Canon EF 70-200mm f / 2.8L IS II USM

Advantages: Excellent stabilization system
Sharpness at fully open aperture at the level of fixed lenses
Natural, fresh colors
Soft, artistic bokeh
Focusing speed

Disadvantages: Not found

Comment: I am not the first to call this glass "a masterpiece of optical engineering." I went to it in the traditional way: first purchase of a Canon EF 70-200 f / 4L, then upgrade to Canon EF 70-200 f / 4L IS and, finally, the acquisition of the described model
The first among the advantages I have indicated is the work of the stabilizer. This is really "something." When it is compared with another model:
http://mihanev.ru/blog/sistema-stabilizacii-canon-ef-70-200mm-f.html
it is immediately noticeable that the picture does not just “slow down”, but actually becomes almost immobile!
In addition, the stub works almost silently (when compared with the Canon EF 70-200 f / 4L IS)
In general, the lens is worth the money and gives more than you expect. This is the glass that has nothing to change.

Advantages: Enumerate the advantages can be infinite, the wife likes that white ..) but seriously start with the stub ... BEAST, at 1/30 you can shoot with hands 200mm (if you did not drink in the evening)
For 4 years of service, not a single speck of dust, mote, raindrops. Constructive remains like a store - a monolith!
Excellent color rendering.
Smart autofocus. With a good light almost instant. When lousy crawls a little longer, but nonetheless ... falls!
Aperture. Figure. Boke. It goes without saying.
Really worthy permission.

Disadvantages: In a dark room at 2.8 there is no sharpness what I would like. Probably it was possible to reconcile with this, or to complain that such an instance ... Especially since my 50L 1.2 and 35L 1.4 are also not razor-sharp when opened in a dark room. If it were not for the Canon 85L1.2 (and 24L 1/4 too), the sharpness here is beyond the limits!
Weight and price is the third thing and the drawbacks should not be attributed.

Comment: Of the zooms falling into these focal lengths, this glass is not equal. Recommended primarily as a glass reportage. For weddings there is an 85-ka, which I like more.
My opinion is purely subjective, do not judge strictly.

Advantages: 1) Sharpness.
2) stub.
3) Aperture.
4) Dust and moisture protection.

Disadvantages: Nothing significant. Vignette correct, ha minimal. For me, after sigma 150-500 the tripod foot is too small. I would like more genuinely to carry a lens with a carcass for it. Someone says that fixes are better, but personally I would prefer a 70-200 set of 85 1.2 and 135 2, as it will be a stub and convenience. A drawing ... Well, at 70-200, he is still at least not bad. I have 24-70 2.8, I was afraid of the same technical frame from 70-200 - but no, everything is beautiful and pleasant. Here is a reportage zoom and a set of creative fixes in one lens :)

Comment: The lens is really good. That's all you need to know. And I will describe the nuances below.
To begin with, previously used telezums: nikon 70-300vr, nikon 55-200vr, tamron 18-270vs, canon 55-250is, canon 70-200 4l, sigma 150-500os. All this is less sharp glass, with a weaker aperture and stub.
I use 70-200 2.8 at the moment on 4 carcasses - 40d, 50d, 7d and 5d.I used a couple more ff, but now they are not. On all of the carcasses listed, there is no backlash, problems with autofocus or stub.
Now the points:
1) sharpness. It is gorgeous, just amazing for the zoom. I usually do not even notice the difference between 85 1.8 by 2.8 and this zoom, which in itself is strange and unbelievable. The lens is cut open. I even very sharp 70-200 4l sometimes covered up to 5.6 for the sake of sharpness, there is no longer any need for that. The lens is sharp even at 7d, and only at 5d sharpness just with an excess. At the same time, the portraits do not look like they were taken on a macrushnyk, everything is sharp, but decent.
2) stub. It saves and works reliably. Not happy with the stub noise when turning on and off, but it is everywhere. Although the same nikon 70-300vr in my opinion makes less noise.
3) Aperture. 2.8 is a big step in comparison with 4. And the point is not to lower the ISO, although this is also important, but in the picture. How much it becomes different. 70-200 4l seemed to be quite good for portraits in good weather, but 2.8 gives a completely different blur, the possibilities increase. Yes, plus this stub - rented even indoors with 60vatnyh bulbs without a puff. With 580, the result is always consistently chic.
4) Dust and moisture protection. I really missed her, I did not have a telephoto for Canon with protection. I had to take on the report d7000 from 70-300vr from Nikon. Now Nikonovsky (by the way excellent for the price) the lens will lie to have a rest. It is useful only if you need to shoot a landscape on a fudge c5. 70-200 4l has no protection and therefore cannot be photographed in case of bad weather. And the luminosity is not enough.
In general, if you can take it - take this glass - it will not disappoint for sure :)

