OwlHarbor Loc: Pacific North West USA

I would like to hear what those who have bought this lens and what they think about it. Yes, it is not lightweight at 3.27 lbs but see many reviews that are hand-holding it for pictures. I see that it was released in 2018 so it's not an old lens. What do you all think and those of you who have one, how often do you use it, and what type of photography? Would you buy it again or recommend it?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Although I don't have this specific lens, I do have the vII and the non IS f/4. Beyond your questions of how the premium of Canon's premium zoom lenses operates, consider a few other ideas:

1, What do you need an f/2.8 zoom for? This lens is very useful for indoor non-flash shooting, like events, weddings and sports. If you're not shooting in these situations, you probably don't need this lens.

2, The 70-200mm focal length can be very useful for general purpose photography, where others will find it not wide enough or not long enough. Rockwell commented back when the 100-400L IS II came out that no one really needs a 70-200 zoom too, unless they specifically need to f/2.8 aperture for indoor / low-light shooting. As a 100-400 owner, I've tried repeatedly to get rid of the f/4 zoom, but again and again, it's light(er) weight makes it very nice for landscape uses for me, typically from a tripod.

3, As a discontinued EF-mount lens, there's ZERO reason to buy any legacy EF lenses at a new-price premium. Consider used copies of the vII or vIII lenses, if a 70-200 f/2.8 IS-enabled lens is the right solution to your needs.

4, There are visual differences between the various IS / non-IS versions of the EOS f/2.8 and f/4 70-200mm zooms. But honestly, they're all L-series lenses and all the versions are extremely sharp, just some of the newest a bit more. The IS capabilities of the vII/III are really the primary differences.

OwlHarbor Loc: Pacific North West USA

With that said and I can see the reasoning. I have the old version of Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM Lens that I use on my Canon 90D and it is old but has served me well. I have not made the switch to Mirrorless and I like the layout of the 90D which uses EF lenses. I have an array of other Canon newer EF lenses but only the one zoom which needs enough light and most of my photos are done outdoors in daylight. Thank you for your thoughts!

De Hart Loc: Oakland, CA

The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM is a fantastic lens. I use it for shooting professional jazz musicians and our students who perform in our @Oaktown Jazz Workshops venue. It allows me to shoot over the heads our audience from a distance while it is great for close up shots. It is often dark, but I can shoot from f/2.8 up to f/8 with my Canon R5 usually at 5,000 ISO.

olddutch Loc: Beloit, Wisconsin

I bought this Lens and was disappointed as I shoot Airshows and landscapes.. It is a great lens and gives me very nice pictures. It seemed like for every shot I was either too far or too chose to my target.. At airshows I wanted to keep my lens changing to as seldom as possible, for dust and dirt reasons.. My pictures are for my enjoyment, so if they are not the sharpest that is ok.. I have a 18-400 Tamron the is on my 7d 97% of the time.. But the Tamron lens will not work on a full frame Camera.. Thru the mid ranges it looks like you have tunnel vision. A picture with a shadow around it.. Best of luck with your Pictures.. Contact me if there are questions you might have..

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I have this lens, and except for the weight, it’s an excellent lens. Great for portraits, events and some sports, especially indoors. I will add that at a seminar led by half a dozen newspaper photojournalists, the one lens everyone had in their kit was the 70-200 f2.8L IS.

Frank 2012 Loc: Olathe, Kansas

I don't know if it is worth making a comparison between the II and the III everything else being the same, the Canon EF II lens is a very good lens so I would assume the III is also a very good lens. I used the II lens for getting some pictures of an 8 man football game in a small town in Kansas. Lighting of the field was marginal/poor. But I got fairly good pictures with f2.8, 1/500, ISO 6400, 190mm and 200mm. Also got good depth of field. And still had to edit pictures with Adobe Elements.