lens all time

[@RoyRiley]

Yup! King of the lenses

[@garyemc2]

I have the Canon 5D Mark II camera, if you had to choose one or two lenses for that camera, what would you choose as your goto len(s)?

[@RoyRiley]

Hi. I guess it depends so much on what you wish to shoot. The original kit lens..24-105mm F4 L Lens is probably the obvious choice. ( look at some of my other videos because there is a review of that lens all ready and waiting for you!) 50mm prime s also great to have

[@sammorganmoore]

I went to f4 about 10 years ago. love the little f4 lens.. I thiking these are particularly heavy. Of course certain thing (pop fest?) you need 2.8 but a big up for the £300 used non is F4 :)

[@RoyRiley]

Hi Sam. I think you are right. F4 all the way for value and weight. I have never owned one. Went for the 70-300 for similar reasons though and use it lots. Hope keeping well. R

[@iBeleza]

I am looking to get a new telephoto lens for my Canon 5d Mark IV as an all around lens. I'm split between Canons 70-200mm L series or 70-300mm L series. What is your advice?

[@RoyRiley]

Honestly I do t think you will be unhappy with either. You need to make the decision based on what you most like to shoot. If extra reach is important to you the the 70-300 if a brighter aperture then the 70-200.

[@cyrusIIIII]

This lens is fabulous especially if you are shooting with the Canon R series. If you shoot anything but portrait, set it to f4 and higher so you get the sharpest images. Cos: So heavy. Not suitable if you are hiking. It is a lovely lens overall even in 2023!

[@RoyRiley]

It’s the daddy.

[@palouuk]

I have the sigma 70-210 from film days, it was great for shooting in large theatres and arenas. Doesn't work well will digital, you're stuck with only 2.8. I always wanted the canon IS but could never afford one. Have you ever used it on a monopod or tripod?

[@RoyRiley]

Works fine on both. In fact I believe the IS is “tripod aware” of something like that on this lens! I generally turn IS off when using the tripod so can’t really comment on its usefulness.

[@nokianx400]

This is what a REAL reviewer is.. he speaks with EXPERIENCE, not like the younger idiots who just bought a new lens and they "think" the RF is a better lens...

[@rubyredphoto]

I pick mine up today. It’s my first L series lens, it feels like Christmas

[@RoyRiley]

Good luck with it! Start doing 50 press ups every day to build your arm muscles

[@rubyredphoto]

@@RoyRiley 😂

[@RoyRiley]

@@rubyredphoto joking not joking! A long day shooting with this beast and you know all about it the next morning

[@rubyredphoto]

@@RoyRiley I’m ready for it! I only have a nifty 50 and the cheap 24mm pancake lens, next in my wish list is the 24-70mm then I wanna upgrade the nifty 50 to the 1.4 and that “should” be my kit done

[@rubyredphoto]

It was £780 with shipping in excellent condition from MPB IS version

[@Topbuzzr]

I have the mark 2 and I have had the issue of the wobble. same fix, pull the rubber back and tighten.

[@RoyRiley]

Glad I am not alone! Last time I did it I added a tiny bit of thread lock to the screws and it’s not happened since. Got to be careful though or could end up in a mess!

[@kookymode5153]

i’m looking at one of these with a tiny crack on the side where i think it rotates. the person who has it says it’s not an issue do you think i should go for it?

[@RoyRiley]

Afraid I have no idea. I would be very cautious though. Can you test it before buying?

[@spirg]

I just picked up the version 2 , fabulous lens. Better than the Nikon. I believe

[@RoyRiley]

You will be rocking it with this lens for years to come. Good investment!

[@robmcd]

I’m loving these reviews of old gear. Would love to know in hindsight would a 135mm 2.0 have yielded you a better result during the storm 135, F2, 1/125, 6400 or F2, 1/80, 4000ish ? I had the RF 70-200 But sold it because I already owned the 70-300 L IS, I have the 90mm F2 for Fuji and am wondering whether to get the 50-140 2.8. I’m pretty sure the DPI on the front page of a newspaper would be enough for a 6 megapixel camera

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks Rob! I have many front pages from decades ago shot on a 1.3megapixel camera.. still look fine.. in theory the 135 2 would have been perfect but the flexibility of the 70-200 is the reason why it’s so popular.