Advantages: No test review, no matter how much I read them, does not scold him! Sharpness, color reproduction, autofocus speed, drawing. Better on these focal points for Canon and for Canon have not yet been invented, so this is the best choice and not sorry for the money spent.

Disadvantages: Dimensions (cumbersome, especially with a hood, and heavy) and exterior (well, no way the white color does not dance with the carcass); do not interfere with any means of self-defense. But all these minuses are nothing compared to the result.

Comment: Long smothered in a toad, because subject dear. Having bought, I found out that adjustment is needed, as well as a new backpack, since all accessories have ceased to fit. If we talk about weight, as a drawback, I compare the total weight of fixes that it can replace. (I have 100 fixes, 135 and 200 from L, and I can say that this zoom practically does not lose them, except for the picture in 135).
I didn’t notice any problems with backlash (I’m on my mind), or with autofocus on the filter, everything is fine.
Of the zooms from 70 and above, I believe that he has no competitors, taking into account all the tests carried out, apertures and stubs. The price, apparently, is explained by the optical scheme, in which the fluorite lens is listed, and it is expensive. But at the expense of non-picture and sharpness are great.

Advantages: I would say simply "good glass" in every sense of the word.

Disadvantages: Heavy, if you hang around with him all day in the mountains

Comment: If I remember correctly, I bought myself this lens back in 2008. Then there was the opportunity, and therefore bought. I hoped, if not to get rich, then to earn at least some money through photobanks. The camera was by that time Canon 5D - simple, because the “mark” was not yet released. I use this kit to this day.
Advantages: as soon as he became acquainted with this lens, he immediately regretted that he had not done this before. Yes, I am not a professional and I can not squeeze out of it all 100% of the possibilities. But after all the previous "soap glass" it was the first truly giving a good sharpness of the image. A tripod is good, the control panel is even better, but nothing will help disgusting optics, it will still “lather” the picture and have to do sharpening in the editor. And it still needs to be able to do the right thing. I learned something, but after buying this lens it was like a mountain that fell off my shoulders. Still, branded glass means a lot. If you still do not indulge in long exposures, then the pictures are obtained initially high-quality.It remains only to correct the levels.
It doesn't matter: I don't do sports shooting, so I don't need a stabilizer. I turned it off at the very beginning and no longer touch it. For the "subject", "architecture" and "landscape" it is simply not needed if you use a tripod, control panel and the function of preliminary lifting the mirror.
Disadvantages: with the price and so it is clear - too big, not everyone will pull. Well, he is still heavy. Several times I had to walk on rough terrain in the mountains of Karachay-Cherkessia - the belt hurts heavily in a few hours. But for the sake of interesting shots worth suffering.

Advantages: leveled lately, see comments.

Disadvantages: It seems that in the last year of work something happened with the construct.

Comment: a couple of years probably already yuzayu. At first I was delighted, but something happened either with a stub, or with my hands. Houses with a tripod, without a tripod, on any holes normul, with filters, without filters, but here "in the field", in the movement of the object, when shooting offhand - double vision, in the side, and sometimes on the object.
And the shutter speed is 1 \ 1500, for example. Peripherals - and in statics with ghosting. But the last is on open holes. I have three glasses, macroelka weaving, 24-70 / II and subject. Subject, even in the hands do not want to take. Yesterday's shooting is actually screwed up. The experience of professional shooting is big. not a sucker fotik - the third penny.

Advantages: Perhaps for a portrait and a close photo hunt, Canon has no better. If we take into account a good aperture (within the scope of the zoom, of course), an excellent stabilizer, and a very nice picture, then I don’t see any better for myself.

Disadvantages: as they wrote, the color of the lens is not compatible with the color of the carcass. And I want aesthetics. Especially for the money.

Comment: Weight is certainly not small, so it is understandable, not plastic. Very pleased with the lens. Recommend.