[@robmcd]

@@RoyRiley would love that Tamron 35-150

[@tomasina4087]

I have the f4L IS "i" and love it with a 5d Classic and now 5dMkiii. F4 is great for portraits and the compression, bokeh, size and picture quality are all fantastic, esp. if the f2.8L is being stopped down often anyway. But I am curious about the f2.8, just for the price difference for a non-pro I could add the 135mm f2 or other prime to my 70-200mm f4. I also shot a friend's R6 with the RF 70-200mm f2.8L and although it was beautiful and I had plenty of camera envy, he complained already about creep and how sturdy it isn't when fully extended... but the pictures did look fantastic. As for me and the $2300 he paid for a lightly used lens... I literally bought a 5DC, 5D Mkiii, Sigma 50mm f1.4, 24-105 f4L, 70-200 f4L, 40mm f2.8, 2 x 430 EX II speedlights, bag, tripod, filters and more for $200 less than his used lens. I wouldn't trade I can tell you that, but it's a wonderful thing that all this previously expensive gear is within reach for us non-pros and new pro gear continues to evolve.

[@RoyRiley]

great comment! Cheers Tom! Lots of food for thought here. I guess we each have to find out own way with gear but like you say, the value you achieved is really very good for all your gear. Now its time to start shooting and make all that quality glass sing!

[@tomasina4087]

@@RoyRiley thanks Roy, yeah I try to get good deals since it's cheaper than a divorce but I'd love to get that 135mm f2 and a wide angle zoom soon. Any recommendations of the many Canon L EF wide angle zooms? Cheers, always a pleasure Roy.

[@RoyRiley]

@@tomasina4087 16-35mm F4 L is a cracker. 17-40 L is a bit cheaper. 10-20 sigma for crop sensor is good, also the canon 10-20 stm for crop sensor.

[@juanaguon]

Hey Ron thanks for your insight on the lens! Is the IS version good to use for videos?

[@RoyRiley]

It is not perfect but obviously better than non IS. Much Better on a R body with IBIS

[@RoyRiley]

It is not perfect but obviously better than non IS. Much Better on a R body with IBIS

[@kokhualow3419]

Hi may I know if the AF in the RF mount is okay? Because if I'm going to get this lens, I'm getting it for RF bodies.

[@RoyRiley]

I have used this lens on my R5 with the canon adaptor and it’s worked perfectly. RR

[@RoyRiley]

I have used this lens on my R5 with the canon adaptor and it’s worked perfectly. RR

[@sale83]

70-200 2.8 is II, killed 2 men, still working like new. Ok ok I didn't kill anyone with it, but it's a beast of a lens. Terminator of L lenses. Will stay with me even when I move to mirrorless.

[@RoyRiley]

Haha Pleased to hear you are joking! You are right - These things are absolute beasts and I hear they do very well on the mirrorless bodies

[@joedonohoe22]

Great review, Roy! I’m shooting a church wedding next month and will be using the Mark II version for the ceremony. I managed to conduct a test shoot in the same church this week and a number of my test shots weren’t quite in focus/sharp enough. I was shooting with AUTO ISO, 1/250s and wide open at F2.8. (Also using one shot AF for still subjects and al servo for moving, both with a single focus point.) The church is poorly lit, so I was hitting 6400 ISO frequently. Any ideas on how to achieve sharper shots? Could either stop down the lens slightly or allow for a higher ISO? Not ideal…

[@RoyRiley]

Thanks Joe. Dark venues + no flash = tricky shoot. You just have to work with what you have. Try to find ways of making the best of the light that is available and be open to the concept of compromise. Maybe it’s worth speaking to the vicar and the couple and asking if it might be possible to use flash for just a few shots because the church is so dark? Not that flash is better and it can ruin the atmosphere but it’s certainly a way to ensure outcome. Be very sparing though because it can ruin the vibe of the day.

[@joedonohoe22]

@@RoyRiley Really appreciate the advice, Roy. I’ll do another recce at the church and see if I can afford to use slower shutter speeds for the quieter moments in the ceremony, maybe even use a tripod if I’m restricted to one area. I’ll look into using flash too. Thanks so much!

[@RoyRiley]

@@joedonohoe22 good luck with it Joe. May the force be with you! RR

[@marijn17s]

Would you reckon it’s worth saving the like 1000 bucks and get this one instead of the new RF 70-200 2.8?

[@RoyRiley]

Good question but with no easy answer im afraid. we each have to make our own decisions with this kind of thing depending on each of our own unique circumstances and requirements. Let me know which way you go! RR

[@maricelarooper9558]

Thanx! Can I put this on my t7i eos rebel?

[@RoyRiley]

Yes but you will get the crop sensor effect so basically multiply the focal length by 1.6.

[@markedwards4787]

Can these be used on an l mount adapter well? look at a tele for s5.

[@RoyRiley]

Afraid I’m not sure Mark. No experience with this. A quick run down the google rabbithole will probably get you what you need!

[@AJRobinson]

Great video please please organize your desktop folders :P

[@RoyRiley]

That’s also what the man from Apple said!

[@unbroken1010]

Wonder what looks like on fuji or Sony, wonder if I can hand hold it with a strobe frame or tiny tripod as a kind of " pistol grip"

[@RoyRiley]

I’m sure you could make it work but I would have to ask the question why not stick with Fuji or Sony glass? Or is there something specific about this lens that floats your boat?

[@jefferyryan1219]

Hi Roy. I really enjoyed the video on this lens. I have just recently purchased the EF 70-200 mm f/4 IS USM. I've heard a lot about it I have several uses for it outdoor mostly. The difference between the two being the f 2.8 I'm not sure of maybe it could help me with that. But I did get it second hand like new for around $524. What are your thoughts? I have a full frame EOS 5D Mark II. A 60D a 7Dand a recently purchased 90D. I'm thinking a lot of good pictures here what do you think? I'm working on the composition course now. My next part is going to be the business end of the photography. I find I'm really enjoying myself.

[@RoyRiley]

Hi Jeffrey! You are one well equipped photographer! 90D and that 70-200F4 will be an amazing combo.. I would look not further for a great telephoto set up. What do you mainly shoot?

[@jefferyryan1219]

@@RoyRiley Thanks! I really appreciate that. I was looking into the possibility of getting a 600 mm and possibly a 800 mm for outdoor photography nature and sports photography. Football and soccer softball baseball. I've got a lot of grandkids. Might be able to get the schools to buy my work? Worth a shot. Thanks for your encouragement Roy.

[@RoyRiley]

@@jefferyryan1219 Sounds good Jeffery! Sport is a difficult subject with regard to lens choice. Most pro sports photographers would have one body with a fixed long lens. likely something like a 300 or 400mm F2.8 and then another body with a 70-200, possibly a third with something like a 24-70 at hand just in case the action gets close. For some sports you need longer reach. I have shot many premiership football matches over the years and had the most luck with the 300mm F2.8. Always found 600 or 5oo to long and never could afford the 400mm 2.8!!

[@jefferyryan1219]

@@RoyRiley Awesome! I was thinking about the EF 100-400 mm on my 60 D as a backup. It might be a f/2.8 I'm not sure. I might be able to get one for$789. USD. I'm thinking that one over.

[@priyeshkara9842]

I usually work with a 150-600 sigma I think for my 6D and thought I want to upgrade or rather be mote flexible and I got this lens on ebay for 400 all bei it battered cosmeticallu. Optically sound! Anyone use this lens? Would love to hear photographer testimonies !

[@pdel7007]

I got the mk II version 2nd hand a few months ago to use taking amateur sports. I love it for casual portraits and landscape. I mount it on my R6 and think it helps me get better photos. There is no way I could afford the RF version

[@skylerwalker7288]

Hi, does your have image stabilization? I am trying to figure out if it's needed or better for shooting sports!