Advantages: About them, everything is already written below. I will write for an ordinary user who wants to buy this glass and musolite reviews, or reads a bunch of comsents from pseudo-experts who say something that is not clear to them.
If you are after the lens to attract attention, this is your glass.
For me, it is very specific, someone says that he didn’t take pictures of various events (weddings, etc.). I can say that it is not. This is a zoom, you will have to be 15-20 meters, to remove, a man in full growth, this is a huge minus. For sports, or concerts, it's good.
The lens does not smear, catches everything on the fly. The assembly is excellent, but I have a backlash at the junction. Aberrations are present, who would not say, but it will be removed in 5 seconds.
Vignetting, and here it is our favorite. At 2.8, it is and can be seen, even when viewed on the display. But for me it is not a minus.

Disadvantages: This is a huge fool, it is very heavy (even with the presence of "bitsuhi", it exhausting, believe me!). My wife can't take it off her hands, it's hard for her. Needless to say, this is normal and you get used to it. When you drag it all day, somewhere in the mountains, it really is strained. It's hard. Focal lengths do not allow this glass to open 100%, this is not a universal glass for every day.

Comment: In general, everything is fine, sharp, focus, constructive for nails. Of course, the price in the Russian Federation is not justified, but you guys can bear it, maybe the dollar will fall!

Advantages: - Fast and accurate autofocus
- Excellent color rendering
- Excellent picture, fantastic bokeh
- Stabilizer
- Cool blend, better in material and shape than in 70-200 4L
- A full wardrobe trunk and tripod heel included.

Disadvantages: - The price is not a disadvantage, it is a payment for a high-quality professional thing, an ideal working tool.
- Weight is not a minus either. Buy immediately a shoulder strap to the camera instead of the neck, and there will be no problems. Well, swing your hands)
- At 2.8 picky about light and exposure.
- The stabilizer is not noiseless, especially in the position of the lens, which is different from the strictly horizontal one. Sometimes the gnashing of the stub is downright serious.Or maybe it is only on my copy.

Comment: Moved to him from 70-200 4L IS USM. The effect of "wow" did not arise. On sharpness - 4-ka seemed sharper on the open. Most likely, because of the greater depth of field. Razor sharpness from 2.8 at the maximum aperture to achieve harder, you need good light and short (from 1/1000 and shorter) excerpts. In places with complex lighting, the lens is soft (that is, the sharpness is excellent, but at the same time soft, which is not bad for portraits), it “rings” in a bright light as it should. Micromases in the range of 150-200 at very distant objects (growth portrait, if the model is 30 meters) are present. At the same time, there are fewer of them if you focus on a group of points, and not on one (5D III). With the increase of such a snapshot to 100%, it seems soapy, but in print up to 30x30 this is not noticeable. The closer the model to the lens, the sharper the picture. Large portraits in the entire range of FR are simply razor-sharp.
In general, 2.8 in the picture is lighter, more plastic and juicier than 4L. Bokeh starts at 70mm (on four - with 100 mm). Bokeh in backlight, by the way, is simply fantastic, and the backlight itself is not at all embarrassing to the lens, the illumination and yaw focus are minimal. Smaller DOF requires a more careful approach to portraits, especially pair ones. The stabilizer is good - fixed objects can be shot with a 2.8 aperture even from 1/15 to 200 mm with hands easily, the frame will be perfectly sharp.
For me, 70-200 with all the indicated nuances is the main working lens. Paired with 24-70, it covers all necessary FR.

Advantages: 1. Housing
2. Autofocus
3. Ergonomics
4. Picture
and generally everything!

Disadvantages: Perhaps a little expensive compared to Sigma or Tamron, but worth it

Comment: Super sharp, super cocky! Autofocus is very smart and very clear. The case is durable. Large and heavy, but it is the cost of the profession.
Picture - chic on all focal. Bokeh: a portrait across the chest at 200 smears into the trash, but its figure and volume are not the best (for this, it is better to take 85 f / 1.2, or 135 f / 2).
I use it as a staff member (yes, you did not think). When staged shooting on the street (wedding walk) - it is very convenient in this regard (70 mm you take full height, 200 is the same frame on the chest). Actually, I use it for shooting weddings, 24-105 (but this one is only for the registrar and a banquet).
Already once I wanted to sell, but everything is a pity.
If you are a pro - take it boldly, if an amateur is not worth it (big and heavy).