[@pdel7007]

@@skylerwalker7288 Yes the mk II has I.S. It has a switch for off/on and mode1/2. Shooting sports at 1/500and above you don't necessarily need I.S.

[@skylerwalker7288]

Hi sir, is image stabilization better or worse for sports photography? :)

[@RoyRiley]

I just dropped you a message

[@nicoleundercuffler8743]

I am really struggling here on which way to go 2.8 or 4. The main purpose for this additional lens to my kit is landscape shoots - hiking, lakes, mountains etc... Your video pointed out a lot of things to consider. What are your thoughts on version Iii,iii ? If you were make a purchase for sole landscape use would to recommend a different lens?

[@RoyRiley]

Personally I would go for the 70-200 F4. Much lighter and smaller and perfect for landscape. There are IS and non IS versions available. I have another video on my channel on the 70-300 F4 - 5.6 L Lens that might be worth watching if you would like a little more length. Hope this helps. RR

[@golferpro1241]

2.8

[@headbang3r519]

I might get the mark 3. I might trade some lenses I don’t need for it and reduce the cost. A good one is just above a grand but if I traded a few lenses I didn’t need I can get the mark 3 for around 600

[@RoyRiley]

I do not think you would regret this choice. Apart from your back might not thank you as it’s a bit of a lump!

[@tintin69rr]

Nice one I’ve recently just moved to the R6 and I’m Looking into another 70-200 2.8 after I let m sigma version go a couple a years ago px for the 100-400L mk2 now I want that Bokeh back lol 😂

[@RoyRiley]

Not interested in the RF 70-200?

[@tintin69rr]

@@RoyRiley that’s just out my budget at the min I sacrificed a fair bit of gear to get the R6 now I need to build the lenses up again

[@RoyRiley]

@@tintin69rr I feel the pain! Lots of people tell me they prefer the older 70-200 anyways!

[@tintin69rr]

@@RoyRiley quite excited to have a 400mm 5.6L heading this way in the next few days so that’s a start still have the ef 16-35 2.8 mk2L and the ef 24-105L f4 won’t get shut a them love em lol have the rf800 which is nice but it’s just that f11 especially in the dull skies we have at the minute so that’s what pushed me to the 400 also to get full frame eye AF

[@RoyRiley]

@@tintin69rr that 400mm is a cracking lens! How much did you pay?

[@kristenmccown88]

Do I need IS if I’m shooting volleyball?

[@RoyRiley]

Everyone will have different opinions but my view is no because you need a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the movement of the players in action and this will negate the need for IS. However IS would be handy during any mostly static but very dark moments.. hope that makes sense?

[@Hammy1088]

I just bought and im having mix feelings about this lens. maybe I got a defective lens but my photos are not sharp. I thought maybe oh my shutter speed is to low but no, not even the fastest shutter speed is fixing the blur. Even with a tripod. They are just a tad blurry its weird.

[@RoyRiley]

Sounds like it may get be defective. Is it still not sharp if you stop down to F5.6?

[@Hammy1088]

@Roy Riley it looks sharp on the camera but when zoom in its blurry and this is at 1/2000 of a sec. Non moving subjects

[@adude394]

I'm an avid hobbyist (300D, 20D, 7D Mk II, 1DX Mk III). I know the 70-200 f/2.8 is a tremendous lens, but unless I can find a reasonably-priced model, I'm probably going to grab the f/4 version instead. That's the last lens on my wish list, save for a 500mm which will be some time down the road (unless I win the lottery 🙄).

[@RoyRiley]

Nice set up! What’s your favourite camera of this lot? No mirrorless yet?

[@adude394]

@@RoyRiley Great question! But it's kind of like asking a parent who his favorite kid is! I have a soft spot for that 300D, because it's just about 20 years this month that I've owned it. The most advanced is obviously the 1DX, and it and the 7D Mk II are both unbelievably solid. And the 20D is just a joy to shoot. But I guess that if I had to really choose, it's the the 1DX with the 24-105, or the 7D with a Sigma 100-400, which is great for bird shots.